Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Federal Deficit

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
    It is seen as a legitimate function of government but concentrate on defending the U.S. not everyone else.
    As with individuals - there is safety in numbers. So alliances like NATO make sense. And the more we can help other nations gain their feet and become healthy and safe economies - the less we are likely to see illegal immigrants pounding at our doors.
    The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

    I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by Sparko View Post
      But under libertarianism, the defense would just be another gang demanding protection money. There would be no army.
      Huh? That's not the case at all. In my experience, almost all libertarians that aren't outright anarchists think the US should have an army, their contention is just that (1) way too much is spent on it right now, and (2) we shouldn't be getting involved in as many conflicts with it as we have. I mean, you look at the Libertarian Party's platform regarding the military:

      We support the maintenance of a sufficient military to defend the United States against aggression. The United States should both avoid entangling alliances and abandon its attempts to act as policeman for the world. We oppose any form of compulsory national service.

      Now granted, I know a number of libertarians who have various disagreements with the Libertarian Party so "the Libertarian Party says such and such" doesn't mean it's the general viewpoint of libertarianism, but it's often a good benchmark.

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
        What makes you think that my idea of "bare minimum" doesn't include a strong national defense, law enforcement, and a federally regulated free market? To function in the modern world, the "bare minimum" would still be a large government body, just not bloated and unnecessarily massive like we have now.


        And that's why I'm not a libertarian.
        Then you are depending on the government just like carpe said.

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
          I think that sometimes the idea of a "side" being "hypocrites" is a stretch. A person can be a hypocrite. It's not clear to me that a group can be unless they are somehow unified. This is my objection to "whataboutism." It is defended on the basis that people are pointing out hypocrisy - but if the person making the statement was never hypocritical, that argument falls flat.



          Perhaps it's not hypocrisy. Perhaps saluting the flag is about valuing the nation - not necessarily the government. Honoring the military may well be about honoring the sacrifice made by those who serve, not "the government." The same is true for military spending. However, that being said, "military" is a function of "government," so I take your point. They also use the roads made possible by government, and collect their social security checks, etc. I really have no problem with the argument, "government has gotten too big." Frankly, I think it may well be true, in some instances. But I do find the anti-government theme an odd one.



          I have never met a single democrat that says, "I want more government." There are democrats who think the government should be involved in things it is not currently involved in, or more involved in things it is already involved in, and that may lead to "bigger/more government." But they are not looking for "more government" for the sake of more government.
          oh please! have you been living in a hole? They want government to give them free college, a basic income, healthcare, and so on. That is "more government"


          I also know of no democrat that is "against military spending."


          OK Carp this is just your "I will argue against anything the other person says because I like to argue"


          As for "spit on the flag," I have many friends who have engaged in protests in which the flag was burned or otherwise defiled. To a person, their position is that the flag is a symbol - and their respect is for what it represents, not for the symbol itself. If the thing it represents needs to be questioned/challenged, the flag is a powerful way to make that statement. For myself, I would not burn or defile a flag - but I also don't get all that wrapped up in it either (pun intended). It's a piece of cloth. It's a symbol. My awe is for what the flag represents - not for the object itself. My awe is for the men and women who protect this country - not for the fluttering cloth on a pole. I don't fly a flag because lately I have been more embarrassed of our country than proud of it. I find myself wondering if that will ever change.
          wow. of course the flag is a symbol. OF THE GOVERNMENT.

          "I pledge allegiance to the flag, OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS."

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by Sparko View Post
            oh please! have you been living in a hole? They want government to give them free college, a basic income, healthcare, and so on. That is "more government"
            On that note a story in the Sacramento Bee notes that Sen. Kamala Harris is now proposing giving families $500/mth

            Source: You could get $6,000 a year under this California senator’s new plan


            American families making less than $100,000 a year could be eligible for a monthly tax credit of up to $500, or $6,000 a year, under new legislation announced Thursday by Democratic U.S. Sen. Kamala Harris of California.

            Individuals making less than $50,000 would be eligible for up to $250 a month, $3,000 a year.

            “Americans are working harder than ever but stagnant wages mean they can’t keep up with cost of living increases,” Harris, a likely presidential candidate in 2020, said in a statement.




