Grassroots Motorsports

Subscribe get a full year for only $19.95 Sample get a free issue—no strings attached

Login to post Forums » Off-topic discussion » Why I hate the government

1 2 3 4

Nov. 6, 2009 12:50 p.m. GlennS HalfDork

tuna55 wrote:

I actually agree that the federal government should not run schools

Im glad your not in charge of national policy making decisions. You would destroy this country far more efficently than the people currently in charge.
Nov. 6, 2009 12:54 p.m. NYG95GA SuperDork

The Constitution did have a number of articles addressing cellular phones, so it seems to be an open and shut case against the right to own and bear them.

I have some neighbors who have aquired some of these freebie phones, and they tell me that they "only" get 68 minutes per month on them. They are rollover minutes, so if they can go awhile without using them, they end up with quite a few.

Me? I'll just forego the free phone, and hold onto my .357 and 12 guage...
Nov. 6, 2009 12:54 p.m. alfadriver HalfDork

Not unconstitutional- Article 1, section 8-

"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;"

It does say general Welfare, which is up to Congress to interpret.

You may trying reading yourself.

Eric
Nov. 6, 2009 1:00 p.m. GlennS HalfDork

lol
Nov. 6, 2009 1:30 p.m. tuna55 Reader

The "general welfare" statement is broadly disputed by both sides. Modern day congress obviously agrees with you all, but I side with folks that actually were around when the thing was written, like Jefferson and Madison.

I would argue that the constitution itself is quite anti-federalist in nature, in general. The term 'welfare', it would follow, doesn't mean "provide for whatever the heck congress thinks you might want".
Nov. 6, 2009 1:47 p.m. Bobzilla HalfDork

GlennS wrote:

tuna55 wrote:

I actually agree that the federal government should not run schools

Im glad your not in charge of national policy making decisions. You would destroy this country far more efficently than the people currently in charge.

REally? You sure? They seem to be doing a pretty efficient job. Have you seen the stupidity that is the NCLB act? Trust me when I say it's doing more harm than good at this point. Politicians in Washington have no clue how to run a school in Poduck, USA. Shoot, most can't balance their own check book.
Nov. 6, 2009 2:06 p.m. tuna55 Reader

NYG95GA wrote:

The Constitution did have a number of articles addressing cellular phones, so it seems to be an open and shut case against the right to own and bear them.

Let's keep in mind that constitution is a list of things that the government can do. Literally, if it isn't on the list, it can't be done by the federal government. The 10th amendment explicitly states that.
Nov. 6, 2009 2:29 p.m. Bobzilla HalfDork

So we need to think of the Constituion like the SCCA Rulebook. If it doesn't say you can, then get your damn fingers out of my wallet.... or somethign similar.
Nov. 6, 2009 2:31 p.m. tuna55 Reader

Bobzilla wrote:

So we need to think of the Constituion like the SCCA Rulebook. If it doesn't say you can, then get your damn fingers out of my wallet.... or somethign similar.

++ Grahams number

Amen.
Nov. 6, 2009 2:35 p.m. GlennS HalfDork

Bobzilla wrote:

GlennS wrote:

tuna55 wrote:

I actually agree that the federal government should not run schools

Im glad your not in charge of national policy making decisions. You would destroy this country far more efficently than the people currently in charge.

REally? You sure? They seem to be doing a pretty efficient job. Have you seen the stupidity that is the NCLB act? Trust me when I say it's doing more harm than good at this point. Politicians in Washington have no clue how to run a school in Poduck, USA. Shoot, most can't balance their own check book.

Maybe i should have pulled Tuna55's entire quote over for people who dont want to follow the entire conversation. Tuna said the federal government should not run schools because he thinks that they are unconstitutional. I take that to mean that he doesnt support any government involvement in schools including funding them.

NCLB is an attempt at quantifying the effectiveness of each school and holding schools accountable that continualy under achieve. Maybe you dont like it, thats cool, at least the federal government is trying to demand results for the money its spending.

Defunding schools because you think they are unconstitutional is a horrible idea.

The idea that NCLB will destroy this nation is laughable at best.
Nov. 6, 2009 2:44 p.m. tuna55 Reader

GlennS wrote:

Defunding schools because you think they are unconstitutional is a horrible idea.

Wrap your head around this. The federal government funds things WITH YOUR MONEY. They don't make any money - they don't have any money of their own. They do this inefficiently, and add tons of corrupt middle men on the way. If they gave it back to you, you could fund the schools when you used them - weird concept.

Pulling federal funding out of schools (where is my "does not equal" button?) DNE defunding anything!!!
Nov. 6, 2009 3:03 p.m. Bobzilla HalfDork

GlennS wrote:

Maybe i should have pulled Tuna55's entire quote over for people who dont want to follow the entire conversation. Tuna said the federal government should not run schools because he thinks that they are unconstitutional. I take that to mean that he doesnt support any government involvement in schools including funding them.

NCLB is an attempt at quantifying the effectiveness of each school and holding schools accountable that continualy under achieve. Maybe you dont like it, thats cool, at least the federal government is trying to demand results for the money its spending.

Defunding schools because you think they are unconstitutional is a horrible idea.

The idea that NCLB will destroy this nation is laughable at best.

I know this may be hard to comprehend, but a person of my meager education can follow an in depth conversation like this. I know.... usually these are reserved for the more intelligent people amongst the masses. Believe it or not I was trying to offer a little humor with that. But apparently that is not allowed.

NCLB is one of the lamest attempts to make the politicans look like they're doing something. Doing something, anything for the sake of saying that you're doing something is not always a smart thing to do.... in other words don't just do SOMETHING, do the RIGHT thing. Politicians involved in the day to day of public schools would never be considered the right thing. In fact, they've hindered and restrained more schools from achieving higher goals because of it.
Nov. 6, 2009 3:48 p.m. Snowdoggie HalfDork

Bobzilla wrote:

So we need to think of the Constituion like the SCCA Rulebook. If it doesn't say you can, then get your damn fingers out of my wallet.... or somethign similar.

I think that the SCCA should keep its damn fingers off of my wallet as well. Their yearly dues are WAY too high.

And since there is nothing in the United States Constitution about the SCCA or Cell Phones, I demand my God given right to drive my race car on the track while texting on my cell phone!!!!!!

Or something like that.

Bloody well right!!!!

God save the Queen!!!!!!!
Nov. 6, 2009 3:59 p.m. aircooled SuperDork

tuna55 wrote:

....Pulling federal funding out of schools (where is my "does not equal" button?) DNE defunding anything!!!

I think we (you) need to clarify this. Are you talking about pulling ONLY federal money out of schools and not State money? Or are you saying NO government involvement in schools (state and federal).

The reason I ask is (I don't really know but) I don't think there is a huge amount of federal money put into local schools, I believe it is mostly state money. Now if you want to de-fund schools from a state and federal level, you will very likely create some pretty bad side effects..
Nov. 6, 2009 5:10 p.m. GlennS HalfDork

tuna55 wrote:

GlennS wrote:

Defunding schools because you think they are unconstitutional is a horrible idea.

Wrap your head around this. The federal government funds things WITH YOUR MONEY. They don't make any money - they don't have any money of their own. They do this inefficiently, and add tons of corrupt middle men on the way. If they gave it back to you, you could fund the schools when you used them - weird concept.

Pulling federal funding out of schools (where is my "does not equal" button?) DNE defunding anything!!!

tons of corrupt middle men on the way! That sounds like the insurance industry! zing /sarcasm

I think DNE is =/=

Privatizing schools would create a situation where a large percentage of the population wouldnt be able to afford to educate their children effectively creating a permanent underclass.

Sorry to bobzilla, i was being a dick.
Nov. 6, 2009 5:12 p.m. GlennS HalfDork

aircooled wrote:

tuna55 wrote:

....Pulling federal funding out of schools (where is my "does not equal" button?) DNE defunding anything!!!

I think we (you) need to clarify this. Are you talking about pulling ONLY federal money out of schools and not State money? Or are you saying NO government involvement in schools (state and federal).

The reason I ask is (I don't really know but) I don't think there is a huge amount of federal money put into local schools, I believe it is mostly state money. Now if you want to de-fund schools from a state and federal level, you will very likely create some pretty bad side effects..

Lower income areas recieve a larger share of the federal money being spent which are also the schools most affected by NCLB. Dont meet your NCLB requirement and you loose you federal funding or face having your administration and faculty replaced.
Nov. 6, 2009 5:38 p.m. ignorant PowerDork

stop spending money on everything.. .

Private companies can do better.

ohh do you really think they can do better? I got $8k in excess and now obsolete face mill inserts in one tiny cabinet in one tiny part of my plant. If I started adding it up, just in say the whole cabinet, I'd say I have over $50k in old and now worthless tooling in a cabinet. Now what if I started adding it up for my other cabinets, cells, business units, and plant wide??? BTW, this is a fortune 50 company. Also as a point of reference, It is the best run company I have ever seen.

The point is, we're human and we make mistakes. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Nov. 6, 2009 6:00 p.m. stuart in mn SuperDork

Snowdoggie wrote: And since there is nothing in the United States Constitution about the SCCA or Cell Phones, I demand my God given right to drive my race car on the track while texting on my cell phone!!!!!!

You just know there's someone somewhere who made a call while they were on the track.
Nov. 6, 2009 8:34 p.m. tuna55 Reader

I am simply saying that some very smart folks wrote the constitution that didn't think the government would be able to run these things any better. The crux that I see, and it isn't by any means the only, or the best argument, is that with a government that gets corrupt and starts appointing people that aren't elected and putting them on the payroll (like the Czars started by Reagan and exploded by Bush and then even more by Obama (all the while criticizing Bush for those very activities), but on all levels, not just the executive branch) the less you, the citizen can do about it, and the less you are correctly represented by your government. The government is intended to be of, by and for the people, after all.

I very explicitly said that education should not be run by the FEDERAL government. The state governments are free to operate within their own constitutions. See the tenth amendment. This leads me to my next point.

If a company really does get corrupt, they rather quickly go out of business (this is assuming, of course, that they don't get giant tax breaks that other companies don't have access to, they don't get 'bailed out' and they don't have some sugar daddy politician getting them sweet deals) to make room for better run companies. You almost always have a choice, even while corrupt companies are in the marketplace. You don't have that choice if the federal government goes corrupt (other than leaving the country, which obviously means you are no longer protected by the constitution, which ruins the point) for instance, my wife and I don't shop at Walmart because we don't agree with the way they run their company.
Nov. 6, 2009 10:02 p.m. alfadriver HalfDork

tuna55 wrote:

The "general welfare" statement is broadly disputed by both sides. Modern day congress obviously agrees with you all, but I side with folks that actually were around when the thing was written, like Jefferson and Madison.

I would argue that the constitution itself is quite anti-federalist in nature, in general. The term 'welfare', it would follow, doesn't mean "provide for whatever the heck congress thinks you might want".

As do the courts for the past 80 years. You'd think by now that with the big $$ that seem so offended by it, they'd be able to mount a decent challenge.

Or is the real answer that they rant and rave, fully knowing that it's 100% legal and constitutional, just to make people like you mad.

Of course, if we are going to argue that they could not ever have thought of cell phones, then one could make the exact same argument about automatic weapons. Although I wont.

But I suppose if you want to rant and rave about not wanting to help your fellow Americans due to the worst 1% that you observe, you are completely in your right to do so. BTW, for those of you who are that against it, did any of you serve in the military?
Nov. 6, 2009 10:06 p.m. alfadriver HalfDork

tuna55 wrote:

If a company really does get corrupt, they rather quickly go out of business (this is assuming, of course, that they don't get giant tax breaks that other companies don't have access to, they don't get 'bailed out' and they don't have some sugar daddy politician getting them sweet deals) to make room for better run companies. You almost always have a choice, even while corrupt companies are in the marketplace. You don't have that choice if the federal government goes corrupt (other than leaving the country, which obviously means you are no longer protected by the constitution, which ruins the point) for instance, my wife and I don't shop at Walmart because we don't agree with the way they run their company.

LOL!!!! Yes, that's exactly how it works. After the government has to step in and break up the illegal monopoly that many of these corrupt companies set up.

The nice thing about if people in the government go corrupt- we can vote them out. Which does happen. Or they go to jail, which also does happen (see the great Vietnam War Veteran, one of the aces of aces, Duke Cunningham).
Nov. 7, 2009 5:41 p.m. tuna55 Reader

alfadriver wrote:

tuna55 wrote:

If a company really does get corrupt, they rather quickly go out of business (this is assuming, of course, that they don't get giant tax breaks that other companies don't have access to, they don't get 'bailed out' and they don't have some sugar daddy politician getting them sweet deals) to make room for better run companies. You almost always have a choice, even while corrupt companies are in the marketplace. You don't have that choice if the federal government goes corrupt (other than leaving the country, which obviously means you are no longer protected by the constitution, which ruins the point) for instance, my wife and I don't shop at Walmart because we don't agree with the way they run their company.

LOL!!!! Yes, that's exactly how it works. After the government has to step in and break up the illegal monopoly that many of these corrupt companies set up.

The nice thing about if people in the government go corrupt- we can vote them out. Which does happen. Or they go to jail, which also does happen (see the great Vietnam War Veteran, one of the aces of aces, Duke Cunningham).

Not only can you not vote out everyone corrupt in the government, but the incidence of a small, out-of-nowhere company taking on the big dogs is much higher than the same thing in politics.

I am starting to see why you and I don't agree in other posts now. Greed over money is easy to understand, to fight, and to fix. Politicians don't care too much about money, they care about power. Power is hugely different. You can't wrestle it out of their hands when they have it, and power enables them to brainwash people into thinking that they are the good guys, and they're "here to help" against those nasty (insert popular big business here).
Nov. 7, 2009 8:02 p.m. oldsaw HalfDork

ignorant wrote:

The point is, we're human and we make mistakes. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

This..... is a good argument against "health-care reform".

But the idea of the gummint providing free cell phones to some people makes sense, and it's it a damn sight cheaper, too.
Nov. 7, 2009 8:54 p.m. ignorant PowerDork

oldsaw wrote:

ignorant wrote:

The point is, we're human and we make mistakes. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

This..... is a good argument against "health-care reform".

It could be used as an argument for reform and not overhaul...
Nov. 8, 2009 9:57 a.m. alfadriver HalfDork

tuna55 wrote:

Not only can you not vote out everyone corrupt in the government, but the incidence of a small, out-of-nowhere company taking on the big dogs is much higher than the same thing in politics.

I am starting to see why you and I don't agree in other posts now. Greed over money is easy to understand, to fight, and to fix. Politicians don't care too much about money, they care about power. Power is hugely different. You can't wrestle it out of their hands when they have it, and power enables them to brainwash people into thinking that they are the good guys, and they're "here to help" against those nasty (insert popular big business here).

??? We have periodic elections. If the news does its job, we find out who is corrupt, and they are voted out. That's the point of the voting.

Your problem is that you think the other reps are corrupt, and not the ones you vote for, which is flawed.

Money = power. Simple as that.

Not all politicians or govenment workers are so dedicated toward power- many are actually trying to look out for the common person, the environment, etc- I know a lot of govenment workers personally, they are all in it to help the country, not in the intrest of making power and scewing the general public.

You see the small part of corruption, and assume that it represents the entire govenment. Just like you see the small amount of people on welfare and govenment assistance who are taking advantage of it and ignoring the ones who have no short term alterntative.

I'm so sick of hearing the "govenment is useless" mantra, it makes me sick. Especially since the most recent movement started under Regan/Bush, which was also the largest expanse of govenment in most of history. What I'm starting to see is that there's bills passed to start a program, and then there's an effort to underfund that exact progam so that it looks usless, and then it can be labled as ineffective government.

Look at the roads, great system of large highways that stretch all over the country. And then funding has been slowly bleed dry so that roads and bridges are not properly maintained. Then bridges have to be closed, sometimes too late, and "government" gets blamed for not doing their job, when, in fact, the legislature didn't fund it. There's this endless fascination with lower lower taxes which totally ignores the maintenece that it takes to keep a country running- schools, roads, bridges, sewers, air, water, etc.

BTW, you still have not cited where welfare is unconistutional, whereas I posted where it is.

Eric

1 2 3 4

You'll need to log in to post.