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

  • #46
    Originally posted by Sparko View Post
    yeah that would work.

    We would be overrun by another country in no time.


    what you are proposing isn't conservatism, it is libertarianism. Which is pretty far left if you ask me. Crazy anarchist hippies.
    "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense..."






    And don't get me started about the concept of "a more perfect" anything

    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


    • #47
      Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
      "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense..."






      And don't get me started about the concept of "a more perfect" anything
      But under libertarianism, the defense would just be another gang demanding protection money. There would be no army.

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by Sparko View Post
        yeah that would work.

        We would be overrun by another country in no time.


        what you are proposing isn't conservatism, it is libertarianism. Which is pretty far left if you ask me. Crazy anarchist hippies.
        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.

        Originally posted by Sparko View Post
        But under libertarianism, the defense would just be another gang demanding protection money. There would be no army.
        And that's why I'm not a libertarian.
        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


        • #49
          Originally posted by Sparko View Post
          Both sides are hypocrites on this.
          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.

          Originally posted by Sparko View Post
          The republicans say they don't like government but they salute the flag, honor the military, want more military spending, etc.
          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.

          Originally posted by Sparko View Post
          Democrats say they want more government, that government should provide and protect us, but are against military spending, spit on the flag and act like the government is evil.
          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.

          I also know of no democrat that is "against military spending." The ones I know that speak about this believe that the military in the U.S. is unaccountable and the amount of money they are receiving is bloated. Frankly, I agree with the former on a fiscal basis - and don't know how anyone could say the latter until we actually have an audit. But I do wonder how we can have such a huge swath of the largest government budget in the world go to the military when other countries appear to be making due with a significantly smaller percentage. As the richest country in the world, I can see we would be a regular target and need more and better protection. But that much? I very much want an audit and an accounting.

          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.
          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


          • #50
            Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
            Another example of the fundamental disconnect between conservatism and liberalism.

            Our government does not provide those things, it is only called upon to protect certain fundamental rights that we inherently possess. Once again, the Constitution places limits on the government. It was never the intent of our Founding Fathers that the citizens would ever become dependent on the government. On the contrary, that's precisely the kind of government they fought and died to escape from.
            As I have noted - we are dependent on the government - and the government on us. If you think otherwise, then I recommend you advocate for its abolition. After all, a thing we don't need and don't depend on is useless. What you would be proposing is essentially anarchy.
            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


            • #51
              Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
              No, he's not right. To whatever extent we have come to depend on the government for anything is an abuse of power. I would love more than anything to see the federal government stripped back to the bare minimum and leave it up to the states and local communities to take care of themselves.
              So state and local government is "necessary" and we can depend on it - but federal is not? And that makes sense to 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


              • #52
                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?
                Burt then we would be depending on the government for those things. I thought we were not supposed to depend on the government for anything?
                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


                • #53
                  Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                  So state and local government is "necessary" and we can depend on it - but federal is not? And that makes sense to you?
                  No, that doesn't make sense to me. It's also not what I said.
                  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


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                    No, that doesn't make sense to me. It's also not what I said.
                    "I would love more than anything to see the federal government stripped back to the bare minimum and leave it up to the states and local communities to take care of themselves."

                    How is "the state" going to take care of itself if not via state government? How is the "local community" going to do it if not via local community government (of some kind). This last level is the only one where ad hoc organizations can fill particular needs. Ad hoc on the state level is a nonstarter - even for a small state like Vermont. For some things, yes. But roads and infrastructure? Settling disputes? Regulating land and air and water quality. Etc.?

                    You appear to have an "I hate government" philosophy that is simply unsustainable.
                    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


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                      But then we would be depending on the government for those things.


                      Ideally, the government is empowered by the people only to defend and protect certain liberties and then keep out of our way so that we may exercise the freedom to take care of ourselves. The notion that we should be beholden ("being under obligation for a favor or gift") to the government is a dangerous philosophy.
                      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


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                        You appear to have an "I hate government" philosophy that is simply unsustainable.
                        You appear to have completely misunderstood my point.
                        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


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                          "I would love more than anything to see the federal government stripped back to the bare minimum and leave it up to the states and local communities to take care of themselves."

                          How is "the state" going to take care of itself if not via state government? How is the "local community" going to do it if not via local community government (of some kind). This last level is the only one where ad hoc organizations can fill particular needs. Ad hoc on the state level is a nonstarter - even for a small state like Vermont. For some things, yes. But roads and infrastructure? Settling disputes? Regulating land and air and water quality. Etc.?

                          You appear to have an "I hate government" philosophy that is simply unsustainable.
                          I would tend to agree with you. There is a balance between 'big brother' and anarchy that is workable. And we can always debate where that balance should be. But to say strip it down to the bare bones because we don't like where the balance currently lies is short sighted and self-destructive.

                          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


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                            But under libertarianism, the defense would just be another gang demanding protection money. There would be no army.
                            It is seen as a legitimate function of government but concentrate on defending the U.S. not everyone else.

                            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


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post


                              Ideally, the government is empowered by the people only to defend and protect certain liberties and then keep out of our way so that we may exercise the freedom to take care of ourselves. The notion that we should be beholden ("being under obligation for a favor or gift") to the government is a dangerous philosophy.
                              Beholden: owing thanks or having a duty to someone in return for help or a service.

                              I find that a perfect description of our relationship to government. We expect certain things (services) from government - and are thus have a duty to government (e.g., to pay taxes). We expect justice before a jury of our peers, so government provides the infrastructure for courts and justices and we have a duty to government (pay taxes, show up for jury duty, etc.).

                              I'm not sure why this is such a problem for you. Living in a country with a government (such as ours) is a balance of rights and responsibilities. You cannot have one without the other.
                              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


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                                You appear to have completely misunderstood my point.
                                Not as far as I can tell - but fell free to explain it to me if you think I have.
                                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
                                171 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post One Bad Pig  
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                53 responses
                                409 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
                                383 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Working...
                                X