After the very mean and somewhat disturbing episode last week, we go back to the fun stuff with a fun episode about the boys trying to reunite Terrance and Phillip.
Definitely see the environmentalists as being modeled after evil hypnotists/Jedi. It's a good thing that the main focus of the episode involved the Terrance and Phillip reunion and not the boys being hypnotized in to becoming tree-hugging, Democrat environmentalists.
Interesting idea of having Phillip become a Shakespearian actor after the break-up. It makes me want to do the "To be or not to me" speech a la him.
Nice reference to last week's episode, with Kyle telling Phillip that Cartman is capable of feeding his parents to him (would be perfect practice if he did Titus).
The main highlight is of course the "Behind the Music" spoof about the life of Terrance and Phillip. Among some of the clever highlights:
-Young T+P on the Ed Sullivan Show, though it's hard to hear what they're saying, especially when the stupid announcer guy spoke over the song when it's replayed at the end (haven't CC learned from MST3K) -Cher sounding like a man -The T+P cartoon, where their cartoon versions look NOTHING like the actual duo -The confusion of whether T+P are actual people or cartoons (like in real life) -Canadians going irate when the John Schneider Variety Show is pre-emptied by the made-for-tv film, Not Without My Anus (a hilarious crack at how viewers were irate that instead of revealing Cartman's dad, Trey and Matt instead pulled an April Fool's joke and show the Not Without My Anus episode instead)
Do I sense that, over the course of South Park's run, Matt and Trey's views have been drifting further to the right as they have grown older (and dare any of us say 'wiser')? It seems in the old days, their attacks were directed more at religious figures and institutions, homophobes, gun-toting rednecks, etc. Now, their attacks are turned more against the likes of environmentalists and anti-homophobia/anti-racist activists, while giving the likes of Christ and his followers more positive qualities than before.
As for "Democrat environmentalists", wasn't it George Sr. who made 'environmentalist' not a dirty word among Republicans by declaring himself to be one? Has his own son completely undone it since taking office?
That's pretty fucking stupid, becauase conservatives are the ones who (traditionally) will censor them and liberals (traditionally) would tolerate them as long as they could also avoid them. (BTW this "liberal" has no use for PC crap any more than he has any use for racism and homo-fobya.)
Could it be, the reason he's a Democrat and not a Republican is because he is a JEWISH fundamentalist, which would put him in conflict with the Christian fundamentalists who make up a large part of the GOP?
On Fri, 20 Jul 2001 16:32:09 -0700, "D.G. Porter" wrote:
Liberals are more than happy to stomp on the first amendment. Diane Fienstein, hardly a conservative, sponsored the Anti-Meth bill that would have arrested people for telling people how to grow or manufacture drugs on the internet. The idea that conservatives are more likely than liberals to stomp out the first amendment is ludacris....both can be enemies to freedom.
As a Californian, I can assure you that Feinstein is hardly a liberal in the classic sense. Until she wanted to run for office in SF she was a Republican. (She's one of the reasons I left the Dems in '90.)
Sure! "Hey guys, conservatives will stomp you out. Liberals, at least old school, will let you be as long as we have off switches. So your slap at all liberals is pretty fuckkin' stupid."
So explain Tipper Gore and the PMRC. And if you gimme some bullshit about how that wasn't censorship, I'll tell ya to fuck off retard. Myself, I'd have to flip a coin to figure out which one I hated more, Dems or Pubs. They're all fuckheads. Libertarians are halfway decent, only no one really digs'em cuz they're all over the damn place when it comes to policies, at least when compared to the Lefties and Righties.
"When Boomers suddenly realize their kids might do as they did!" "OMIGOD!!" Hey, just because someone listened to rock 'n' roll as a kid doesn't mean they won't turn into their parents... Personally I think a lot of my fellow Boomers are lame-ass dorks.
You won't that from me! Although, I don't see anything wrong with a little sticker on the CD shrinkwrap. I even have a CD of 16th- & 17th-Century bawdy songs, catches and rounds with one of those! "Everyone, let's gather for a rendition of 'Pox on You for a Fop' by Henry Purcell!"
No they aren't and you know it. Repub Tom Campbell wants to end the War on (Some) Drugs and even Arianna Huffhuffhuffington is coming around. Dems are wussies. As soon as enough Repubs start calling for and end to this phoney drug war, you'll see them change to -- but always with the Repubs calling the tune. (They didn't used to be that way, but the "Acid, amnesty and abortion" epithet stuck with "middle-class America.") Many Dems privately are quite enlightened but showing any sign of enlightenment is political suicide these days.
If everyone was an idealist utopian their ideas might work, but they're hopeless on anything except individual civil rights. AND IT WAS THE DEMS WHO USED TO BE CHAMPIONS OF THOSE INDIVIDUAL CIVIL RIGHTS. It was the Repubs who demonized the word "liberal" and called members of the ACLU "card-carrying" (as in "commies").
...and if there was a cure for every disease, disorder, disability, and any other setback in the world, so everybody could pull their own weight and provide for themselves.
Liberatarains don't think that everybody should fend for themselves. They just don't think that *government* is the solution for most problems as government creates too many problems of its own while solving hardly none of the problems it is supposed to be solving.
If you want to label a group who thinks that everyone should pull their own weight and provide for themselves, look elsewhere. Anarchists and Freemen come to mind.
Well, as someone who has worked in government, and someone who is married to a government employee... There are fuckups in the system. There are also good people who do the best they can. The reason some jobs fall to "government" is because a need arises and the private sector does not respond. Like state universities. There are simply not enough private ones to fill the need of affordable higher education which we have come to rely on. Also, municipal power generators, like those in LA, Anaheim and Riverside. *WE* don't have rolling blackouts! "Government" is simply public ownership. That doesn't preclude hiring a private management firm.
I now understand your pro-government tendencies. I'm sure you do the best you can, but sometimes that is not enough when the system itself is terminal or has inherent design flaws. For example, Social Security is a government-run Ponzi scheme. Does that mean that the people who work the SSA are stupid, evil, etc.? No, of course not.
How do you know for sure? There is much less motivation for creating many more private universities when so many public ones exist. Sure, you can talk about the past...but for all we know, there could be enough now. Back to the SSA example -- maybe there weren't enough private options in the 1920s and 1930s, but there are now. Putting money in a simple savings account w/ its paltry interest would get you a much better return than SS.
Ahh. And which firm gets such a sweet contract? The best? Maybe. Or maybe it's the firm that has the connections w/ the government and then proceeds to work in the government's interest.
Whatever. Then I might as well call Marxists to be really Democrats to the most extreme degree. We're all humans here, aren't we? There is a graduation of beliefs. When you fall outside the graduated area, you are no longer whatever was inside it for the purposes of political party classification.
I don't deny that there are some Libertarians who have more extreme beliefs than others. That's true of any political party. Not all Republicans are pro-life, for example. Not all Democrats are pro-affirmative action, as another.
Uh no, Democrats (with a capital 'D') is actually the proper name of a political party and not an ideology. I think the word you're looking for is 'liberal' or 'socialist'. I actually meant the literal term of 'libertarian' with a small 'l', without much knowledge of the official stance of the Libertarian Party.
Oh, missed that. Sorry. But then your point is rather obvious then, isn't it? If libertarian (small "l") is defined as an ideology embracing the concept of liberty and freedom, then of course anarchy is that notion taken to its logical extreme.
In the context of the thread, it appears that you switched to from the subject of Libertarians as a party to libertarian as an ideology. That's fine, but in the world of Usenet, where people often do not use perfect grammar and syntax, I assumed you were still talking about the political party.
The excerpts from the official Libertarian Party platform as posted here by someone else does not any more favourably of the party, mind you. They further reinforce the notion that it is mainly composed of anarchist nutcases.
The excerpts from the official Libertarian Party platform as posted here by someone else does not speak any more favourably of the party, mind you. They act to further reinforce the notion that it is mainly composed of anarchist nutcases.
...and if there was a cure for every disease, disorder, disability, and any other setback in the world, so everybody could pull their own weight and provide for themselves.
Which reminds me, with the creation of characters like Timmy, Matt and Trey must be sympathetic enough to those like him so as not to be *total* libertarians.
You lack an understanding of what it means to be a libertarian. I suggest you look into what it really means before writing more stuff that just demonstrates that fact, but hey -- it's still a relatively free country.
The concept is pretty simple, isn't it? Just leave everyone to their own and let them do their won thing, as long as they don't infringe upon others, without any taxpayer-funded services, such as welfare for the needy. Or am I just thinking of the most extreme case?
More useful than the platform quoted is this page: http://www.lp.org/issues/lp-oss.html
And yes, you are thinking of the extreme, anarchist vision. If you peruse the link above, you'll see that the LP leaves much room for the role of government. It's just reduced from the mammoth role it has currently.
