Well it's not just "consumed" by the government. A fairly large portion (Social Security) is taken and then returned to the individual when they are retired. 1/3 may sound like a lot, but what the government does is a lot (defense, education, social security, healthcare and housing for the poor, infrastructure, etc). The corporate libertarianism you seem to espouse destroys these government services and the main people to benefit from that are the wealthy. While I'm sure wealthy people want to be more wealthy, I think that most people and the country will be worse off for it.

The Constitution also defines that we shall have an income tax. As a Constitutionalist, you must agree with the income tax I presume.

Well you've laid out criteria, but you've in no way shown how the federal government does not adequately meet that criteria.

__________________
Formerly W.E.B. Du Bois (you can still call me "WEB")

Current Diplomacy thread
WEB Music Playlist
Protest Animal Cruelty

You said that the best government is NO government. In America, we have a government that is spelled out in the constitution. Ergo, if you really believe that the best government is NO governemnt, you believe that the form of government spelled out in the constitution is wrong. Ergo, you should not be living in a society where a government is mandated by the documents that founded said society. As such, your viewpoint is better suited to places like Congo and Darfur, where there is no government to speak of at all.

You said:

Then you feel living in any kind of society is a mistake, because the very fact of living in a society means you have to conform to their rules, laws, etc. It also means that you count on them to support your rights. If you don't think your fellow Americans are protecting your rights and ensuring your ability to earn your livelihood, you do need to move elswewhere. No man is an island. You can't do it by yourself. There is no such thing as a self-made man.

Compared to Pelosi, Rangel, Boxer, and quite a few others, Obama has his toes across the aisle to the right.

Change "liberals and democrats" to "conservatives and republicans" and you are equally correct. It's just that the conservatives and republicans manipulate it to the benefit of the people that need it least. At least the liberals and democrats give a shit about someone other than themselves and their cronies.

Ah. So now it's limited government that's OK? Not just NO government?

Re-read what I said. I said:

Two ways of saying exactly the same thing, to wit: You anti-government types only want any government at all if it benefits YOU, not someone with a name OTHER THAN YOURS.

That means that if a tax and program are deemed by congress to be in support of the "general welfare" of the United States, it ain't stealin'. It's law. If the congress determines that an overwhelming, ridiculously bloated healthcare system is in the best interests of the "general welfare", it has every constitutional right to mandate it. Just as you have every right to seek redress in the courts if you feel that determination is in error. You have every right to vote those who support such a sytstem out of office. But don't sit there and tell me it's unconstitutional or illegal, when Art. I, Sec. 8 clearly says it [/i]IS[/i] legal and constitutional. You can't pick and choose wich clauses of the constitution you want to heed and which ones you want to ignore because they don't happen to agree with your worldview.

Oh, come on. Your entire tone suggests that anyone that thinks it is the responsibility of all of us, and also the government, to help those that need it is a socialist.

You insinuate that because something is socialistic in nature, it is inherently authoritarian. That is not the case.

So just exactly what are you being deprived of? A new 120" LCD HDTV? A new SUV? Good God, man. I pay less than $500 a month in taxes. The services I receive for that money far, FAR outstrip the value of anything I could purchase for the same amount of money.

Fine. Quit paying taxes. When you lose your livelihood and circumstances cause it, you and your family can sleep in the fucking car and scrounge out of dumpsters for your food. You see, you throw all this "I don't need..." bullshit out there. But when the day comes that you will need it, you're going to change your tune so fast it's gonna give you whiplash, especially when your kids are hungry.

Now you're the authority on how government is supposed to work? Don't you think that the majority of the people governed get to do that?

That's the most bullshit statement you've made yet! You don't need anyone else? Har-dee-fucking-har. Unless you grow all of your own food, weave all of your own clothes, slaughter all of your own meat, make and service your own vehicle, manufacture your own gas, generate your own electricity, and provide every single other thing you and your family uses, you need other people.

And just under what fucking pretense and authority do you think you can live in a society and enjoy the blessings of that society, yet declare that you don't need it and don't need to support it?

That's the most absolutely pathetic excuse for a world view I have ever heard. People that work hard, do what they're told and still can't make any headway have no intrinsic value? That's a remarkably sad outlook on your fellow man, my friend. And also remakably arrogant.

And what happens when nobody will agree to the type of trade with you that you're talking about? Kinda blows that premise all to hell and gone, doesn't it? What are you gonna do then? Sleep in the car and scrounge out of a dumpster?

