reno
reno
Joined: Jan 20, 2010
  • Threads: 124
  • Posts: 721
October 10th, 2011 at 10:30:49 PM permalink
Quote: AZDuffman

Mainstream Republicans should quit pretending they are Democrats...



You're right. Bush didn't betray liberals when he got the federal government involved in local schools with "No Child Left Behind". Bush didn't betray liberals when he instituted a $549 billion socialized medicine bill for prescription drugs. Bush betrayed his own gullible supporters.

Quote: AZDuffman

BTW: are you offering the Democrat Party the advice of distancing themselves from the Occupy Wall Street riots, or does that group "represent America?"



The Dem politicians are two-faced hypocrite liars who cheer on the Occupy Wall Street hippies while accepting millions in contributions from the same Wall Street bankers they publicly denounce. We know how this thing will end: the protests will eventually fizzle out, and when it's all over the hippies will loyally re-elect the same pandering Dem politicians who sneer at them behind their backs.

The spinmeisters in both parties are experts at manipulating their own faithful followers. For example, in fall of 2008, partisans in the conservative media referred to TARP as "Pelosi's bailout" while partisans in the liberal media referred to the exact same bill as "Bush's bailout." They avoid responsibility for their own votes by blaming the other guy. (The truth is that the bailout was completely bipartisan, and safely sailed through the Senate by a comfortable margin of 74 to 25.)

No wonder George Washington had such cynical views of political parties. When will we wise up?
boymimbo
boymimbo
Joined: Nov 12, 2009
  • Threads: 17
  • Posts: 5994
October 11th, 2011 at 1:29:09 AM permalink
+1, Reno.

Congress has an 11% approval rating. I wonder why.
----- You want the truth! You can't handle the truth!
MathExtremist
MathExtremist
Joined: Aug 31, 2010
  • Threads: 88
  • Posts: 6526
October 11th, 2011 at 10:31:08 AM permalink
Quote: Nareed

You'd think so, wouldn't you? But then you'd have no trouble telling me what the levels are.

Me, I've no idea. For all I know the water in that area is particularly fluorine poor. But I don't just casually assume something is right and beneficial just because the government does it.


That's just a non-sequitur. You don't know how wide the lines painted on the pavement in your city are, but you casually assume that the government transportation crew paints them properly. Presumably you trust in the government to handle that bit of minutiae, at least without verifying that the regulations require street lines to be 15cm wide.

But I get it -- you don't trust government much in general, and that's fine. There are a lot of people in the U.S. who feel the same way. The problem is, the only alternative to government that anyone's put forth is private corporate control, and that has the well-known effect of channeling capital away from the general public and toward a small number of shareholders (and an even smaller number of executives). It's terribly ironic that the lower-middle-class Tea Party rank-and-file don't understand that their situations will worsen, not improve, in the smaller-government world they espouse.
"In my own case, when it seemed to me after a long illness that death was close at hand, I found no little solace in playing constantly at dice." -- Girolamo Cardano, 1563
Nareed
Nareed
Joined: Nov 11, 2009
  • Threads: 373
  • Posts: 11413
October 11th, 2011 at 10:37:58 AM permalink
Quote: MathExtremist

That's just a non-sequitur.



No, it's not.

Quote:

You don't know how wide the lines painted on the pavement in your city are, but you casually assume that the government transportation crew paints them properly. Presumably you trust in the government to handle that bit of minutiae, at least without verifying that the regulations require street lines to be 15cm wide.



I can tell they look pretty much the same all over toen. i can also tell they're badly paitned in some cases. A continous line on a two way street means no passing is allowed. So why do we get striped lines in some two way streets and "no passing" signs on the sidewalks?

Quote:

But I get it -- you don't trust government much in general, and that's fine.



I don't trust government outside its proper functions, because government can only act though force and coercion. That's fine for police, courts, jails and the military. it isn't when it comes to all sorts of consensual activites between private individuals.


Quote:

The problem is, the only alternative to government that anyone's put forth is private corporate control,



I don't want an alternative to governmetn. It's clear we do need to delegate the use of force and coercion to only one actor, otherwise you have anarchy and chaos. That doesn't mean governemnt always knows best, or that if government doesn't force people to do something they won't do it on their own.
Donald Trump is a fucking criminal
MathExtremist
MathExtremist
Joined: Aug 31, 2010
  • Threads: 88
  • Posts: 6526
October 11th, 2011 at 11:15:13 AM permalink
Quote: Nareed

It's clear we do need to delegate the use of force and coercion to only one actor, otherwise you have anarchy and chaos. That doesn't mean governemnt always knows best, or that if government doesn't force people to do something they won't do it on their own.


In the specific case of fluoridated water, that's precisely what it means. The dental statistics are clear -- districts with unfluoridated water have a meaningful and statistically-significant increased incidence of cavities than districts with fluoridated water supplies. That is unexplainable but for the fact that individuals do *not* always do what they should otherwise do to protect their teeth in the absence of fluoridated water. You don't dispute this, do you?