As for the immediate issue brought up, do you, as a Democrat, honestly feel that your party is the only one with compassion for the handicapped? Handicapable? ;-)
Here is a link about how Libertarians are actually very compassionate about helping the handicapped. A particularly salient excerpt:
Even if private charities received one-tenth of what our current welfare budgets are, the poor would still be better off than they are now. From all indications, however, each generation of Americans is more charitable than the last. In 1996, the average donation per adult was twice the inflation-adjusted average in 1970 and triple the 1950 average. Volunteer work has increased in roughly the same proportions.
How significant are private contributions to charity? If volunteer time is valued at the minimum wage, total private contributions to charity exceed the combined poverty budgets of government at all levels. If Americans contribute so generously while they are also forced to pay taxes for government welfare programs, wouldn't we expect them to give more, not less, if government left more money in their pockets?
"Taxes are expensive to collect. Two-thirds of a dollar are spent to collect one dollar of taxes. If everyone in a libertarian society voluntarily gave the same amount to charity as they do today through taxes, once again we'd triple what the disadvantaged receive. In other words, if private charities received the entire welfare budget in voluntary contributions, we'd multiply by twelve the money available to the poor!"
"Two-thirds of a dollar are spent to collect one dollar of taxes."! In other words, if the feds collect $300 billion, they spend $200 billion doing it. Not so.
I'm all for abolishing Prohibition II (the War on Drugs), BTW. Just try to get someone in public life to discuss it seriously, though.
How do you know? Do you dispute that private charities spend 1/3 of what they take in on overhead? Do you really think that the feds are so efficient that they can even come close to that figure? I don't know where to find true data on this, but the notion that the feds are twice as inefficient with spending money does not strike me as very implausible at all. (How much did they spend on toilet seats and basic tools again?) I guess if I had more time and felt a pressing need to find out the basis for the claim, I'd contact the author of the article.
What do you mean by "in public life"? The governor of New Mexico talks about it a lot. Though a Republican, this belief of his is in stark contrast to the party's platform and is decidedly Libertarian. You'll hear it mentioned by others as well -- though admittedly not a lot.
The IRS isn't budgeted for the equivalent of $200 billion.
I don't know.
My point concerned the quoted material above, which is from the 2nd URL you included in the post to which I replied, BTW (LP News Archive, November, 1999). I do not believe it costs the Feds $200 to collect $300 in taxes. That is all.
There's no need to contact anyone, the statement is incorrect on the face of it.
Pols from the tri-state area & on the national scene with whom I'm familiar, very specifically Bill Clinton.
Glad to hear it, but I hear/see almost nothing about NM here in the NYC area. I surely hope his clout increases.
Ahh...that's because the context of the article wasn't referring to specifically the IRS and federal income taxes -- a point I should have caught earlier. It refers to taxes meaning those that support welfare. This includes local, state, etc., and not just income taxes, but AFDC, food stamps, etc., etc. Taxes are referred to in a general sense as any monies taken from the people via any means by any level of government for the purposes of government-run welfare programs, iow.
Here is the relevant excerpt in its entirety: ======================================================== Of course, public welfare gives over two-thirds of every tax dollar we give them to overhead (e.g., salaries of the bureaucrats who administer the program). Private charities, however, give two-thirds of every dollar to those who need help. By switching to private distribution, we'd cut overhead in half. In other words, we'd double the dollars available to the needy once again. By switching from public to private charity, we'd quadruple our help to the disadvantaged -- virtually overnight!
I don't believe one things these Libertarians say.
On April 3, 1980, Ronald Reagan announced on CBS News, "...it costs HEW three dollars in overhead to deliver one dollar to a needy person in this country." He repeated this in his last press conference in December 1988.
It costs TWELVE CENTS for to deliver one dollar in health care.
On Wed, 25 Jul 2001 12:34:59 -0500, "Bao H. Lammy" wrote:
Yes, I certainly dispute that. If you ever worked for the Federal Government in any capacity, you are subjected to a single charity campaign yearly, the Combined Federal Campaign. One of the rules is that for a charity to be eligible, they must spend no more than 25% of their total income on all overhead, including fundraising. (Yes, there are some that are over 25%, but they have a limited amount of time to reduce that or they will be dropped from future CFCs.) Most reputable charities spend between 10% and 20% of their income on overhead, significantly less thatn 1/3. Several of the more liberal charities (I was in the Navy, had to piss off the man) acutally spent only 1-2% of their income on overhead. I also think you're absolutely full of shit if you think that the federal government wastes 2/3s of its income collecting that same income. For that to be true, revenue collection (and enforcement and punishment) would need to take up 67% of the federal budget. It ain't happening. Even if you were to claim that the government is extremely ineffecient, I couldn't see anywhere near 67% overhead. Take the postal service for example. They are a self-funding agency, and are able to offer service much cheaper than any private company, and they are undercut on the more profitable parts of their business. Government is no more and no less ineffecient than business. It's just a hell of a lot less likely to be able to overspend.
What? That private charities often spend 1/3 of what they take in on overhead? That figure was cited by the author of the article who is *in favor* of private charities vs. public welfare. If you think that's too high -- fine -- that wasn't the point anyway. She may have been conservative to appease the opposition. Note that she also values volunteer work done for charities at minimum wage, for example.
I did, and I was not. You must not be including the census workers. Anyway, not really relevant, but pointing out that you said "in any capacity," and I was not subjected to such.
Your view is too narrow. The article wasn't discussing federally-approved charities. In fact, it wasn't limited to the federal level at all. It was referring to the concept of public welfare vs. private charities on all levels. This includes things like food stamps, AFDC, etc., and monies from all sources, not just through charity fundraising efforts. For example, property taxes, and any of scores of taxes levied on the public by all levels of government -- again, not just federal.
Again, the article was not just about the federal level, and it was not just about income taxes. It includes salaries to pay the bureaucrats that stamp forms sent in by those applying for unemployment checks, for example. Electricity to run the bureaucracy. Paper. etc.
The postal service is deep in the red. $2 billion this year alone. http://slate.msn.com/code/Explainer/Explainer.asp?Show=7/19/2001&idMessage=8012 They are required to break even, so if they don't, they just jack up rates. They are self-funding (over time, not year to year) by law. Furthermore, they have a legally protected monopoly. Finally, it receives "indirect subsidies from tax revenues...which reimburse the Postal Service for the reduced rates it charges to nonprofit organizations and others."
<speechless>
<jaw hits ground> Ever hear of the federal debt? What is it,
5 trillion dollars? Six?
On Wed, 25 Jul 2001 16:31:41 -0500, "Bao H. Lammy" wrote:
I will allow that SOME charities spend over 1/4 of their income on overhead, but almost no legitimate charity does. If you do any significant work with charities, you will know that in almost every case they try to keep their overhead below 25% of their income. Hell, even Ann Landers knows this.
Sorry, I guess I should have specified permanant positions. Seasonal jobs may not be covered by the CFC.
I was using this to back up my statement that reputable charities spend no more than 25% of their revenue on overhead. I don't see how you can shift all revenue collection costs to public welfare, unless you believe that all government spending is welfare. If you truly define wellfare as ALL government spending, then your arguement seems to be tha private charities could take up all the slack. All the peaceniks would finally be able to see the Air Force hold a bakesale to buy a bomber. Also, all the functions provided by state and local governments would have to be taken care of privately, and with the same low overhead...or am I completely missing your point?
OK, I'm not a Libertarian, and I haven't followed their platform seriously in quite some time, but I don't recall anything about abolishing charity, police, schools, roads, military, or much else. Just getting the government out of funding such things. Obviously someone must fund these if they are to exist, and you will STILL have to pay for stamps and salaries and electicity and everything else. In fact, you will almost certainly have to pay more in salaries and other expenses in the private sector.
The postal service is in the red this year because of changes in demand and costs that they did not anticipate. As are quite a few large, private companies. Please define "indirect subsidies from tax revenues" as I suspect it refers to the fact that non-profits can send more mail for the same dollar than others can, which can only be seen as a subsidy if you assume that there is no additional cost in carrying this extra traffic. I guess that you consider presorted bulk mail an indirect subsidy also, since it costs less to send AND it is a valid business cost and may be tax deductable.
OK, how many branches of the US, state, and local governments have gone out of business or into bankruptcy in the past 50 years. Compare that to the number of private businesses that have failed in that same time period.
Sorry, should have clarified that. It is almost impossible for ANY department within a government to spend more THAN THEY ARE BUDGETED. It is quite possible for the aggregate spending for a government to exceed its income. This is obviously harmful if it continues long-term, and may or may not be harmful in the short term, depending on your faith in Keynesian economics. Of course if you're talking about the federal debt, you must also discuss corporate debt. The difference is that the fed actually makes good on its debt and repays bondholders, which not all corporations do. I still say that it is much, much easier for a private company to overspend it's budget than for any government agency. About the only government agencies that spend more than their budgetted allotments are emergency service agencies. Private industry is much better at some things than government; generally those at which it is possible to make a profit. Certain functions currently handled by government are almost impossible to be profitable, ever. There was a time when I acutally believed that Libertarians had a workable solution. Hell, I even thought that Ayn Rand had a clue. Then I got out in the real world, work for industry and the government, had some budgetary authority, and realized that Libertarianism is exactly like Communism; they both work perfectly until you apply humanity to the equation. People are too self-centered, greedy, short-sited, and just plain fucking stupid to really make the best choices for themselves. Even if you are able to create a perfect Libertarian society in a microcosm, you either have to competely wall yourself off from the rest of the world or be overrun by greedy, ignorant, starving, desperate fuckwits who want what you have. I guess you could kill everyone who didn't agree with you, but then who does your gruntwork.