And now we get to the crux of what your beef is. Your entire point of view is based on the premise that if something the government does doesn't have monetary value beneficial to you, it is worthless.

Well, that...and the fact that Art. I, Sec. 8 specifically allows the congress to levy taxes as it sees fit, making it legal.

Then why are you here? I mean, really? You are pushing pretty hard at the moment...

Exactly how have you demanded it? Here on this forum? Over beers with your buds? Or have you made the phone calls and written to your legislators? Repeatedly? Have you participated in your local government, even if it is just to go to your town council meetings to be heard? How have you gotten the attention of your elected officials? If you want to change government, you better get REAL active. Like those busybodies that piss everyone off. But they usually get what they want. It takes more than a vote to change things, and it sure as hell takes more than holding forth on an internet forum.

__________________
Tax & Spend > Borrow & Spend

I reject your reality and substitute my own.

Every feeling you've ever felt can be found in the works of Beethoven, Bruckner, Mahler, and Wagner.

You said that people who scream for limited government are "bullshit" unless they fall under one of the three categories you mentioned. I, being a supporter of limited government, speaking for myself and others of libertarian mindset, said that I, or we, want limited government. Meaning, not just for me, or us, but for gays, drug users, or even people who own "eeevil corporations."

Your whole argument is based on the idea that your assumption about small government advocates is correct, which it is not. You can't make an argument based on what you think about a group of people and expect others to just believe what you say. Your assumption about small government advocates is wrong. If someone wants the government to control what gays, drug users, and corporations do then they are not advocates of limited government.

__________________
Neither am I the means to any end others may wish to accomplish. I am not a tool for their use. I am not a servant of their needs. I am not a bandage for their wounds. I am not a sacrifice on their altars. ... I owe nothing to my brothers, nor do I gather debts from them. I ask no one to live for me, nor do I live for others. I covet no mans soul, nor is my soul theirs to covet.

Ayn Rand, Anthem.

I apologize if my hyperbole has confused you. I figured you had been on here long enough to know that I'm for a limited government. "There's no government like no government" is a bumper sticker and a deliberate exaggeration. Now that you understand that I support a limited government that abides by the constitution and I am not an anarchist we may continue.


This is total bullshit. Have you tried reading the IRS "rule book"? It fucking changes every god damned year. It is not I who should conform to the government's rules, but the government that should conform to the rules in the constitution. You can't go around telling people that they have to live by the rules of the government when the government doesn't even abide by the rules. As far as your assertion that there is no such thing as a self made man, again, bullshit. In fact, I'll be glad to tell you exactly how I became a self made man in hopefully no more than ten years. If you're still around I'd be glad to lay it all out for you.

Correct. Do not labor under the idea that I have any sympathy for republicans or conservatives. Both sides have neglected the constitution equally. I fully understand that both sides basically do the same thing, but to achieve two different ends. It doesn't matter why a person tramples on the constitution, or for whose benefit. Wrong is wrong. The reason I single out liberals and democrats is because this discussion is about a liberal democrat.
Explained above.

No, we, I, want government that neither benefits or disparages one group over the other. You can insinuate to know what I believe all you want, but you'll be wrong every time.

I'll get back to this hopefully tonight.

It suggests, according to you. No actual fact about what I'm saying, just your interpretation of it.

I'm saying, not insinuating that because something is socialistic in nature is inherently wrong and immoral.

Perhaps I'm not as materialistic as you, but imagine the possibility that someone would like to keep their money to save, invest, start a business, pay off debts, plan for retirement, etc. Like I said, I don't need the governments bullshit bankrupt social security. When I retire they can keep it. I have the full intention of being self reliant even after I'm done working. Fuck all the TV's and bull shit.
Exactly my point. We are forced to let them plunder our income or suffer the consequences. Great way of life.

Not sure what you're asking here.

You missed the point by a long shot. You might have noticed where I mentioned how our economy is supposed to work. Quick lesson. Our money is a store of value. When I work I trade my time for money. I then take this value, earned from my work to trade with others who have traded their time to produce things that I need. There is a big difference between trading with people, value for value, and what you promote, which is simply taking people's
earned value and giving it to others who have not earned it.

Your entire philosophy is based on the premise that it is noble to forcibly take one persons earned value and give it to someone who has not earned that value. My philosophy is based on the premise that it is noble to allow people to determine their own value and be free to use that value as they see fit.
What blessings are you speaking of? What unearned value am I enjoying.
.

