Federal Deficit

[carpedm9587]

Meaning that you think it is in the people's best interests to be dependent upon and beholden to the government.

We are all dependent on the government for some things - and we are all beholden to the government as well - it's called "being a citizen."

On that point, we emphatically disagree.

Perhaps. Probably in kind - rather than in fact. I suspect you see no problem in being dependent on, or beholden to, the government for many things.

[Mountain Man]

We are all dependent on the government for some things - and we are all beholden to the government as well - it's called "being a citizen."

And here I thought being a citizen meant that the government was beholden to us. Remember, the US Constitution was explicitly written to place limits on the government and not on its citizens.

I told you this is a point on which we will emphatically disagree. It also reveals the fundamental disconnect between the conservative and liberal mindset.

[carpedm9587]

And here I thought being a citizen meant that the government was beholden to us. Remember, the US Constitution was explicitly written to place limits on the government and not on its citizens.

The government depends on us - and we on the government. The government is beholden to us and we to the government. After all, in this country, we ARE the government. Government by, for, and of the people - remember?

I told you this is a point on which we will emphatically disagree. It also reveals the fundamental disconnect between the conservative and liberal mindset.

And yet - I am sure you find it perfectly acceptable to be dependent on the government-provided military for the defense of our nation. And I would imagine you regularly use the government-provided infrastructure to drive from one place to another. And the government-supported police provide security within our borders, which I am sure you are happy to depend on the government for. And your use of your cell phone is dependent on the government coordinating the use of radio frequencies to ensure their use doesn't turn into one big anarchic mess. And government support of our land ensures you can visit the Grand Canyon without having to walk through a Vegas-like mall to get there.

Being "beholden" means nothing more than "owing thanks or having a duty to someone in return for help or a service." We owe taxes to pay for these things on which we are dependent.

You don't actually object to being dependent OR beholden. You just disagree on what specific things we should be dependent on and beholden for. I suspect we are not widely separated there either. Government should not be the first resort for providing food, clothing, and lodging. It should be the safety net of last resort. Family, friends, community, business/charities should be the first resorts - and in that order. But the link between poverty/education and crime/violence is well established, so it is in all our best interests to make sure our citizens have access to food, lodging, clothing, and education. It needs to be done in a way that moves people from poverty to success, rather than making them permanently dependent on government hand-outs.

But the right-wing meme about long term welfare recipients is a distortion. There is a good summary of the issue here. Yes, there is a revolving door for many recipients. And a significant part of that revolving door is the rats nest of laws and policies designed to "push people out of the program." The studies clearly show that the best predictors for leaving the program and NOT returning are work experience, education, and skill mastery. Yet most of the "get them out" policies ignore such things and just place arbitrary timelines that creates a revolving door.

We see a similar dynamic in the school-to jail and jail-to-jail pipeline. The school-to-jail pipeline is significantly reduced as a function of education and family support. But then you have families that have to work 2-3 jobs to pay the bills, so they aren't home with the kids, and school programs are being cut right and left, so when school is over - the kids end up on the streets and (surprise surprise), they get into trouble. Then we put them in jails run by private enterprise, which has NO motivation for reducing prison population, so provides minimal programming for training and job acquisition, so recidivism rates skyrocket.

We continually cut off our noses to spite our faces, and then congratulate ourselves that we're "cutting dependency programs." I call "BS."

[Mountain Man]

...we [depend] on the government.

If that's true then the government has far too much power. The role of government should not be to take care of it's citizens but to stay out of our way so that we are free to take care of ourselves.

I am sure you find it perfectly acceptable to be dependent on the government-provided military for the defense of our nation.

There's a reason many of our Founding Fathers were opposed to a standing army controlled by the federal government.

"Oppressors can tyrannize only when they achieve a standing army, an enslaved press, and a disarmed populace."
-James Madison

That certainly puts the fight over the 2nd Amendment in a different light, doesn't it?

[carpedm9587]

If that's true then the government has far too much power. The role of government should not be to take care of it's citizens but to stay out of our way so that we are free to take care of ourselves.

And yet our constitution starts, "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, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America".

It seems that we actually do depend on the government for some things - it's why we created the entire concept. The founders knew that there are things we, as individuals, cannot do. We cannot provide for the common defense - it is why we have a military. We cannot ensure (not insure) justice - that's why we have a judiciary. We cannot have each person deciding what the laws are - that's why we have a legislature. The government is us acting collectively.

There's a reason many of our Founding Fathers were opposed to a standing army controlled by the federal government.

"Oppressors can tyrannize only when they achieve a standing army, an enslaved press, and a disarmed populace."
-James Madison

That certainly puts the fight over the 2nd Amendment in a different light, doesn't it?

And there is a reason why they changed their minds when they realized that a "well regulated militia" was not feasible, and established the origins of the military we have today. Madison was a man - not a god. Oppressors can certainly tyrannize when they have military force, an enslaved press, and a disarmed populace. They can also tyrannize when they have a bully pulpit and the support of enough of the populace to tyrannize the rest. They can tyrannize when they undermine and attack the free press, and use their bully pulpit to undermine trust in it. They can oppress if they get support from another nation. There are many ways to tyrannize.