Again, that was not the point. If you feel that private charities spend less than 1/3 or 1/4 on overhead, fine. That just makes the argument against public welfare (AFDC, food stamps, unemployment, Social Security, etc., etc., etc.) stronger.
No, not all government spending is welfare. Definitely not defense. I am not shifting all [government] revenue collection costs to public welfare -- just those involved w/ the collection of monies for things like the examples I mentioned above.
Exactly.
That's the beauty of it. Salaries would be higher, but in the interest of private profit, the privatized areas would seek to maximize their efficiency. Government, on the other hand, has little motivation to be ultra-efficient. If it needs more money, it just raises taxes. In my limited involvement with working for the government, I've seen incredible waste. Just appalling. For example, millions of automatic pencils were issued to Census enumerators that didn't work. (Lead broke all the time.) No, Census is not charity, but it gives an easy window to look at what happens when an agency asks for more money than it needs, then proceeds to waste it. (They wouldn't want to have much left over, god forbid, because that means they might not get as much as they ask for next time.)
The postal service has been in the red for many years, with the exception of a couple that they were not. They are always complaing about how they can't make ends meet.
That was directly quoted from the article. I assume it means that since they charge non-profits less, they get the difference rebated back to them from tax revenues. No, I don't assume that there is not additional cost, but the point was brought up to counter the notion that the postal service is self-funding. Though it stopped receiving a direct subsidy from tax revenues in 1983, it still gets these rebates. The taxpayers, iow, pay for the non-profits to send mail at lower costs.
If it decreases the pool of tax revenue available for other things, then yes -- it's a subsidy. No, that's not a generic definition of a subsidy; it only pertains to this particular matter. (3 above lines)
Businesses can't demand stockholders to put more money into their accounts. Government can.
What's the difference then? As mentioned with the Census, they just ask for (and get) huge budgets, budgets bigger than they need to be. That's overspending. If I ask for $150K to buy a car and get it, that's overspending even if I decide to buy "just" an $80K BMW. In this example, I'd just pocket the money, I guess. In the case of a government agency, they make sure to spend as much as possible in a relatively discrete manner so they can say they didn't ask for too much.
When is the government going to make good on its 5 or 6 trillion dollar debt?
They don't have to be profitable. They just need an incentive to be more efficient so their budgets don't have to be so big. Right now, the major motivation of a government bureaucracy is to justify its own existence, imo.
<rant> Alright then. I guess I don't want to be governed by an entity that just assumes that I am "self-centered, greedy, short-sited, and just plain fucking stupid" when deciding how I'm going to live my life and what I'm going to do with my money. That's how you treat a 4 year-old. Yes, some people are "self-centered, greedy, short-sited, and just plain fucking stupid." Everyone encounters people like this from time to time, and you deal with them. Or you avoid them. In any case, do you really need the government to assume that basically everyone is for you to live a happy, productive life?
IMO, that's what our government has become: a huge, restrictive parental unit that decides that since many people can't deal w/ life without being locked in cage and exploited for their own good, then everyone must be treated that way. After a while, the theory is self- fulfilling. People come to believe that they need government because they can't be trusted to do things right themselves. And no, I don't mean all on their own, but without an authoritarian entity dictating every facet of our lives. </rant>
On Thu, 26 Jul 2001 12:25:09 -0500, "Bao H. Lammy" wrote:
OK, where do you draw the line? What services are important enough for government to fund? Defense spending is huge (compared to most other government funding) yet the employees are very poorly compensated. In fact, at certain times the compensation was so low as to allow servicemembers to draw on welfare or other public assistance. More cost-shifting that has to be accounted for. One of the main reasons that we have an Interstate Highway System is a study that a young Lt Dwight D Eisenhower after WW1. How do you separate even something as simple as the military from the rest of society?
How can you say that salaries would be higher? I'm not saying that they won't be in some cases, I'm just seriously questioning your blanket assertion. Basically, the only time salaries increase is when there is a shortage of labor, when labor organizes, or when an organization sees some greater societal good in paying workers more money. I will agree that salaries for management will go up in the private sector, but I don't think that anyone sees much benefit in larger executive salaries in the absence of a general wage increase. If you're going to use the example of automatic pencils being given out to Census workers as an example of government waste, you will need to show how much each pencil cost, how much it would cost to have employees purchase their own pencils and get re-imbursed, and how the private sector never buys consumable items that are less than perfect. (I'll let you into my office supply closet, how many cases of worthless ball-point pens do you want?) I agree that the use-it-or-lose-it funding model is broken, but I've seen as much of it in business as in government. I think it's endemic to all large organizations. You should see the sales vultures circling if a department has unspent funds at the end of a quarter.
The postal service has only been in the red for the past year. They have been able to pay their own way since it was mandated that they do so. They are like any other business, they must ensure that their revenues match their costs.
I've not heard of this, and I suspect that it's closer to my assumption, otherwise it would be listed as a direct subsidy. I also don't know of any discounts for non-profits to send mail other than generic bulk-rate discounts.
Huh? I can't see how you can say that a valid business deduction is a subsidy, but only in this case. It is or it isn't.
Government can't either. It can mandate that you pay a higher pecentage of your income in taxes, or even a higher percentage of your purchase costs, but you don't have to make and/or spend money. Government certainly can't mandate that you buy more bonds. In fact, due to some of the wonders of the markets, if a government issues too many bonds, the value decreases, and the money doesn't come.
They just ask for the budget and they get it? Have you ever looked at what a funding request for a government agency requires? It's a HELL of a lot more complex than an equivilent request in the private sector. I used to think that government was wasteful. Now I know that government is wasteful, to about the same degree that private industry is wasteful.
Well, they are making good on it. They're paying the interest on the bonds every time they come due. I'm not sure what else you expect. When is the private sector going to make good on its trillions of dollars in outstanding bonds? When are all the mortgages going to be paid off? I really suspect that a good economics course would show that government operates very, very closely to private industry in terms of funding.
That's the major motivation of any organization of a certain size. You almost never see workers at a factory decide to close down because they're unprofitable or inefficient. I can't remember ever seeing GM shutting a plant because the plant workers said that they were inefficient. The baseline plus funding model that most federal agencies use is flawed, no matter where it's applied. That doesn't mean that the organizations themselves are flawed.
Heh-heh. Thank you for saying that. I agree 100%. However, I can't find a way to make the rest of the people any less self-centered, greedy, short-sited, and just plain fucking stupid. I *know* that I'm not any of that. Hell, I know that most of my friends aren't either. Now if I could just convince the rest of the world to be more like me. Like I said, both Libertarianism and Communism work perfectly until you let humans get involved. I can't imagine a less workable government solution than a government that only exists as a police force. We're from the government, we have lots of money to buy guns, and train with them. Our entire function is to maintain order (as we define it). We don't give a fuck what you do, as long as you don't threaten us. For some reason I can't see that scaling well.
We were talking about welfare. If you want to define defense as a form of welfare, then I don't know how to discuss this much further. Anyway, defense is a large portion of the *federal* budget, but it's not as if the majority of the budget is spent on it. Who's got the pie chart? Anyway, just a skim of the the party's stand on its website will show what it thinks government should or should not fund. Do I agree with it 100%? Probably not. But the topic isn't what I believe, as that ultimately doesn't matter to you most likely, but what the party believes. You asked, so I'm telling you where to find the answer.
Dude, you said that and I was just agreeing with you.
I don't have access to that kind of data as I was not on the Census budget or purchasing committee. As for getting reimbursed for pencils, make that a requirement of the job that you have to provide your own. In fact, most people did w/ no complaint as the ones they were issued were worthless. Many people who did work for the Census did so partially out of the feeling of duty they performed. (Not me.) I'm dead serious. It didn't really pay that well and was hard, tedious work, but they did it anyway. Some of them were senior citizens, even. Asking them to provide their own pencils would have been no big deal. As for the private sector's purchases -- at least something like that is used in the future...maybe the purchasing manager will notify someone that too many pens were bought and now they are dried-out and worthless. And then they won't buy as many next time. With the Census, there is so little motivation to do this type of streamlining.
Then that's a poorly-run business, at least in that facet. Governments, on the other hand, are typically like this.
Really? They have never been short until now? I did say they were self-funding over time -- that's by law.
It was just to ward off someone who might post: "A B-1 bomber decreases the pool of tax revenue available for other things...are you saying that's a subsidy? How about Bush's salary? That also decreases the pool of tax revenue available for other things...are you saying that's a subsidy? Wow, what a stupid definition of 'subsidy.'"
How the hell are you going to live then?!
