The conspiracy of the necessity of government

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: yuppa

How does slowly phased out work? Who picks up the slack as you taper off the government assistance? Are you going to say charities like the OP? Like that is magically capable of covering the all these things.

Let's look at like this. If we taper off government assistance or just turn the tap off altogether, it is going to leave people with terrible paying jobs without the means of support. These companies that pay the terrible wages aren't going to magically change their ways and pay them more. So what's going to happen is that these people will turn around and revolt. Things will get messy really quick. And to top if off, IF there are still government services left (say at the state level), it will side with the businesses instead of the people revolting because they don't have a decent wage to live with.

Federal government expansion cannot continue and must be brought to heel.

Therefore, it would be the most cruel to allow the welfare recipients to continue to operate under the false premise that their needs can and will be taken care of by the federal government in perpetuity.

It is not true.

a reply to: greencmp

Well until the government decides to rein in some of its over reach in the business sector and military sector, I don't want them to touch social support.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Well this topic was started to talk about no government, not libertarianism. If you wanted to change the topic of conversation, you should have mentioned that instead of making it appear like you are moving the goal posts all of a sudden.

You want a dictatorship, how reorienting is that?

The whole notion of freedom and liberty is self governing and self determination, not kingdoms, fiefdoms, Oligarchy, democracies, dictatorships, whatever…

The primary problem that has developed over time is people haven't been educated on the intent behind the framing of the Constitution enough to know the difference between what they are supposed to have and what they got.

All those de educated generations have now grown up, are running things into the ground, full steam ahead.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: yuppa

How does slowly phased out work? Who picks up the slack as you taper off the government assistance? Are you going to say charities like the OP? Like that is magically capable of covering the all these things.

Let's look at like this. If we taper off government assistance or just turn the tap off altogether, it is going to leave people with terrible paying jobs without the means of support. These companies that pay the terrible wages aren't going to magically change their ways and pay them more. So what's going to happen is that these people will turn around and revolt. Things will get messy really quick. And to top if off, IF there are still government services left (say at the state level), it will side with the businesses instead of the people revolting because they don't have a decent wage to live with.

Without the feds backing up these companies they will be brought to heel. And a phase out would take YEARS im not talking one or ten. a t least 2 decades or so. Currently we do not have a constitutional government seeing as how the states do not control what they should. The sheeple are just do indoctrinated to understand. Also we already have terrible paying jobs WITH the feds in charge and no support so what would b e different?

@dawnstar. Evetually th e States would had built a good highway system to make more money.

a reply to: Shamrock6

I'm sorry, you kind of lostt me at…

…magical land of unicorns and fairy dust…

a reply to: intrptr

Except and only during war when a ten percent tax is collected.

the only thing that would resolve would be that we would always be at war!! remember good ole new gingrich's contract with america? part of it was that there'd be a balanced budget unless we were in war.... it's amazing that one of the first things that happened when a republican entered the office was hey, we are at war!

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Well this topic was started to talk about no government, not libertarianism. If you wanted to change the topic of conversation, you should have mentioned that instead of making it appear like you are moving the goal posts all of a sudden.

You want a dictatorship, how reorienting is that?

When did I say or even imply such a thing?

The whole notion of freedom and liberty is self governing and self determination, not kingdoms, fiefdoms, Oligarchy, democracies, dictatorships, whatever…

So are you arguing in favor of anarchy or democracy here?

The primary problem that has developed over time is people haven't been educated on the intent behind the framing of the Constitution enough to know the difference between what they are supposed to have and what they got.

All those de educated generations have now grown up, are running things into the ground, full steam ahead.

The primary problem is that I'm not sure you know the difference between Libertarianism and anarchy.

a reply to: yuppa

Oh, your solution is a long term solution that requires each subsequent generation of politicians be on board with this policy.

I hope you know that one of the reasons that our government tends to come up with #ty solutions is because our politicians only think in the short term. It's one of the drawbacks of the system we designed.

a reply to: yuppa
maybe so, but would they have been able to coordinate their efforts enough to actually have those systems link up effectively? like I pointed out, the counties in NY can't even coordinate with each other when it comes to snow removal in the winter time.....

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: yuppa

Oh, your solution is a long term solution that requires each subsequent generation of politicians be on board with this policy.

I hope you know that one of the reasons that our government tends to come up with #ty solutions is because our politicians only think in the short term. It's one of the drawbacks of the system we designed.

Exactly. We used to think long term though. W e need to get back to that solution is to put non negotiable and changable things in place to force them to think long term again. Ripping the fed funds off any faster would kill th e country for sure.

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: yuppa
maybe so, but would they have been able to coordinate their efforts enough to actually have those systems link up effectively? like I pointed out, the counties in NY can't even coordinate with each other when it comes to snow removal in the winter time.....

Thats because they have grown lazy and stupid since th e feds have been doing it for them.

a reply to: yuppa

When did we use to think long term? I can't think of a single time during American history where that was the case. Heck the American Civil War happened because politicians kept playing "Kick the Can" with the slavery issue until it blew up in everyone's face, and that issue started with the creation of the country.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: greencmp

Well until the government decides to rein in some of its over reach in the business sector and military sector, I don't want them to touch social support.

On an emotional level I can sympathize but, economically speaking, it really isn't good for people to be encouraged not to be productive.

There certainly are people who need the assistance that families and friends used to provide, I suggest we reconsider that mechanism rather than increase both the quantity and scope of subsidy as we continue to do.

I'll trade you the F-35 "mistake" for HHS fraudulent payments. Each of which cost us $100 billion last year.

Imagine what we could do if we addressed the supposedly non-fraudulent budget.

a reply to: greencmp

they need to put into place some incentives for businesses to pay a decent wage before they go stripping any of the safety net! otherwise what you are gonna end up with is all these businesses will be force to choose between paying their workforce more money or not having a workforce period! because, people ain't gonna work for the priviledge of being homeless and hungry! heck they can do better than that by just claiming a piece of federal land (who cares what the laws say) and live on what nature provides (who cares about fish and game, or building codes, or anything else!) remember those laws that the gov't imposes also kind of confine us into the employer/employee relationship.

a reply to: greencmp

I'm not AGAINST reducing social spending, I'm just against slashing it before slashing those other things.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Fact: The Federal Government is the largest consumer of goods and services in the country. Thousands of small businesses rely on orders from government agencies through their contracts. The airline and hotel industry relies heavily on the Federal workforce each year. Government contracts make up a certain percentage of many companies bottom line profits.

Also, when the government shuts down, Congress continues to get paid (by law) work stacks up, and ultimately, the federal employees who were furloughed during said shutdown all get back pay (always voted on unanimously by Congress) with many getting quite a bit of overtime to get the backlog of work created by the shutdown, processed.

So, who does a shutdown hurt? Small business, large business, regular people who work for said businesses. The longer a shutdown lasts, the more likely that people far removed from government work will be laid off.

a reply to: yuppa

the only time the feds have taken over country roads is when an emergency has been declared...if then....
nope, that wasn't it...
what was it was that the federal gov't, under bush, decided that they would cut the funding for the medicaid and medicare....leaving the state and counties to make up the difference... the state passed much of that difference onto the county, which well, proceeded to raise taxes and increase the fees for all kinds of services they were providing. they also cut the money going to the department of public works, which then proceeded to not allow the road crews to get any overtime....
so well, just about all the plows were pulled off the road around four or five and the roads were left to accumulate snow till 7 or so in the morning!!

the people in ny about revolted over this, along with the people of many states, and well, that was when bush came out with his "ownership society" and his administration along with the fed encouraged (and made it much easier) home ownership...which well, the resulting housing boom did raise the property values and thus the taxes collected on those properties.....which alleviated much of the problems that resulted from the cut in the funding of healthcare.
but well, it also led to the eventual housing bust, didn't it?

Now if we are talking about the United States government simply shutting down for good? That's a simple answer. Global economic collapse (not hyperbole) the likes you would never want to experience, followed quickly by the U.S.A. being invaded by China, who would then show you exactly how good you had it with the old government...

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: greencmp

they need to put into place some incentives for businesses to pay a decent wage before they go stripping any of the safety net! otherwise what you are gonna end up with is all these businesses will be force to choose between paying their workforce more money or not having a workforce period! because, people ain't gonna work for the priviledge of being homeless and hungry! heck they can do better than that by just claiming a piece of federal land (who cares what the laws say) and live on what nature provides (who cares about fish and game, or building codes, or anything else!) remember those laws that the gov't imposes also kind of confine us into the employer/employee relationship.

The problem I find is that this is a fundamentally economic question and that the conversation inevitably degenerates into emotionalism.

Not sure where to go from here.

One possible avenue for me is to respond with reciprocal emotionalism, there are plenty of examples to pull at your heart strings effectively but, that would be manipulative. It is the intellectual argument that must be conveyed adequately in order for anyone to properly consider the ultimate cost of traveling down the path to totalitarian socialism, a state of society for which we have ample evidence is undesirable.

In the end, if you, along with your family and friends, retain your income and can apply it as needed to your (perhaps cumulative) needs, you would likely be better off than relying on a bureaucracy to sustain your very lives.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: greencmp

I'm not AGAINST reducing social spending, I'm just against slashing it before slashing those other things.

I would accept a bean for bean cut with enthusiasm.