And a nation that has a disarmed citizenry is not necessarily a tyrannical one - if that is what the majority of the people actually want. We have many examples around the world. The real tyranny is when a minority of people own a majority of the guns (statistically, 3% of the country owns 50% of the guns), insist they have the right to proliferate guns without control, do so at the behest of a powerful lobby and rich industry, and strive to make it impossible for the rest of the people, who comprise the majority, to bring a halt to the endless carnage in our schools, homes, businesses, and public places. THAT is tyranny. The suggestion that the solution to violence using guns is to have more guns is ridiculous on its face - and belied by the significant number of countries around the world that have implemented strong gun control policies and seen violence reduced as a result. And note that "gun control" does not equal "no guns." It equals ensuring that guns are secured and owned and used by those who have a need and are appropriately trained and committed to using (and storing) them safely and responsibility.

[Mountain Man]

And yet our constitution starts, "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, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America".

Do you get it now? The Constitution explicitly establishes in its first three words that it is the people who hold the power, and not the government.

[Sparko]

Well - not exactly. The way Soc Sec is structured, it's pretty much a huge Ponzi scheme. It is called a FICA tax - so it is paid for by tax dollars. And the tax dollars paid today pay the recipients of today. Soc Sec is not a "savings" program.

and yet what you pay in determines how much you can take out. It is like any other pension plan. The money in the pool pays for those on the plan and hopefully when you retire there will be workers putting in money for you to take out. No it is not a savings plan, it is a pension plan. It is a 'tax' in the sense that the government gets it, and you can't not pay it. but it goes strictly into the SS pool, not the general budget. So they can't cut it or raid it without some serious blowback. That is why they keep trying to up the retirement age. hoping more people die before they can use it, leaving more money in the pool.

[Sparko]

Do you get it now? The Constitution explicitly establishes in its first three words that it is the people who hold the power, and not the government.

Carpe is right, you are just arguing because you don't want to agree with him. You spend most of your time here on tweb defending Trump and his government and the military and policies and the border wall and such. All provided by the government.

[carpedm9587]

Do you get it now? The Constitution explicitly establishes in its first three words that it is the people who hold the power, and not the government.

No one said the government "held the power." Of course it is "we the people." That doesn't change the fact that we are dependent on and beholden to the government, and the government to us. What you seem to forget, MM, if that the government IS us. In less than 3 weeks, we will go to the polls to elect members of the citizenry to go to Washington and represent what we the people want. They will make laws, which we will agree to observe. If they don't make the laws we want, we will vote for someone else next time.

Government is a necessary part of a nation - unless you subscribe to an anarchic philosophy. The relationship between government and people, as crafted by the founders, is symbiotic - mutually dependent. We need government to provide for certain things (justice, domestic tranquility, security, etc.). Government needs us for its very existence, for its funding, and for the people that make it up.

This "I hate government" theme from the right is a form of self-loathing. We ARE the government. We are its source - its membership - and its reason for being.

[carpedm9587]

and yet what you pay in determines how much you can take out.

Yes - it does. That is how the laws/policies were written.

It is like any other pension plan.

No - it's not. At least not ANY other pension plan. My pension plan has always been a personal savings program. What the company contributed to it was contributed to a pool of funds under my control and dedicated to me when I retire. Many pension programs are designed this way. The ones that are not are on seriously dangerous ground. If the company folds, the entire pension structure collapses. There are laws that are designed to prevent exactly this from occurring.

The money in the pool pays for those on the plan and hopefully when you retire there will be workers putting in money for you to take out.

My understanding of a pension plan is that it is supposed to be "fully funded" at any given time. When it falls behind (e.g., the USPS pension program), the administrator is open to significant risk. That is essentially what is happening with SocSec now.

No it is not a savings plan, it is a pension plan. It is a 'tax' in the sense that the government gets it, and you can't not pay it. but it goes strictly into the SS pool, not the general budget. So they can't cut it or raid it without some serious blowback. That is why they keep trying to up the retirement age. hoping more people die before they can use it, leaving more money in the pool.

They are increasing the age specifically because the combination of a longer lifespan and lower birth rate (coupled with today's antagonism towards immigration) is ensuring that more money will pay out than is being contributed - which is exactly why it qualifies as a form of ponzi scheme. My contributions today are paying for today's recipients. If the problem is not resolved, when I get to the age I can collect, my share will have been reduced or eliminated, depending on the solvency level of the system. If Soc Sec was structured as individual retirement savings, I would not be dependent on what anyone else is doing to have Soc Sec. My contributions would accumulate, and then I would draw on them when I retire. SocSec that functions as a mandatory retirement savings program that is only required for those not meeting minimal retirement savings threshholds would be a significantly better program. But that shift would require a one-time massive cash infusion to "catch up" everyone that has been paying and has essentially nothing to show for it because it was payed out to others.

An argument could be made that our debt is so huge already, doing this one-time adjustment would not be a huge percentage of the overall debt, and would put Soc Sec on a solid, self-sustaining, individualized footing.

[carpedm9587]

Carpe is right, you are just arguing because you don't want to agree with him. You spend most of your time here on tweb defending Trump and his government and the military and policies and the border wall and such. All provided by the government.

[Sparko]

Both sides are hypocrites on this. The republicans say they don't like government but they salute the flag, honor the military, want more military spending, etc. 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.

[Mountain Man]

Carpe is right, you are just arguing because you don't want to agree with him. You spend most of your time here on tweb defending Trump and his government and the military and policies and the border wall and such. All provided by the government.

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.

[Mountain Man]

We need government to provide for certain things (justice, domestic tranquility, security, etc.).

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.

[Sparko]

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.

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.