I didn't say they got what they asked for. I said they ask for huge budgets and get huge budgets. There is undoubtedly lots of in-between negotiations and such (gotta keep those bureaucrats "working"). So, in the analogy above, ask for $200K, get $150K, buy $80K car and then $69K on rust-proofing. "Hey, we even had a surplus!"
But with private industry, there is always the chance that a competitor will decide to be less wasteful than you and steal your market. Not so with government. Little incentive to stay on their toes.
I don't know enough about the bond issue to comment much further. My only point was to question your statement that government is much less likely to overspend than private businesses.
No, not because the workers said so. Because the company itself says so.
I got it: open your own country -- and no one else can come! ;) (Hey, sorta on-topic!)
Again, again, again -- that is not the main-line Libertarian stance. There is much role for government besides defense, we say. Just not as much as now!
That little sticker is not censorship in and of itself, but certain stores will not carry music that has the sticker without even considering why exactly the sticker was deemed necessary. It then becomes censorship. No, BigMart doesn't have to sell anything it doesn't want to. But it's laughable to think that they are not selling the product for any other reason than to avoid controversy associated with the sticker. In other words, profits come first. They had no problem selling such music before the sticker came around. The sticker is akin to automatic picketing, when in fact most of the public doesn't give a rat's ass about the sticker in the first place and feel they can decide what music is appropriate for them and their children.
Look at a similar issue...the V-Chip. What if all TVs came w/ the V-chip cranked all the way up instead of off? And then make it hard for the average schmoe to figure out how to turn the V-Chip off or change its settings. You will then see programming content get more tame as shows fear they will be automatically blocked by the default configuration of TVs.
Hopeless only because the two major parties have successfully brainwashed the country into thinking that they only have two choices.
I can hear you just fine, thank you, and I hear the operative phrase "USED TO" especially loud and clear.
Oh please, don't tell me that Democrats haven't done the same thing in reverse towards Republicans.
If BigMart is stupid, people will turn to Amazon or Tower or someone else. Stupidity is more rampant than Hydrogen.
If people are too stupid to buy ones with the chip "off" then fuck 'em! YEAH!! FUCK 'EM IN THE BUTT!!! ZAP 'EM! ZAP 'EM! THE TASER! THE TASER! ZAP 'EM IN THE BUTT! HEH-HEH-HEH-HEH-HEH!
It's not the parties at all. It's a cultural phenomenon. Americans look at politics (these days anyway, counting the last 50 years, of which I have observed most) as a football game. My parents used to tell me that only a 2-party system can work because "Well, in France they have many parties and never get anything done!" (That statement really boggled me back then.) We in the US as a political culture are incredibly backwards. LOOK AT THE LEVEL OF DISCOURSE! {8@
I'm no different in basics than I was 30 years ago. If Dems wuss out now, don't blame us old-schoolers.
If you look at WHY they've become what they have become, it's because the country -- the voting ones at least (what, 45%??) -- is pretty much an easily bamboozled flock of sheep who believe the worst and flock to the loudest shouters. Joe McCarthy, George Wallace, Lester Maddox, etc.
Hey, dude, I wish that were true in a proportional basis! Sure, when PUSHED far enough, they'll get down 'n' dirty, but they're SUCH WUSSIES!!!! That's why I left 'em over ten years ago!
But I can't agree with you when it comes to the sheer level of "demonization" for the Dems. The last 20 years should make this obvious. If you're old enough to remember where you were when JFK was shot, you understand this. Do Dems call Repubs "un-American," "seditionists," "traitors"? Repubs have WAY to often, in my experience.
Yes, but 1) lucky there is an Amazon or Tower; and 2) that still doesn't address the issue of the music being self-censored before pressing. That hasn't happened much yet, but for example, studios will struggle to get a PG-13 rating for a movie just to get the rating label vs. getting an R or <gasp> the NC-17 death sentence.
But if some Tipper-clone passes legislation to make it mandatory for TVs to ship with it on? "It's not censorship because you can turn it off blah blah blah."
Yes, our society is locked into what I call "binary" thinking. In the political realm, I blame it on the two big parties, but the problem does manifest elsewhere. So many times when engaged in a discussion, I notice it come up. People actually have to pause and say, "Hmm. I never thought about it like that." Sad, but true.
Never blamed you. I typically speak about the present situation when blasting Dems & Repubs. The past is interesting and important to study, but ultimately it is the present situation that is relevant.
I don't keep track of the name-calling other than to acknowledge that the two major parties like to do it a lot in lieu of doing much that is contructive.
Unfortunate, but true. Who is it who said that a Republic is doomed as soon as the voters realize they can vote for whomever gives them the most goodies? A pox on the Clinton party!
Apologist for the AmeriNazi GOP party. It's like what Zappa said when I interviewed him in '88. He did not subscribe to a lot of the Dems' ideas, but NO WAY (he said) was he oging to do anything that lent support to the Repugs. That's why even after Clinton chose Gore, he said they were the OBVIOUS choice tgo another 4 years of Bush/Quayle. You sheep are going to get shorn and fucked inna butt by these assholes.
If you doubt that I interviewed Zappa in 1988, I suggest you do a little research into any archived list of Zappa interviews. It aired in November '88 on KPFK.
The rest of what you have to say is typical Tholenizing: "Classic invective from someone who has no response to offer."
Still, censorship is the govt. prohibiting that certain things cannot be created, or wrote, or spoken, etc. , not WallMart deciding it doesn't want to sell tapes that have bad language in them or not wanting to sell tapes that has a sticker that says it contains explicit lyrics. That is a perfectly legitimate business decision.
That would be closer to censorship if the govt. didn't allow the free market to sell tv's that were easily programmable.
My point is that it's a thin line. What if there was a 1000% tax placed on CDs with explicit lyrics? They wouldn't be prohibited, but the deterrent is strong enough that it effectively would eliminate such from the commerical market. Sure, you can still jam in the garage w/ your friends Snoop and Cube...anyway, I'm just saying that if the deterrent is strong enough so as to seriously affect profits, it becomes a form of indirect censorhip. In the case of music, the deterrent was not strong enough. In fact, it created a demand for the stickered albums vs. edited albums. (ha ha!)
What's "easily?" What if anyone could do it if they had to read the manual and navigate four layers down into the TV's onscreen menu to change such? Most people can't even figure out how to program the clock on their VCR or car stereo, or program time-shifting on VCRs (even with the thing prompting them with exactly what to push)! And if four layers is easy in your opinion, what about 5? 6? So is three layers suddenly easy? Two?
<belch> Pox on you for a fop, your stomach to queasy. Cannot I belchand fart, you coxcomb, to ease me? What if I let fly in your face and shall please ye! Fough fough! How sour he smells, now he's at it again! Out ye beast! I never met so nasty a man! I'm unable to bear it, what the devil d'ya mean?? No less than a Caesar decreed with great reason, no restraint should be laid on the bum or the weason, for belching and farting were always in season!
Fie! Nay prithee, John, do not quarrel, man, let's be merry and drink a bout. You're a rogue, you've cheated me, I'll prove before this company! I caren't a farthing Sir, for all you are so stout. Sir you lie, I scorn your word, or any man that bears a sword. For all your huff who cares a turd? Or who cares for you!?
Censorship is not restricted to the government. Private bodies & individuals do it all the time, e.g., advertisers refusing to sponsor shows with certain content, the MPAA, the PMRC (Tipper's group - don't know if I have the initials right), the standards & practices departments of the radio & TV stations, parents who limit what their children can view, etc. Years ago the Legion of Decency published a list of movies Catholics could not see under pain of sin. With the exception of parents deciding for their children, I object to them all.
That's because the party sold it's political soul when Clinton came into power. Now that they've abandoned their political platform for demagoguery, fear-mongering and whoring-for-votes, they've become a shell of their former selves.
Umm, no, it was the Republicans. Lincoln was a Republican, and the Democrats were the ones who resisted the civil rights laws of the 60's. Please get your facts straight.
That's because they are. McCarthy turned out to be right about commie spies; Alger Hiss, depsite the leftist's continual denials to this day in spite of the proof provided by the former Soviet Union, was a commie spy; and several prominiant members of the Clinton party have their names prominantly featured on the current incarnation of the Communist Party of America's home page (now going under the name "Democratic Society of America", IIRC). I'd mention the watermellon party (green on the outside, red on the inside), but that's another story altogether. :-)
This bit actually is current. As many of you know, W. just went on a month-long "vacation" back to Texas. In an article I read in USA Today, it was noted that Clinton was the only president to ever use polling data to decide where to vacation. When camping & hiking scored high in the polls, he decided to make that his vacation.
Name me one politician since Jess Unruh who isn't. "If you can't eat their food, drink their booze, fuck their whores and take their money and STILL vote against them, you don't belong in this business!" Ahhhh, words of wisdom... Remember when Newt Gingrich was a long-haired sideburned Democrat?
Unruh said it like it should be. And he was a Democrat.
I think Clinton is one of those special "tribble people" who is born deflocked.
When Nootie first ran for Congress in the '70s, he was a Democrat with sideburns, glasses and a big puff of dry-look hair. The incumbent was a Democrat too. Naturally the incumbent beat back the challenger. So the, IIRC, Nootie switched parties when the guy died and the seat was open, and he ran as a firebrand Repub. All show, no principle.
I saw a film clip of him fromthat campaign on TV, I think on Biography. Talk about an expedient whore! "HEY! I think I'll bring Jim Wright down - not because it's 'the right thing to do,' but because it'll be a great career move in my 'drive to the top'!"
There's plenty of blame on both sides to go around. At least Clinton let us know he liked to party up front. Newt and his kind pretended their shit didn't stink.
How true, however, I did enjoy the "Speaker of the House for a Day" charade they put on a couple of years ago. IIRC, the Noot's still a top GOP fund raiser.
Interesting tidbit of information here. Are you sure it's really a matter of being an unprincipled opportunistic whore, though, and not about converting to X-tianity and becoming more conservative with age or something?
If it wasn't just an unpricipled attempt to get into office at any cost, Nootie had some serious mental breakdown, or something. He did a complete 180.
--- Ever notice in Gilbert Shelton's "Fabulous Furry Freak Brothers" Comix, whenever Fat Freddy farted, the sound went "toot" or "poot" or "proot" or "floot"? Hence, "noot."
Raines is a lost cause. Equating Lincoln with assholes like Armey and DeLay is about all these LOSERS have left for rhetorc. "'EY! Lincoln was a Republican and Johnson [Andrew] was a Democrat, and nuttin's changed in over a hunnerd y'ar!" If Lincoln had 1/3 a chance, he'd pick up Armey and DeLay and bash their heads together.
As far as the Democrat/Commie thing, that goes back to 1949. Here's where you can tell a guy's a real LOONIE who names all his pets Erick and bisects the hymenopterae. Hey Bennzo, tell me one classified secret Hiss passed on to them-there commies. Oh, that pumpkin stuff? Well, it came out in '74 that there was nothing classified in all of that. For all intents and purposes those commie-wannabes of the '30s were sending clippings fropm the New York Times. Remember, Hiss was convicted of perjury, never espionage, and in a 2nd trial where he basically wussed out like some aristocratic nerd. If there ever wa any evidence of espionage, even Nixxon� passed up on it. Deal with it, Pink Boy!
That's just my impression. I wish I had an actual example, but I will I've noticed they'll hold a position on one subject that Democrats would, and have a "republican" position on another. For the most part, they seem to agree with either party's logical policies. Or come close, when there is no logical policy. Let's say Dems are against widgits, and for sprockets. Republicans are for widgits and against sprockets. Libertarians might be against both, if widgits are dangerous and sprockets don't work. That's just my impression of the party, ICBW.
Not bad! Or for both, if widgets work and sprockets aren't dangerous.
The main prob with Libs is that they are all idealists living in a utopian paradise. If everybody was like them, no prob. You don't pay taxes for anythihg you don't use amd you always have that dollar to travel down that street when you need to. No one discriminates against anybody. Help is always there if you need it (privatized, of course!)
Now, what planet is that?
I guess I'm just an old liberal kicking at old school when we believed in individual liberty and fought to end Jim Crow...
By the way, Libertarians sprung from the now-socialist (and nearly defunct) Peave and Freedom party. You had two groups, both of which basically wanted to smoke grass, enjoy beer and run around naked. They split over economics around '72.
You speak of privatization as an inherent evil. That's your right. I see it as a method that can be corrupted, just like any other method. Public just means that the government runs a monopoly, imo, and sometimes that monopoly is justified for the purposes of efficiency and infrastructure concerns. However, when it has been shown to fail, public is no better than private.
I have no problem with your personal beliefs and admire you if you did fight to end Jim Crow laws. However, that speaks more about your integrity as a person to me, and nothing really about that of the Democratic Party. It's not as if the Democratic Party ceased to exist that you would be any different in your ethics.
I don't know if you are trying to use strawman tactics here or what, but remember -- it was Lincoln who freed the slaves. He was a Republican. Does that mean that Democrats are pro-slavery? No. My point is that the past of any political party is not always to be admired, and the present is what's important.
I grew up in a Nixon/Goldwater family. I didn't really know much about politics until 1969, and then I was really horrified at the things Nixon and his party were in favor of. (Once I saw there was another side to things, "my" side seemed terribly wrong.) I also resented the way Nixon lied to us in '68. It seemed that the moe time passed, the worse the Republicans got. Nixon was a would-be dictator but he did establish the EPA. That angered a lot of his fellow Repubs. It also seems that once Nixon was booted out, the Repubs just got worse out of spite. (The George Wallace voters of '68 became Republicans.) At the time, Dems were the only alternative, but starting in '81 they just rolled over. "We'll all go along and get along." No real opposition to Reagan existed. The Dems were a disgrace in the Iran/contra hearings, letting right-wing wackos like Hyde walk all over them. When I was "offered" two Repub-wannabes for the gubernatorial primary in 1990 (Feinstein and Van de Camp), I'd had enough. I registered Green but they weren't yet on the ballot, so I became a P&Fer. Now P&F isn't on the ballot and the Greens are, so maybe I'll reregister (I get the Green email newsletter anyway).
In 1987, Dems allowed Repubs to walk all over them "for the good of the country." They just didn't realize that the Repubs were engaged in a jihad. They still didn't realize it during all the Clinton investigations. They FINALLY realized in in the Fall of '98 during the HJC impeachment hearing sham. And they FINALLY woke up. Now it looks like they're going back to sleep under Smirk.
I'm kind of the opposite of Trey & Matt. I can't stand Demo wussies but I hate Repub loonies more.
I didn't take it what way at all. I thought DG was describing a "utopian paradise", not something evil. A very conservative friend of mine frequently said he didn't see why private charities or church groups couldn't handle the country's problems with the poor/unemployed. I don't see why either, but they didn't & they don't. They didn't handle the country's needs even before we had a welfare system at the federal level, that was its genesis. The Federal Emergency Relief Act was intended to provide assistance to the unemployed workers and their families in the Depression. This was shortly after FDR took office in 1933.
No, it means they were. The Republicons are pro-slavery currently.
That's a very good point.
LiamD
PS: Some info on FERA:
(1) Federal Emergency Relief Act - 12 May 1933 (a) It established the Federal Emergency Relief Administration (FERA ) and appropriated $500 million for quick relief with 1/2 given immediately as direct relief (b) It matched $1 for every $3 to states with their own relief programs. (c) Harry Hopkins was appointed as the Federal Relief Administrator.
I tried that, only a few people got the jokes and all the right-wing LOONIES told me I was an asshole to watch SP. Fck 'em! By the way, the level of political discourse in this NG is a helluva lot more polite even at its worst than in a political NG. (I've been called TRAITOR, SEDITIONIST, and all kinds of things!) The political NGs are dominated by Rush-addicted dittoeheads and people still finding commmies in the dust bunnies under the beds.
What you say is true and then some, anyone not toeing the party line is guilty of treason just for openers; but I wasn't address you, I was replying to Michael who suddenly developed an objection to off topic discourse.
You say you're not finding commies in the dust bunnies under your bed? Sounds a little "pink" to me:-)
No one's forcing you to read any of it. No one forced you to watch the dead Cartman being dropped from the helicopter while the orchestra played either. So shut up.
No, but you ARE forcing me to spend time wading through. Fuck off troll. Take your political crusade somewhere else, because I for one am done with you. Fuck off you donkey raping shiteater. *PLONK*
I was referring to: "Help is always there if you need it (privatized, of course!)" The parenthetical phrase seemed derogatory to me, particularly with the !. If I was wrong in taking that meaning, sorry. It sounded to me like: "Yeah, the bake sale has chocolate chip cookies for sale (carob of course!)"
Many people who are charitable by nature cannot afford to donate to private charities because their funds are constantly being raided by an insane level of taxation. This includes all levels of taxation, not just income taxes. What is the figure -- each working American has to work from Jan 1 to some time in April or May per calendar year before he actually starts earning money for himself?
<snip>
There were many other factors involved there, not just the lack of public welfare. The Depression was not caused by a lack of welfare. FDR got us out, but at what price? For starters, a Social Security system that is pathetic and literally steals from the public at large, a government-run Ponzi scheme.
Well, you did kind of get it. Libertarians would never support anything done by government other than defense. I did mean it derogatively because they would oppose ANY government action de facto, even if it might be a good idea. People could be dying and they'd just sit there and wait for some enterpreneur to come along. This is what Herbert Hoover did in the early '30s (he simply felt government intervention was not the thing to even try). Your analogy would be completed by having a "health nazi" bake sale who decided right off that chocolate was bad so no chocolate would be allowed.
That's crazy! Charitable donations are a tax shelter! Someone is pullng the wool over your eyes on all this. Trust me, we're not living very extravagantly on our income, and people earning twice what we make can certainly lower their extravagances! It really galls me when some dipshit earning $100,000 a year complains that he can make ends meet! If his expenses are too high, then he should cut back and stop whining. "Littoe crybaby!"
I'm sick and tired of this BULLSHIT. Why don't you do some study about what life was like before SS? You're too young to have relatives who lived in the '30s, so what do you know!? A bunch of LIES told to you by people who's forebearers though SS was a commie idea. WHO wants to end SS? People who phlosophically are opposed to anything like it from the start, not people without an agenda!
This is just not true. If any of you took the time to peruse the party's web site and look at its stand on issues, it will become crystal clear that they see much more role for government than defense. Just not nearly as much as there is now.
Godwin's Law invoked. I win. ;-)
I'm talking about people making $25K-$30K. Nice people who care about a lot of things. These people usually donate 0 to charity besides some old clothes. Now, if taxes (not just income taxes) weren't so high that they have to work ~40% of the working year just to pay them, they'd be more inclined to donate more. And yes, charities are tax-deductible. That's great, imo. I'd rather give a dollar directly to a charity than a dollar to the government to help the needy. But the tax deduction doesn't work that way; it reduces your taxable income by whatever amount you donate (w/ limits, right?), but not your tax liability.
I have.
Wrong.
I didn't say it was communist. I implied that it was criminal.
Yes, I'm opposed to Ponzi schemes. But to be forced to participate in one -- that's even worse. (I guess I could just not work, so it isn't forced per se...)
National Platform of the Libertarian Party Adopted in Convention, July 2000, Anaheim, CA
II. Trade and the Economy
Taxation
Since we believe that all persons are entitled to keep the fruits of their labor, we oppose all government activity that consists of the forcible collection of money or goods from individuals in violation of their individual rights. Specifically, we:
1.recognize the right of any individual to challenge the payment of taxes on moral, religious, legal, or constitutional grounds;
2.oppose all personal and corporate income taxation, including capital gains taxes;
3.support the repeal of the Sixteenth Amendment, and oppose any increase in existing tax rates and the imposition of any new taxes;
4.support the eventual repeal of all taxation; and
5.support a declaration of unconditional amnesty for all those individuals who have been convicted of, or who now stand accused of, tax resistance.
As an interim measure, all criminal and civil sanctions against tax evasion should be terminated immediately.
We oppose as involuntary servitude any legal requirements forcing employers or business owners to serve as tax collectors for federal, state, or local tax agencies.
We oppose any and all increases in the rate of taxation or categories of taxpayers, including the elimination of deductions, exemptions, or credits in the spurious name of "fairness," "simplicity," or alleged "neutrality to the free market." No tax can ever be fair, simple, or neutral to the free market.
In the current fiscal crisis of states and municipalities, default is preferable to raising taxes or perpetual refinancing of growing public debt.
Inflation and Depression
We recognize that government control over money and banking is the primary cause of inflation and depression. Individuals engaged in voluntary exchange should be free to use as money any mutually agreeable commodity or item, such as gold coins denominated by units of weight. We therefore call for the repeal of all legal tender laws and of all compulsory governmental units of account. We support the right to private ownership of and contracts for gold. We favor the elimination of all government fiat money and all government minted coins. All restrictions upon the private minting of coins should be abolished so that minting will be open to the competition of the free market.
We favor free-market banking. We call for the abolition of the Federal Reserve System, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the National Banking System, and all similar national and state interventions affecting banking and credit. Our opposition encompasses all controls on the rate of interest. We also call for the abolition of the Federal Home Loan Bank System, the Resolution Trust Corporation, the National Credit Union Administration, the National Credit Union Central Liquidity Facility, and all similar national and state interventions affecting savings and loan associations, credit unions, and other depository institutions. There should be unrestricted competition among banks and depository institutions of all types.
To complete the separation of bank and State, we favor the Jacksonian independent treasury system, in which all government funds are held by the government itself and not deposited in any private banks. The only further necessary check upon monetary inflation is the consistent application of the general protection against fraud to the minting and banking industries.
Pending its abolition, the Federal Reserve System, in order to halt inflation, must immediately cease its expansion of the quantity of money. As interim measures, we further support:
a.the lifting of all restrictions on branch banking;
b.the repeal of all state usury laws;
c.the removal of all remaining restrictions on the interest paid for deposits;
d.the elimination of laws setting margin requirements on purchases and sales of securities;
e.the revocation of all other selective credit controls; the abolition of Federal Reserve control over the reserves of non-member banks and other depository institutions; and
f.the lifting of the prohibition of domestic deposits denominated in foreign currencies.
A Libertarian co-worker tells me they also believe in privatizing the courts, police, military, etc., but I couldn't find any planks specifying that in my quick look. I would not characterize the Libertarian Party as "Conservative on fiscal matters, liberal on social comes to mind, though this is a simplification."
Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go mint some coins.
BWAH HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Fucking ridiculous!!!!! As a former/current numismatist, I can just imagine what this one would give us! Now, back in the 1850s or so, yes, there were privately-issued coins, but this was a case where there was no official mint out West, and miners wanted their gold made into ingots and coins. But I can just imagine what would happen if every Smith and Jones was coining their own money! HA HA HA HA!!!! What a joke!!! These guys are living in a fool's paradise! Are they aware at all about the state of US money before 1934? There weren't enough US coins for anyone and w were using an amalgum of every currency from foreign nations that we could get out hands on! There wasn't enough copper to coin cents! Once cents were coined, they'd be recycled into half cents the following year! Fuckin' BRILLIANT for commerce! "Let's see, I got three US cents, two dragoons and 7 bits cut out of a Thaler..."
We had that in the 19th Century. That's why banks always went BUST and you had these trunkfulls of money being shipped from one bank to another to cover books. ONE TRUNK of gold to cover TEN BANKS! HA HA HA!!!!!
Yep, Zeke, we don't have money in our vault, but we's expecting that trunk o' gold to come in before the accountants git here! What!? Bandits stole it in transit! Shit! All our customers just lost their money!
Waal, I dunno, DG, you bin sounding kind of pink lately:-)
Let's say, for example, that JP Morgan Chase issued coins. How would they be denominated? Certainly not in dollars. Would the value of their coins vary as their stock price rose & fell? The coins would be made of some precious metal, obviously. Bill Gates could mint a lot of coins; but why would anyone want to? Maybe I'm missing something here, but how does one make money minting coins?
The plank doesn't mention paper money, what about that?
The plank also doesn't mention electronic funds, brick wall time. With no Federal Reserve Bank how would companies & individuals pay one another, i.e., wire money around, including foreign transactions? Something like Fedwire (for electronic payments) would be a nightmare to develop with no common valuation of what's being wired. Keeping track of & constantly adjusting for the changes in value of the various coins in circulation is really not practical. Why would any private company want to develop Fedwire? It would be so expensive to develop & maintain that pricing it to make money would make the cost prohibitive to its potential users. The LP'ers need to go back to the drawing board on this.
Someone on one of the NG's I frequent has a sig to the effect: "Libertarianism is the idea that the best economic solution for Gilligan's Island scales well to 280 million people". I've always thought that was meant in fun. They seem to envision the US going back to the late 18th - early 19th century economically.
I am not an activist for the Libertarian Party, just a "normal" citizen who considers himself to be a Libertarian. Hence, I do not know every facet of the party's beliefs. Furthermore, I lack the knowledge to intelligently discuss this particular offshoot of the thread (monetary policy). Just wanted to say that I was not commenting on this topic because I don't know enough to do so -- not that I couldn't come up with a rebuttal because the points made were so correct. They may be, but I don't know. later
Of course that should read *1834*. BTW, a good book on the subject (up to 1965) is Taxay's "US Mint and Coinage."
Basically, stocks are the "coinage" of private corproations. And the US mint makes money by incluing no precious metal at all. Do you remember our pre-1965 coins? The price of silver began to rise, so it was more profitable to melt coins and get more and repeat the process. Coins began disappearing from circulation (funny thing was, cents were too, and they were merely copper alloy). Us collectors were getting the blame. So the intrinsically worthless "clad" coins were introduced in '65. Idiotically, no mint marks were included in the mintings of '65-67. And of course, the US asked all of us sheep to turn in our silver coins for these new ones out of "patriotism." A lot of people turned in their gold coinage in '34 out of "patriotism," not realizing that anyone who had "a collection" (up to 5 copies of each year and mint mark of any gold coin) were allowed to keep them. As an aside, the old silver coins won't work in vending machines now.
Paper money -- ALL money now -- is a "promise to pay." What, I don't know... The only "real" money is minted gold and silver bullion and that's worth what the market says it is day by day. OTOH, "real" money is also anything you and I agree to exchange.
Look a what the Euro is causing to happen... I'm sure it will be worth in in the long run, but what a headache!
One thing I find especially interesting is that the LPers aren't holding the Constitution up as the only lawful way to coin money, because Article 8 specifically restricts that to the federal gov't:
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
Okay, but not really. Companies sold shares as equity in the business for a few hundred years and the holders of the common stock hoped to receive dividends from the company's profits and to see the value of their investment increase. No way that could be done with coins.
So how would private issuers of coins make money, i.e., why would a company decide to issue coins?
At risk of jumping in where I have little to offer, I think this is what the LP objects to. Basically, the government expanding and contracting the money supply at whim, with nothing to back it up except this "promise to pay." It adds to if not outright causes recessions and booms like an unskilled puppeteer. I don't know enought to analyze their proposed solution, though, but they like "real" money. Hence, their support for people's right to transact using anything they deem legal tender. True, it is in the Constitution that only the government can mint money, but Prohibition was also part of the Constitution for a long time.
That's it in an extreme nutshell. Categorizing Libertarians like this is like calling all Democrats baby-killers who just want the government to run everyone's lives and Republicans as gun-toting Christian fanatics who want thing just like they were a hundred years ago. They're all useless generalizations that serve no purpose but to polarize.
Not a very good comparison, IMHO. The minting of coins is in Article 8, i.e., before the Bill of Rights, whereas Prohibition was the 18th Amendment (ratified in 1919 to take effect one year from its ratification), which was repealed by the 21st Amendment (1933). It could be argued that the former is an integral part of the Constitution (perhaps which has even stood the test of time), and that Prohibition was an experiment in legislating morality which didn't work out at all. It helped criminals become better organized and it hardly stood the test of time.
But the US was never a nation of baby killers or gun-toting Christian fanatics who want everything like 100 years ago (in the GOP's case they're worshipping a myth, an America that never existed, e.g., Reagan's shining city on a hill). As I read thru the Libertarian Party's platform for 2000 I was constantly reminded of the late 18th & the early 19 centuries (not that I lived during those times, of course).
All amendments are supposed to be as worthy as the rest of the document. They literally become part of it. I don't think that it was Prohibition was intended to be an experiment; it just failed. Amending the Constitution is a serious matter. Anyway, the Bill of Rights is all amendments, for example.
Pro-life fanatics would argue that we currently are such a nation. Count the # of abortions per year and it's mass genocide if you consider each one to be murdering a baby. As for the other example, it's something far-right Republicans want, regardless, and it would be incorrect to refer to most or even many Republicans that way.
Was everything absolutley horrible a long time ago and everything so much better now? There must be some facets of life, law, society, etc., that have gotten worse. (Now I'm starting to sound like a Republican! Damn!)
Yes, of course. But Article 8 was there before the first amendment back in 1789, i.e., the framers decided on this before freedom of speech & religion.
Really makes no difference if most people then thought of it as an experiment or not, it certainly was. Many predicted failure at the time and it didn't last very long. IIRC it's the only amendment to be repealed.
Of course, that's why we call the the "first amendment", the "second amendment", etc. Still not a very good comparison and it certainly didn't last a "long time".
Fanatics argue all sorts of things.
What? Isn't it the Libertarian Platform which considers the current situation completely horrible and it's their stated policy that they wish to return to policies reminiscent of the late 18th & early 19th centuries. They even want to discard Article 8 of the Constitution!
Either the amendments are as worthy or they are not. You agree that they are as worthy, but then immediately ascribe some sort of higher level of worthiness to Article 8. You don't have to agree with me, but if you do, then you shouldn't do that. IMO.
Huh?
Yes. Did I say they didn't? The point is that hokey Gilligan's Island references and such are also extreme and inaccurate.
What do you mean "What?" That's the point of what I just wrote above -- that some things are not better now than before. Some things were better before, Libertarians would say. And *if* someone thinks that everything is horrible now (which not all Libertarians will say), that doesn't mean that they think that past solutions are the solution. That's binary thinking. *Some* policies used in the past might be considered, but that's different from saying that *all* should.
My point is that Article 8 was written *before* the Bill of Rights, which I believe reflects their relative importance in the minds of the Founding Fathers.
Huh? The comparison here is the one you made "True, it is in the Constitution that only the government can mint money, but Prohibition was also part of the Constitution for a long time." I don't think it was a very good example and it (Prohibition) certainly didn't last "a long time".
Purely hypothetically, if the 2nd Amendment were magically repealed, do you think the rest of the Bill of Rights would endure & flourish?
Oh. I guess we don't share that belief then, which is fine. I don't think the order of the Articles is in decreasing importance, much like I don't think the paragraphs of an essay decrease in importance as one reads. Can you honestly say you feel that Article 4 is more important than Article 5, for example? And regardless, I think that most people today feel that the Bill of Rights is the most important part of the Constitution, and it isn't even part of the main body of it since it's made up entirely of Amendments.
Anyway, just as a note, there is no Article 8; you were referring to Section 8 of Article I.
The point is that Amendment 1, 2, 3, etc. are no less important than the main body of the Constitution. As for whether Prohibition lasted a long time -- "that's a value judgment." I feel that when it was passed, the intent was for it to last forever, like any other amendment. If the intent was to try it out, they could have just passed laws like they do now with drugs deemed illegal. I doubt there will ever be another amendment that bans the use of substances, thanks to the failure of Prohibition. But I do feel that the intent of the 18th Amendment was to prohibit basically forever. Yes, there was opposition to it before it was passed, but there is likely to be opposition whenever one is considered. Remeber the ERA, for example?
Endure? Yes. Flourish? No. Of more concern to me is the deterioration of the 4th and 10th amendments. As a side note for you, do you think that Amendment 3 is more important than Amendment 4? 9? 10?
You bother to point that out now. Did you suddenly become confused? Mea culpa on the terminology error.
The intent at the time of the 18th Amendment is immaterial, the fact is it was repealed. It was ratified in 1919 to take effect in 1920 and was repealed in 1933, that's 13 years. Compared to the time the Constitution has been in force, that's not a "long time". YMMV, of course.
Okay, my bad. But you *were* suggesting that the Articles were more important to the Founding Fathers than the Bill of Rights, as the Bill of Rights was added as Amendments later. I see the inherent fact in that statement if you are talking about the moment the document was ratified (and before the Bill of Rights was added). But what about after it was added? Did those same Founding Fathers feel that rules regulating the minting of coins and such were *still* more important than the Bill of Rights? I highly doubt it. And even in the extremely unlikely event that they did, does any person alive today really feel that way?!
It wasn't to nitpick; I didn't realize it was an error until I looked at the document closely, which I didn't do recently until this thread. Your error didn't take anything away from your points, but I just thought you might want to know for future reference, citing, etc.
Okay, 13 years. We don't have to agree on what that means besides that it was 13 years.
Look, let *me* try to straighten this out fer yas. The minting of coins was something that went way back to European countries' traditional powers (back to Rome even). It was the monarch's money, literally. So the minting of money was an ineherent and accepted part of a central government, a "given." Before this, states issued their own coins and they had different standards (I have a 1788 Massachusetts cent). A uniform currency was seen as a basic need for a new union of states. When the new Constitution was presented to the states, twelve articles were drawn up to satisfy objections from the states. Numbers 3-12 were ratified as nos. 1-10. Number 2 was recently ratified as the newest amendment (it has to do with "remuneration" -- pay raises for Congress not being put into place until after an election following the passing of the raise). Number 1 has never been ratified. One of the reasons the Equal Rights Amendment was never ratified was because it was one of the few proposed amendments with a limit on the time for ratification (the opponents saw to that). That original Amendment #2 sat around for over 200 years before it was eventually ratified by the last state needed for a ratification tally. Both the Constitution and Amendments 3-12 were ratified by the required number of states together. I think Rhode Island never ratified either, but when ratification took place it automatically became part of the union.
Funny you should mention this because I noticed it recently while scanning other amendments. What caught my eye was the early (1789) date of proposal for something ratified so recently.
?? Sorry, I'm just more confused now. I thought there were only 7 Articles.
Oh, you must have meant "amendments" instead of "articles" above, right?
I know. My only point in bringing up the ERA was to point out that there is often strong opposition to proposed Amendments and that amending the Constitution is not a matter taken lightly. That's the impression I got from the other poster who said that the Prohibition amendment was just an experiment.
The words are interchangeable. The major parts of the Constitution are called "Articles" but an amendment is also an "article." So are the items in a newspaper.
For instance, I just did an arrangement of some music and the "legal tender" was a bag of groceries.
The variousfew private coiners of the mid-19th Century were assayers. That may have had something to do with it. Unfortunately I can't lay my hands on a copy of The Red Book for details.
Barter is the way to go when possible, people. Unless you like the gov. taking its cut just about every time its money changes hands, that is. (That's the official line, at least -- declare *all* income.)
What were assayers being attacked for? btw, I have no idea what an assayer is besides the dictionary definition.
They weren't. IIRC they operated in the days before the Carson City and San Francisco mints opened. Their pieces are quite rare and valuable.
These were people in the business of evaluating your ore find, and some were also into refining and minting coins or ingots. If you know anyone with a copy of The Red Book (any year) look in the back pages.
I was referring to your words "The various few private coiners of the mid-19th Century were assayers. That may have had something to do with it*." (* being in reference to the law that says only the government can mint money.) I took your words to mean that the law was made specifically because of assayers. Before I looked it up, I was envisioning some sort of clandestine criminal group that minted its own money that the government needed to thwart. ;)
What happened to your imagination? Privatization is not the same as elimination, which is what anarchy is about. Besides, these are extreme libertarian beliefs, and those who speak intelligently about them do not picture this happening overnight, which would cause disaster. And not all Libertarians are "pro those issues" anyway. Can you honestly say that you are proud to believe in all that the Democratic Party stands for?
I'm glad you recognize that is a simplification. But, conservative and liberal -- what does that mean? To me, it means to be often "all over the place" -- liberals typically want less government restriction on personal freedom, but then again, they typically are strong gun control advocates. Libertarians are consistent, imo. More personal freedom means more personal freedom!
When you look at an issue that (obstensibly) only has two sides, but there are three parties, it is inherent then that some overlap occur. Otherwise, at least one of the parties must be the same as the one of the others. Now, when you choose, as you have, to declare the two sides as Republican or Democrat, then of course the LP will appear to be "all over the place."
However, there is no logical reason to define sides of issue as Republican or Democrat. In fact, if you choose to look at the big picture, Libertarians are remarkably consistent. What big picture? Less government vs. more government. (Note: "less" does not mean "no.") Then you will see that it is in fact the Republicans and Democrats who are "all over the place." For example, I view Republicans as, in general, wanting less government intervention in business/economic matters, but more government when it comes to legislating their idea of morality. I view Democrats as, in general, the opposite.
Moreover, in many Libertarians' minds, Republicans and Democrats are actually very similar -- they both want more government. The Republicans just claim they don't more often.
I see you know a fuckin' lot about Hollywood -- NOT. Making money in Hollywood does not PER SE mean selling out. MMIH means being able to ACT COMPETENTLY and BE CREATIVE. Selling out means doing something that violates your principles for lucre (assuming your pore mother isn't starving and you're doing it for her, that is...). Now, I can name a few Repub actors (to usethe word "liberally") who are sellouts... HOW MANY FUCKIN' ACTORS DO *YOU* KNOW, PAL?
OK, dude. First -- you remember the ep of "That's My Bush" with the execution? Remember the big portly "friend" of Bush? That's Bob MacRae. I worked with him in 1981 and again in 1986. The plays were Misdummer Night's Dream and As You Like It. I didn't see much of him in the 1986 production but I worked with him every damn night in '81. He's probably forgotten my name by now.
Second -- ever see "Agent Arnold" in X-Files? That's Wayne Alexander. Worked with him in 1982-84, and he dines semi-regulrly with one of our mutual acquaintances. Seen him do Romeo, Sir Andrew Aguecheek, Proteus, Hamlet (quite excellent), Banquo, one of the nobles in "Mush Ado," something else...
Third -- Gregory Itzen, sometimes seen on the Star Trek serieses and recently in "Strip Mall." worked with him in '83. Seen him to MacDuff and Speed (Two Gents from Verona).
Fourth -- ever hear of Kristopher Tabori? (Stuck-in-stereotype actor.) He not only played roles (directed by his then-girlfriend Lee Shallat) but he directed a few plays and thus I worked with him every working day. (His knowledge of music and its use is somewhat limited.) Now he did an excellent Macbeth in '83.
I know many more but haven't seen them on TV, though now and then I see them on the stage in various locations. You wouldn't recognize their names -- but one, Benjamin Stewart, is well-known outside of California. Another you won't recognize, but who is a great actor and also a great bluegrass banjo player, is Daniel Bryan Cartmell.
You probably have not heard of many of them since they are primarily stage actors. Also, I haven't seen most of them since 1992.
These read for me for the 1991 12-hour Ives show on KPFK: Carl Reggiardo Daniel Bryan Cartmell (great bluegrass banjo player too--played King Lear among many roles) Donna Fuller James Merrilly <sp??--I forget> Eugene Rubenzer Karen Ronis Ferdinand Lewis Benjamin Stewart Harry Fraser (seen him do, of course, Falstaff) Almost got Ron Boussom to read but that never materialized.
Here's two that I've seen recently doing "good" on TV, and interviewed re the Grove Shakespeare Festival back then, but who never read for me: Gregory Itzen -- seen on some Star Trek spinoffs (DS9 for one) and as the Russian porn maker on Strip Mall. Seen him do Macduff, the servant Speed, and Richard II. Wayne Alexander -- good old Wayno! "Older Agent" AKA "Agent Arnold" AKA "Agent Crime-projection" on X-Files. Also did 4 characters on Babylon 5. Seen him do Proteus, Romeo, Sir Andrew Aguecheek, Hamlet, Banquo and one of the main nobles in "Much Ado." Still hear from him indirectly.
Some I've worked with: Kristopher Tabori. Good, great actor (but stuck in a type-cast) but as a director doesn't really understand the full potential of music cues. Lee Shallat. Was Tabori's gal for a while. Jules Aaron. Goddam, did a lot with him. John Frederick Jones. He's the CEO in the commercial who asks another exec to name the Oreo. "Now, Hamlet..."
Are you serious???? Is Joe Leiberman and Tipper Gore conservative?? Honestly, I've seen more moves by Liberals to censor things than conservatives (V chip, The explicit lyrics crap of a few years ago, things not politically correct, cell phones in cars and the list goes on).
I saw a lot more censorship in the Reagan years than in the Clinton years. Reagan's stooge Meese went after Playboy, of all things (that harmless fluff). I was with Pacifica during the 1986 FCC crap, and Reagan had everyone cowed into cowardice. All Clinton did was "get along and go along" when stuffed shits like Fritz Hollings went after "Buffcoat and Beaver." (And fuck MTV over that one while I'm at it.) Also give lip service to the V-chip nonsense. No way can you compare the two.
I still don't like either of 'em, but you have to see the distinction.
Sometimes I feel that if tomorrow everyone woke up and decided, "Hey, you know, I do have the power of choice, so let's end censorship of any kind," Dems would fall all over themselves to pander to the national mood, while Repubs would still be going on about, "No! Our moral fibre is at stake! We must be even more vigilant and stomp this filth out! 'CULTURAL WAR FOR THE HART AND SOLE OF AMERIKKKA'!" (Gee, we had this debate back in '68!)
This is so yesterday. Perhaps you should "wake up and get with it?" Just joking. But regardless, this thread is dead, as are most of the ones you just responded to. Why bother now?
I was looking at a window that said "54 unread" in this group. Then I marked this thread as read. 24 unread now. That's a lotta fucking noise, and I have Ben in killfile heck to begin with. Alt.tv.southpark.politics or maybe a.t..sp.analysis? And if there *is* a group like that, why isn't this discussion taking place in it?
(You're ok Lammy, just seriously dude...it's a lotta fucking noise.)
The problem is that there isn't another group like that AFAIK. I will make more of an effort to re-mark such threads OT: in the Subject. Then y'all can set up a kill-filter for "OT:" and make it case-sensitive if possible.
Thanks for not tearing me a new asshole, but anyone else should feel free to kill-filter me. Announce it all you want. woo hoo ;)
Tipper is a dork and so is Joe. I'm a McGovern/McCarthy (Eugene) Democrat, not an Andrew Johnson Dem.
Fucking lames-ass, he has to go back over 100 years to justify his views of the parties. Even Theodore Roosevelt is spinning in his grave over DeLay and Armey. Get a clue, this is 2001, not 1865.
He's a fucking lame-ass and not worth my time to respond to bullshit like that. I've noticed that Ben and his ilk are about as monochromatic as any group can get.
<<They're conservatives, the backbone of the USA, the common clay of the new West. You know, morons:-)>>
And for quite some time, they've dominated this group, to the group's detriment, IMO. They're not very bright, and use invective instead of debating issues in any real way, but they are very nasty and band together, and have driven off quite a number of posters from this group.
It's very nice to see you all here, sticking it to them. And maybe they'll actually learn something, since they are appallingly ignorant.
Did anyone else catch an embarrassing John Lennon concert on PBS over the weekend? Embarrassing in that Yoko Ono was there trying to be a musician. Lennon was kind of blowhardy at times but that Ono is really something that should not have to be seen. Did you see her trying to do The Twist?? And tossing in those inane musical asides??
Well, they were making fun of republicans in "Big Gay Al's big gay boat ride". Remember the "Oh no, it's the oppressors. Christians, Nazis and Republicans".
T&P looked suspiciously like The Ambiguously Gay Duo, but the Saturday morning cartoon as a whole was a clever parody of Hannah-Barbara Saturday morning cartoons such as Space Ghost (not to mention Superfriends). They got the "lobster people" (or whatever the hell they were) perfect!
real life)
pre-emptied by
viewers
instead
instead)
Not Without My Anus is still my all time favorite ep., and I loved the reference to it. The mention of "Asses of Fire" and the Canadian-American war was great too.
On Fri, 20 Jul 2001 15:52:04 GMT, "LooseChanj" wrote:
Have you everread the disclaimer at the beginning of the episode? It clearly states that all impersonations are done badly. I have to admit the Chere impersonation was exceptionally bad though.