            Source

            © Copyright Original Source


            I'm always still in trouble again

            "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
            "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
            "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
              On that note a story in the Sacramento Bee notes that Sen. Kamala Harris is now proposing giving families $500/mth

              Source: You could get $6,000 a year under this California senator’s new plan


              American families making less than $100,000 a year could be eligible for a monthly tax credit of up to $500, or $6,000 a year, under new legislation announced Thursday by Democratic U.S. Sen. Kamala Harris of California.

              Individuals making less than $50,000 would be eligible for up to $250 a month, $3,000 a year.

              “Americans are working harder than ever but stagnant wages mean they can’t keep up with cost of living increases,” Harris, a likely presidential candidate in 2020, said in a statement.




              Source

              © Copyright Original Source

              Wait, a democrat wants to give people tax cuts? Hasn't she been paying attention to the DNC talking points?

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                Then you are depending on the government just like carpe said.
                No. To say that a central government empowered by the people can most efficiently and effectively facilitate certain services (at least in theory) is not the same as saying that citizens are beholden to the government for those services.
                Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                Than a fool in the eyes of God


                From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                  No. To say that a central government empowered by the people can most efficiently and effectively facilitate certain services (at least in theory) is not the same as saying that citizens are beholden to the government for those services.
                  if you rely on the government to protect you via an army, you are depending on the government. If you rely on the government to provide any services you are depending on the government. You also depend on the government to make laws, protect us from crime, serve out justice. Without those services your life would be pretty dangerous and miserable. You are beholding to the government. It's pretty simple.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                    if you rely on the government to protect you via an army, you are depending on the government. If you rely on the government to provide any services you are depending on the government. You also depend on the government to make laws, protect us from crime, serve out justice. Without those services your life would be pretty dangerous and miserable. You are beholding to the government. It's pretty simple.
                    I don't think you entirely understand the term "beholden". The government exists to serve the people and not the other way around.
                    Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                    But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                    Than a fool in the eyes of God


                    From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                      oh please! have you been living in a hole? They want government to give them free college, a basic income, healthcare, and so on. That is "more government"
                      They want to fund colleges with tax dollars, opening the door to anyone to go to college regardless of income status. If that requires an expansion of government to achieve, so be it. Nobody wants "more government" as an objective. They want particular things to happen, and they want government to adjust as necessary to make it happen.

                      Originally posted by Sparko View Post


                      OK Carp this is just your "I will argue against anything the other person says because I like to argue"
                      Actually - it is a statement of fact. I don't know a single person who is "against military spending." Even my ultra-liberal wife recognizes the need for defense.

                      Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                      wow. of course the flag is a symbol. OF THE GOVERNMENT.

                      "I pledge allegiance to the flag, OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS."
                      The flag is a symbol for the nation. The nation is not the government. The government is not the republic. The government is not "the United States of America." The United States of America is the people, the land, the principles and philosophies by which we live. The government is a tool for administering the nation. If the flag represents "the government" to you, then I would see no reason why you would honor it - since you commonly express disdain for the government. To be consistent, wouldn't you likewise disdain the flag?
                      The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                      I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                        I don't think you entirely understand the term "beholden". The government exists to serve the people and not the other way around.
                        I think you are adding to the term "beholden" things that are not there. I have printed the definition several times: owing thanks or having a duty to someone in return for help or a service.. As I have noted, by that definition, we have a duty to the government in return for the services it provides. The government has a duty to us for the resources we provide and the very fact of its existence. The relationship is symbiotic. You want roads and military? You have a duty to pay taxes. Likewise, for the government to continue to exist, it must fairly and justly represent the people, from whom it derives its power.

                        You seem to want it to be a one-way street - but you don't live that way. If the word "beholden" is sticking in your craw, then use "responsibility" or "duty" or "obligation." Any of them will do.
                        The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                        I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                          I don't think you entirely understand the term "beholden". The government exists to serve the people and not the other way around.
                          Go rob a bank then tell the police they work for you and they can't arrest you. We elect the people in the government, but the government is in charge of us all. That is why it is called a 'govern'ment. They make laws, we have to obey. They decide to draft your butt into the army, you have to go. They want to throw you in jail, you go to jail. They want to revoke your citizenship and deport you, then off you go. You depend on the government to provide the rules and structure of our society which if it didn't exist, would be pure anarchy and you would probably have been killed for your stuff by now.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                            Go rob a bank then tell the police they work for you and they can't arrest you. We elect the people in the government, but the government is in charge of us all. That is why it is called a 'govern'ment. They make laws, we have to obey. They decide to draft your butt into the army, you have to go. They want to throw you in jail, you go to jail. They want to revoke your citizenship and deport you, then off you go. You depend on the government to provide the rules and structure of our society which if it didn't exist, would be pure anarchy and you would probably have been killed for your stuff by now.
                            It is so bizarre to be on the same side of an argument as you...
                            The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                            I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by Terraceth View Post
                              Huh? That's not the case at all. In my experience, almost all libertarians that aren't outright anarchists think the US should have an army, their contention is just that (1) way too much is spent on it right now, and (2) we shouldn't be getting involved in as many conflicts with it as we have. I mean, you look at the Libertarian Party's platform regarding the military:

                              We support the maintenance of a sufficient military to defend the United States against aggression. The United States should both avoid entangling alliances and abandon its attempts to act as policeman for the world. We oppose any form of compulsory national service.

                              Now granted, I know a number of libertarians who have various disagreements with the Libertarian Party so "the Libertarian Party says such and such" doesn't mean it's the general viewpoint of libertarianism, but it's often a good benchmark.
                              I don't follow the 'way too much is spent on it right now'. How do the people that want to reduce military spending significantly suppose we would fight off the inevitable invasion from the Russians or the Chinese if we did not retain sufficient power to fend them off (short of destroying the world with Nuclear weapons). OR worse, how do you suppose we could keep Russia or China from spreading themselves out into Europe and Asia without that power? Especially considering how hard it is to stop it WITH that power? 5th generation fighters, stealth this and that, the ability to have or maintain security in the coming age of quantum computing and encryption, advances in cyber warfare, the expansion of space as an operating environment. None of this comes cheap. And nobody has noticed China or Russia reducing their spending on their own steady march to and attempt to trade places with the US as the primary world power. The appear to be ahead of us in quantum encryption and computing.

                              There is a thread right now complaining about the difficulties of our NATO allies securing the latest US fighter technology in NAT SCI and one of the problems is our older planes (F16 etc) are no match or the current Russian MIGS so they just feel no worries flying in Denmark's airspace. Do you suppose Denmark has the capacity to field air superiority to the Russian MIGS on their own. Do you suppose it benefits us that Russia feels no feer flying in European airspace? To tight a military budget and we lose big time.


                              Jim
                              My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

                              If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

                              This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                                I don't follow the 'way too much is spent on it right now'. How do the people that want to reduce military spending significantly suppose we would fight off the inevitable invasion from the Russians or the Chinese if we did not retain sufficient power to fend them off (short of destroying the world with Nuclear weapons). OR worse, how do you suppose we could keep Russia or China from spreading themselves out into Europe and Asia without that power? Especially considering how hard it is to stop it WITH that power? 5th generation fighters, stealth this and that, the ability to have or maintain security in the coming age of quantum computing and encryption, advances in cyber warfare, the expansion of space as an operating environment. None of this comes cheap. And nobody has noticed China or Russia reducing their spending on their own steady march to and attempt to trade places with the US as the primary world power. The appear to be ahead of us in quantum encryption and computing.

                                There is a thread right now complaining about the difficulties of our NATO allies securing the latest US fighter technology in NAT SCI and one of the problems is our older planes (F16 etc) are no match or the current Russian MIGS so they just feel no worries flying in Denmark's airspace. Do you suppose Denmark has the capacity to field air superiority to the Russian MIGS on their own. Do you suppose it benefits us that Russia feels no feer flying in European airspace? To tight a military budget and we lose big time.

                                Jim
                                The real problem is that we do not know to make an argument either way. Last I checked (and that was within the last year), the Department of Defense was the only cabinet-level position that has never have a comprehensive audit. At the end of the day, we have only fragmentary information about where the money is going and how it is being spent. So the hawks who say "need more money" cannot substantiate that position - and the dove's who say "too much is being spent" have little/no basis for that position either.

                                Personally, I think the DoD should not see another penny of increase to their funding, nor a penny of decrease, until there is a comprehensive audit of the entire establishment. Once that is done, we will know whether we should be looking at an increase or a decrease (or level funding).
                                The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                                I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, 03-27-2024, 04:19 PM
                                16 responses
                                157 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post One Bad Pig  
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                53 responses
                                400 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                25 responses
                                114 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                33 responses
                                198 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Roy
                                by Roy
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                84 responses
                                373 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Working...
                                X