What is wrong with arrogance? I am not unwarranted in my self confidence. I earn my way in life by my own effort, why shouldn't I be proud of that? Also, pathetic my ass. The only people who would disagree are those who either know that they are incapable of earning their value or seek to use those who can not earn value to buy votes by telling them that they're just as good as those who produce and for some reason deserve to live a certain lifestyle regardless of whether or not they have earned it. Simply pathetic.

What the fuck are you talking about. I have enough skills, education, and determination. I'll always be able to find a job and people will always be hiring for jobs, unless of coarse the government and mouth breathers of this nation send our economy so far down the shitter that we see another depression. In that case, I'll not do as you suggest, I'll work even harder to put our economy back on the right track, while the sorry assed moochers wait for people like me to do so. Until then they'll be quite comfortable because, well, they're used to having their hand out.

Excuse me, not only is it not beneficial, it is decremental. Taking someone's assets hurts that person. Regardless of whether or not you think they can afford it.

I'll get back to this too. Making something legal does not make it moral. I do not have a problem with paying taxes for roads and shit, but I do have a problem with the government preemptively stealing my money, that I earned, and saying that if I don't give the money up I'm going to jail.
I have just as much right to fight for what I believe in as anyone else, especially, when what I believe in is a system where I will not benefit from others efforts, nor will they from mine.
I'm very active and vocal beyond this forum. The details are none of your business, but I will allow that I frequently write to my congressmen and local leaders as well as "leaders" of whom I am not a constituent. Unfortunately, when you write to someone who you can not vote for, they pretty much respond that they don't give a shit, even though their decisions have national consequences.

__________________
Neither am I the means to any end others may wish to accomplish. I am not a tool for their use. I am not a servant of their needs. I am not a bandage for their wounds. I am not a sacrifice on their altars. ... I owe nothing to my brothers, nor do I gather debts from them. I ask no one to live for me, nor do I live for others. I covet no mans soul, nor is my soul theirs to covet.

Ayn Rand, Anthem.

So there is someone somewhere that did it all by themselves? Who? Show me one person that did not have parents to guide them, teachers to teach them, employers that didn't ever take a chance on them, bank officers that didn't beilieve in them and give them a break, and were still successful. You can't. You will not find a single successful person that doesn't have at least a fifty people whose acts were not crucial to their success. They will also tell you to a person that they were damned lucky. Hard work won't do it. Hard work alone doesn't ensure your success any more than the government can ensure it. You will have to be lucky, and you will have to have other people create the circumstances that allow you to "make yourself." And in ten years, I hope for your sake that you can lay it all out for me. Just don't take offense when I show you a hundred places along the trail that your success would have died in the crib without a lucky break or someone else's help. You better plan on saying "thank you" a LOT along the way to your success.

Where government has a role in this is that the government can foster an environment that makes giving people those breaks advantageous. To put that in the context of the OP, what Obama's message is saying is not that people should be rewarded for nothing. He's actually saying something that should pique your interest: he's saying that by levelling the field in terms of access to education, government, and healthcare (among other things), you are freeing resources for a shitload of people to realize their dreams. Now, here's an important point...those people would be carving out their successes IN SPITE OF the tax burden you claim stifles success. I do it every day. What does it say if we can take taxes in stride and still enjoy a reasonable success, but it stifles you and others?

Exactly. And the government at this point benefits one group (the wealthy and corporations) while disparaging others (middle class, working poor, etc.). You know this to be true. The government is the entity that has allowed this situation to fester, it is then the government's responsibility to right the course.

So it's immoral to believe that the government has a role in creating an environment that allows the MOST people to reach their dreams? It is immoral to believe that the government can say that anyone is allowed to reach their dreams as long as everyone has the same opportunities?

It might surprise you to know that I'm not a big fan of social security in its present form. It's unsustainable and will be a burden on my grandkids. I don't support privatizing it, and I don't support an every-man-for-himself in the market approach, either. I really haven't heard a common-sense solution that is also mandatory. It has to be mandatory. I just can't believe that the millions of people that can't live within their means instead of maxxing out half a dozen credit cards will also have the discipline to stowe away $200-300 a month for retirement. At some point those without would become a crippling drain on the country.

But I can also tell you that my monthly tax burden is far too little to ensure my retirement by itself.

Not the point I was making at all. The point is, if you need those resources at some point, if you have no other option, you will thank God that safety net is there.

You said:

I am implying that you see yourself as some sort of expert on how the government operating "the way it is supposed to."

I am saying that in a democracy, you individually do not get to say how the government is supposed to operate. In a democracy, that is reserved for majority rule, and that includes electing officials that appoint justices that support that majority view in terms of constitutionality.

You can drop the patronizing tone. It's not appreciated or constructive, especially since I'm old enough to be your father and have been around the block a few times, K?

You missed my point. What happens when nobody wants to trade your time for their money?

No, my entire philosophy is based on the premise that it is better to take from those that pull up the ladder after themselves on their way to the top.

Geez, I don't have all day. We can start with a well-regulated banking industry that ensures you get what you agreed to when you take out a loan or a mortgage. That isn't spelled out in the constitution, but it's damed well necessary. You own a house? If you don't, the chances are the first mortgage you get will be an FHA conforming loan. Without that program, most banks wouldn't look twice at a first-time borrower with less than 20% down. You just went to Florida. Did you have to show papers at the border crossing? You didn't because a lot of people bled and died to make that so. Do you have a college degree? Unless you went to a private school, less than 30 cents of every dollar spent on your education (that will be invaluable in ten years when you lay out your plan to success for me) is paid by your tuition dollars. You do realize that a significant portion of your local police force's budget comes from DC, don't you? The safety of the car you drive, the safety of your workplace, the potability of your water, the fact that your vegetables no longer have been sprayed with malathion, the fact that your pipes are plastic or copper and not lead, all result from adjudication in the courts. The fact that you never had to get vaccinated for smallpox (unless you travelled to certain countries), the fact that you never had to be vaccinated against polio, the fact that American farmers produce wheat at a rate 10 times that of the rest of the world, the fact that your meat doesn't contain anthrax or brucellosis, the fact that droughts no longer mean raging duststorms; these are all thanks to programs from the FDA and the Department of Agriculture.

Aside from the sliding scale of arrogance which states that those with the most arrogance have done the least to earn it, nobody likes arrogance or arrogant people. Arrogance will get you NOWHERE in real life.

I earn my way just fine, thank you, and I'm not looking to buy votes. So I assume you approve of cold-blooded murder? After all, murderers assume that their victims have no intrinsic value, either. These people are worthless, so let's just herd them all into little rooms, throw in the cyanide pellets and be done with them? Saying that they have no intrinsic value is tantamount to the same thing. There are very few people of no intrinsic value, and those people are sitting in little rooms waiting on a hot needle courtesy of the Corrections Department.

I can show you 13 people in my company with a combined service of 265 years that just got their pink slips last week that will tell you how foolish that train of thought is. These people are some of the best in the industry at what they do. But now the choice they are given is to stay and try to scrape by in a slow local market, or move to another city, start all over with their wives and kids, and try to find employment in the industry. You aren't old enough to have been kicked in the balls like that after 20 years of dedicated employment. I can tell you that you have no idea what your reaction will be until it happens to you and your circumstances at the time de-rail your freight train to success.

You will get married and have kids. Those two events will completely alter the way you look at things.

Too late. Don't see how that could have happened, what with Bush's tax cuts and all...

You labor under the misapprehension that I advocate money for nothing. That's not true. If someone wants money from the gubmnet, they can damned well work for my money just like I did. There are a shitload of needs in this country from trash pick-up to graffitti removal to mowing grass at the park. If someone wants welfare money, they can at least get off of their ass and provide a positive return for it.

So unless the government is doing something that provides an actual monetary return to you, it is detrimental?

Is it moral to look at a person that needs a hand up and walk by with your money in your pocket? I'm not talking about someone sitting on the sofa punching out kids for the welfare money. I'm talking about real people with real aspirations and some bad luck. I'm talking about people that got sent to an inner-city school, got a degree (IOW, did what they were told), and can't pass the entrance exams for college. I'm talking about the single mom that is so busy working two jobs with no benefits to pay the bills, she doesn't have the time or energy to better herself through education. I'm talking about the guy with a wife, three kids, a mortgage and two car payments that just got pink-slipped from a skill-specific job. I'm talking about the guy whose house and everything he owned burned to the ground, only to get shafted by some insurance company double-talk. Now he can't afford to rebuild and since he just got pink-slipped too, he can't get a mortgage or even pay rent to put a roof over his 6 kids' heads. WTF is he supposed to do? Sit and spin? I know all of those people, they aren't made-up. They are actual living breathing friends of mine. There are millions of others just like them that aren't looking to make a living off of the gubment. They just need a break.

Are you willing to look those people in the eye and say "Tough shit. You have no intrinsic value?"

See, the problen is that as good as all your idealistic talk might be, it leaves out one major element - humanity. They. Those people. Them. By de-humanizing them you easily dismiss them as worthless and unworthy of your regard. But not one of them woke up one day and said "Here's a great idea...I'm just going to live in poverty the rest of my life."

__________________
Tax & Spend > Borrow & Spend

I reject your reality and substitute my own.

Every feeling you've ever felt can be found in the works of Beethoven, Bruckner, Mahler, and Wagner.

Ok, lets start over, or at least back track a bit. I get the feeling that we're missing certain points or values that we each hold. I think that you think I'm a little more cold hearted than I am, and that I think you're more irrationally altruistic than you really are. Rather than go back and forth like this, I'll give you my basic idea of how this country is supposed to be, and should be, run, and you can tell me if I still seem like an arrogant prick. (I never would have pegged you as someone old enough to be my dad by the way.)

I believe in limited government. As far as taxes and government spending go I think that we should abolish the income tax, be taxed less in general, and that the government should spend less. In fact, the main reason I think we should get out of Iraq is a fiscal one.

I think that for the most part, the government should stay out of the economy. I believe that there should be common sense regulations, but nothing too intrusive, regulations against dumping all kinds of pollution in rivers and the air, etc. are good. I think that allowing the government to set minimum wage is retarded.

Government altruism. I said earlier that I believed it unfair for money that I have earned to go to people who have done nothing to earn it. I still believe this and will always believe it. But I'm not a heartless bastard. I have no problem with tax money going to support the elderly, the mentally disabled, or the handicapped. Paying people to sit on their asses and have babies is ridiculous. The government loves creating bureaucracies but some how they can not manage to hire people to go out and judge whether or not these moochers should be receiving money.

I'll have to finish this up later. I guess if you want you can go ahead and comment on this or wait till I finish. I didn't really get too far though.

__________________
Neither am I the means to any end others may wish to accomplish. I am not a tool for their use. I am not a servant of their needs. I am not a bandage for their wounds. I am not a sacrifice on their altars. ... I owe nothing to my brothers, nor do I gather debts from them. I ask no one to live for me, nor do I live for others. I covet no mans soul, nor is my soul theirs to covet.

Ayn Rand, Anthem.

Abolish income tax? You either fail to recognize the benefits you receive from taxes or just expect those things to be provided to you for free.

If you want to live tax free, move to any nation in Africa or any third world country. You'll soon see what taxes pay for. (Don't forget to boil the water.)

I'm sure that banks once agreed with you. Same with mortgage and lending grps. (Talk about tanking our economy. )

Bank Woes are Poetic Justice

The woes in the U.S. financial sector are "poetic justice" for bankers who designed and sold complex investments that have since gone sour, billionaire investor Warren Buffett said on Wednesday.
Buffett, one of the world's wealthiest people, appeared to see irony in the fact that many of the banks who marketed complex investments which have now crashed are bearing much of the fallout.

"It's sort of a little poetic justice, in that the people that brewed this toxic Kool-Aid found themselves drinking a lot of it in the end," he said.


About the original topic:

I think the main thing that has so impressed me about Obama is that he doesn't so much as say "he" will do this or that, instead, it's "we..."

Which is telling us that our problem hasn't been our leaders so much as it is "us" that's the problem.

And that just resonates with me.

I don't know if his ideas are doable. But he makes me want to believe he can be trusted to make the attempt, to try and see if they'll work.

And if they don't, Obama makes me want to believe it was worth a shot...for "our" sake.

I'll just keep this simple here. You say that my idea on small government supporters is wrong because it's just my opinion. Well it's not just my opinion. So called small government supporters favor a large government (outlawing gay marriage, abortion and drugs) when it suits them and a small government (on social programs and taxes) when it suits them. Therefore, they are not genuine to their own ideals and are hypocrites and they are not really small government supporters. For most people who talk about small government, it is just empty rhetoric to advance an agenda.

As for yourself, I think you are sincere in your beliefs, just misguided.


WEB

__________________
Formerly W.E.B. Du Bois (you can still call me "WEB")

Current Diplomacy thread
WEB Music Playlist
Protest Animal Cruelty

If someone believes in big government policies like the ones you stated above, then they are not supporters of limited government.... regardless of what they say.


Thanks a lot.

__________________
Neither am I the means to any end others may wish to accomplish. I am not a tool for their use. I am not a servant of their needs. I am not a bandage for their wounds. I am not a sacrifice on their altars. ... I owe nothing to my brothers, nor do I gather debts from them. I ask no one to live for me, nor do I live for others. I covet no mans soul, nor is my soul theirs to covet.

Ayn Rand, Anthem.

Welcome to the conservative base, my friend.