If not, do you oppose the government fluoridating the water supply to achieve appropriate fluoride levels as determined by dental professionals? And if you do oppose fluoridation, on what basis do you justify the increase in dental health problems as being good for society?
"In my own case, when it seemed to me after a long illness that death was close at hand, I found no little solace in playing constantly at dice." -- Girolamo Cardano, 1563
Nareed
Nareed
Joined: Nov 11, 2009
  • Threads: 373
  • Posts: 11413
October 11th, 2011 at 3:53:40 PM permalink
Quote: MathExtremist

In the specific case of fluoridated water, that's precisely what it means. The dental statistics are clear -- districts with unfluoridated water have a meaningful and statistically-significant increased incidence of cavities than districts with fluoridated water supplies. That is unexplainable but for the fact that individuals do *not* always do what they should otherwise do to protect their teeth in the absence of fluoridated water. You don't dispute this, do you?



Assuming such studies controlled for other factors, no.

But I dispute it's only the govenrment's right to do something about it, or that it should do anythign at all. For instance, it could be added to salt, too, or sold as supplements, or added to sugar. Parents could then do what they should for their children.

And I will ask again: what are the natural fluorine levels in areas where fluorine is added to the water?

But I predict you'll get tired of beating a dead horse, expecially one that's too small and trivial to bother with. Government putting lfuorine in the drinking water is pretty low on the totem pole where meddling is concerned.
Donald Trump is a fucking criminal
AZDuffman
AZDuffman
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
  • Threads: 221
  • Posts: 11677
October 12th, 2011 at 4:26:35 PM permalink
Quote: MathExtremist

But I get it -- you don't trust government much in general, and that's fine. There are a lot of people in the U.S. who feel the same way. The problem is, the only alternative to government that anyone's put forth is private corporate control, and that has the well-known effect of channeling capital away from the general public and toward a small number of shareholders (and an even smaller number of executives). It's terribly ironic that the lower-middle-class Tea Party rank-and-file don't understand that their situations will worsen, not improve, in the smaller-government world they espouse.



You have a few problems in your thought process. First, capital doesn't channel to shareholders or executives. Capital comes FROM shareholders. And shareholders tend to allocate capital in a better way than government. This is why ExxonMobil attracts private capital and Solyndra not as much. Capital does not get channeled to "executives." Executives are nothing but employees of the shareholders.

How will the situation of the average joe worsen under smaller government? Please explain. And please explain without silly examples like firing all the cops, which nobody in the Tea Party has called for.
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others
rxwine
rxwine
Joined: Feb 28, 2010
  • Threads: 163
  • Posts: 9560
October 13th, 2011 at 5:14:39 PM permalink
Quote: AZDuffman

How will the situation of the average joe worsen under smaller government?



well, I don't think most people even know how they might be affected.

Here's a nice list of federal programs to consider how to preen and how the average joe might be affected.

Federal funding is unequivocally going to be unfair so as, taking from the list for instance to provide adoption services to an area that might not be able to fund the program to the degree needed in that community.

This makes sense to me, though to Rush Limbaugh thinkers itís just bloat and stealing to allocate resources unevenly, or that private companies instead should be making a profit off of everything.
Quasimodo? Does that name ring a bell?
AZDuffman
AZDuffman
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
  • Threads: 221
  • Posts: 11677
October 16th, 2011 at 5:50:42 AM permalink
Quote: rxwine

well, I don't think most people even know how they might be affected.

Here's a nice list of federal programs to consider how to preen and how the average joe might be affected.

Federal funding is unequivocally going to be unfair so as, taking from the list for instance to provide adoption services to an area that might not be able to fund the program to the degree needed in that community.

This makes sense to me, though to Rush Limbaugh thinkers itís just bloat and stealing to allocate resources unevenly, or that private companies instead should be making a profit off of everything.



This is at least as bad as thought, I got to the "Cs" and already saw many places to cut. But the bigger point is that so much of it is still not government's place. Lets take the arts for one example. The NEA was started in 1965 and some people consider it "vital" to the arts today. However, it is not and is really a waste of government money. There were private patrons of the arts as far back as the Greek Empire. In the USA men like Andrew Carnegie were building museums in the late 1800s. The Feds simply should not be wasting our money--if art needs to be subsidized it really was not needed in the first place.

The bigger problem, though, is government "running" and taking things like the student loan program over. Banks did this just fine, then someone cried that they were "greedy," or/and "making a profit off students," so the feds took it all over. Now instead of a bank that has a vestes interest in servicing said loans as efficiently as possible you have yet more governmnet employees along with more governmnet power over more of "the averags joes."

Garbage collection, transit, the list goes on and on. And the among the worst parts it is allowed to happen is because too many people equate "profits" with "greed."
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others
rxwine
rxwine
Joined: Feb 28, 2010
  • Threads: 163
  • Posts: 9560
October 16th, 2011 at 11:17:20 AM permalink
Quote: AZDuffman

The NEA was started in 1965 and some people consider it "vital" to the arts today. However, it is not and is really a waste of government money. There were private patrons of the arts as far back as the Greek Empire. In the USA men like Andrew Carnegie were building museums in the late 1800s. The Feds simply should not be wasting our money--if art needs to be subsidized it really was not needed in the first place.



That's the same idea that says, that the school district with the poor kids won't get the same exposure to various cultural opportunities because each district only funds what it can afford. Now take it to the federal level and simply let arts flourish only when a private entity will fund it.

Yeah, I realize if a kid never gets a federally funded symphony to his town, he can make a good living mispronouncing English doing whatever hip hop style he happens to have around him and that will be a suitable solution for many people. And I'm not specifically meaning minorities either.

Perhaps the idea of filling the world with more ghetto-ish or hillbilly characters is charming if it will save your wallet.
Quasimodo? Does that name ring a bell?

  • Jump to: