Lakoff: Why Extreme Conservatives Like the Sequester

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 06:53 PM
link   
From: www.alternet.org...


Progressives tend to believe that democracy is based on citizens caring for their fellow citizens through what the government provides for all citizens — public infrastructure, public safety, public education, public health, publicly-sponsored research, public forms of recreation and culture, publicly-guaranteed safety nets for those who need them, and so on. In short, progressives believe that the private depends on the public, that without those public provisions Americans cannot be free to live reasonable lives and to thrive in private business. They believe that those who make more from public provisions should pay more to maintain them.

Ultra-conservatives don’t believe this. They believe that Democracy gives them the liberty to seek their own self-interests by exercising personal responsibility, without having responsibility for anyone else or anyone else having responsibility for them. They take this as a matter of morality. They see the social responsibility to provide for the common good as an immoral imposition on their liberty.

Their moral sense requires that they do all they can to make the government fail in providing for the common good. Their idea of liberty is maximal personal responsibility, which they see as maximal privatization — and profitization — of all that we do for each other together, jointly as a unified nation.

They also believe that if people are hurt by government failure, it is their own fault for being “on the take” instead of providing for themselves. People who depend on public provisions should suffer. They should have rely on themselves alone — learn personal responsibility, just as Romney said in his 47 percent speech. In the long run, they believe, the country will be better off if everyone has to depend on personal responsibility alone.

Moreover, ultra-conservatives do not see all the ways in which they, and other ultra-conservatives, rely all day every day on what other Americans have supplied for them. They actually believe that they built it all by themselves.


A rather long quote from the article but I think one that deserves some disscussion here on ATS, particularly the last paragraph. I have had this discussion with blue collar conservatives and have never been able to show them how society benefits them and that they are truely not voting in their own personal interest. The preceeding paragraphs in George Lakoff's essay help me understand why.

A couple of quotes from "The Evolving Self" by Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi also help explain how powerful a person's cultural identity is (i.e. conservative, liberal, christian, any group one (or wants to) belongs to:

From page 70 "The sense of importance and invulnerabilty (and I would add infallability) one gets from one's culture is illusory but convincing."

The key word in the above is ILLUSORY.

From page 71 "Cultural loyalties often push people to act with even greater disregard for their best interest than genetic instructions do."

Warning of the dangers of too much identification with one's groups, the author tells us on page 72, "A person who invests psychic energy exclusively in goals prescribed by society is forfeiting the possibiity of choice".

I recall, as a teen, when I finally understood that my parents weren't always right (figured out teachers weren't infallable at a younger age) and that they were just telling me there opinion of the facts and their beliefs about what was right. I understood how personal and subjective - AND TOPICAL - such decrees were. I remember being slaped (the only time) by my mother when I told her it was only her opinion and I was of another and both were valid.

We have physical (genetic) imperatives, we have cultural (learned) impoerative and we have personal (also learned) ego imperative all seeking their own survival. If we don't learn to see how these impertives work in our value and decision making then we are Slaves and have little control over our lives.

Conservatives by common definition are "seeking to conserve freedom" but how can one conserve what one doesn't have?




posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 07:15 PM
link   



A better question is why are libs against it? After all it was Obama's idea. Now it's not a good idea?

Oh another question is why does $85billion make a difference in a "budget" (I use that therm loosely as there is no budget) that exceeds $1.5trillion? This is a scam but I can't figure out what it is yet.
edit on 26-2-2013 by Bilk22 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 07:23 PM
link   
I suggest you put on a thinking cap and see that progressives have never supported "poor people" and minorities. And ESPECIALLY not democracy. Look to the early history of progressivism when it was more honest. Progressivism is about 1 thing: Central management by elites.
Central management cannot work if regular people have any power.
John Meynard Keynes, the father of progressive economics, was very clear about what his policies were intended to do: Ensure bankers and "the intelligentsia" organize and manage the working class, who are not intelligent enough to govern themselves.
When Woodrow Wilson, the first progressive President, jailed the socialist Eugene Debs, it was because Debs actually believed in the tenets of socialism, before "progressivism" adopted the more subtle tactics of pretending it was similar to socialism. They eventually realized that you must lull the sheep to sleep an/or fatten them up before you sheer.
Eugenics is the brainchild of progressives in the early 20th century. When Hitler took that principle to its logical extreme, it became a bit gauche, but still finds a place through policies such as abortion.

Liberals have become nothing more than useful idiots for a powerful clique of propagandists, bizarre ideologues, and ultra rich elitists.

Please tell me how turning people into wards of the state helps them? It sure helps those who control the levers of the state. Namely high ups in the globalist world of high finance, non governmental organizations, and tax free foundations.

Freedom is very real and it is something that must be protected constantly. Unfortunately, these thugs are mostly controlled by families who see things in a generational light. Incrementalism and gradual degradation of freedom is the tactic of wannabe feudal lords like Rhodes, Rothschild, Rockefeller, Bush, (yes- an extremely progressive family. Neocons and progressives are functionally the same), and a handful more

I can tell you this. I will fight with every fiber of my being against the disgusting, immoral, and idiotic regime that the OP seems to support.



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 10:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bilk22

A better question is why are libs against it? After all it was Obama's idea. Now it's not a good idea?

Oh another question is why does $85billion make a difference in a "budget" (I use that therm loosely as there is no budget) that exceeds $1.5trillion? This is a scam but I can't figure out what it is yet.
edit on 26-2-2013 by Bilk22 because: (no reason given)


It was not my intention to talk about the budget or lack thereof. And I don't understand what was Obama's idea that liberals are against. Are you talking about the sequestation idea that he floated? He has since said that he didn't believe that 'a deal' could not be made. The man is naive.

I wanted to hear about this idea of conservatism and personal responsibility and that conservatives believe that they don't receive anything from the common pot. I even put it in red and still it's not seen.

Color me puzzled.



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 11:04 PM
link   




I am glad you with fight with.... insulting and degroatory language; I just won't pay attention.

None of this was the point I was trying to make (put it in red) that I was hoping to get some answers to and that is how and why conservatives believe that they can be totally self sufficient without the support of a government to provide infrastructure that all (who are able) pay into? Without pooling resources all you have is vieing warloards and everyone (including the man at the top who get's to be afraid 24/7) suffers. Why do conservative believe that suffering is moral?



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 11:26 PM
link   
NO one said they built it themselves but the libs, Do you really think the non producers built anything? The cost of the infrastructure is an ongoing cycle of tax payers efforts, not the poor and defenceless. How the heck did this public machine ever get built, even though it is a horrible joke now that the non producer is running the program. You seem to think that the complete system was funded, built and controlled by one group and taken from them. poor and non producers only bring problems, the producers bring the solutions, the government just screws up the whole thing. When TSHTF, you will see a new side of the non producers, and as the dust settles, maybe a new world can appear.



posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 01:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by FyreByrd
None of this was the point I was trying to make (put it in red) that I was hoping to get some answers to and that is how and why conservatives believe that they can be totally self sufficient without the support of a government to provide infrastructure that all (who are able) pay into? Without pooling resources all you have is vieing warloards and everyone (including the man at the top who get's to be afraid 24/7) suffers. Why do conservative believe that suffering is moral?


I don't consider myself ultra-conservative, but I'll give this one a shot.

I have a small business I started in 1986. Did I build it myself?

Well, I certainly couldn't have done it without suppliers. I certainly couldn't make the materials myself, I bought them. I couldn't do all the work myself, I hired people. I had to transport things to customers, I bought a truck, I couldn't make one. Pay taxes which contribute to railroads, roads, bridges, etc., none of which I could build. When it comes right down to it, I couldn't even make the plastic buttons on my shirt. So, technically, someone else has had a hand in virtually everything I have. I suppose the same is true for 100% of the civilized world, and probably 90% of the uncivilized world. But if I were in a Tom Hanks in Castaway situation, I'm sure my life span would be a lot shorter, but at least I would die without ever hearing the name Honey Boo-Boo, so there are plusses and minuses.

Now, there is one common thing in the above listing. I feel like I contributed to the success of those that contributed to my success. My suppliers got paid, my employees got paid, etc. And I put some work into it myself. When finances permit, I give what I can to Native American charities, Veterans charities, and local police charities. I have a soft spot for those. And I'm a real sucker for a panhandler, maybe too much so. I have no problems with my tax dollars going to help those that can't help themselves. The blind, physically or mentally handicapped, those enduring a prolonged illness, or even somebody who is just temporarily down on their luck. I've been there, I was on food stamps for six months after hernia surgery.

So here is my problem with this "sequester." If we're talking $86 billion, or 2% of proposed spending increases, why is that going to hurt the people in this country that need the government's help the most? Instead of cutting money that really helps Americans, why doesn't Washington just cut back on drones strikes that kill children in the Middle East? We could cut all foreign aid, that would be a big chunk of it. Why not cut back on the money we spend torturing people in Gitmo? You see where I'm going with this, right? The more of my tax money that is actually being spent to help people in this country that really need it, or infrastructure, the better I feel about it. But if a 2% cut in proposed spending increases is going to have that much of an effect on those in this country that need it the most, then what in the heck are we spending that other 98% on? What is wrong with our priorities, here?

As to suffering, is it moral? That's like asking if life is moral. Suffering is part of life. It is life. When a lion eats a zebra, the zebra suffers, but it's not an immoral act by the lion. It's just nature. I suffer, you suffer, everyone suffers. If you don't suffer, you're not alive. Rocks don't suffer. Suffering lets you appreciate how good life can be. Morality is a human thing. Moral humans like to alleviate suffering when we can. The problem we are having now is that moral humans succeed in things like teaching, medicine, and social work. Less moral humans succeed in things like law, banking, and government.



posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 02:12 AM
link   
reply to post by VictorVonDoom
 


:::applaud:::

If I were staff you would have a message in your mailbox giving you one thousand brownie points.

Liberals dont understand that conservatives of your nature contribute more to the less fortunate than they could ever possibly hope to achieve.




posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 03:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Common Good
reply to post by VictorVonDoom
 


:::applaud:::

If I were staff you would have a message in your mailbox giving you one thousand brownie points.

Liberals dont understand that conservatives of your nature contribute more to the less fortunate than they could ever possibly hope to achieve.



I appreciate the support. I really do. But our biggest problem is dividing ourselves with labels like liberal and conservative. I want what's best for America and Americans. So do you, and so does FyreByrd. We're really all on the same side, here. But when we let other people tell us, "Well, those people are like this and those people are like that; you shouldn't listen to them. They are not like us." That is the time when we really need to look at what we want. And really, really listen to what the other people are saying. Then ask ourselves, who is stopping us from getting what we want, and why?

Truth be told, I couldn't give you a textbook definiton of liberal or conservative. I may be one or the other, something elses, or just schizophrenic. All I know is what makes sense to me. And it doesn't make sense to me that a 2% reduction in the increase in government spending should have that much of an effect on infrastructure and the needy when it's not that large a part of the overall federal budget. There is a lot of other crap we could spend less money on without hurting the people that really need it. So why are they trying to sell sequestration by threating to do less for the needy?



posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 07:51 AM
link   
reply to post by teslahowitzer
 



Non-Producer = Useless and should be left to die or better off if not born? Correct? Who gets to decide? You?



posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 08:01 AM
link   




I agree with you and you appear to be the type of conservative that my father was (mother was liberal - and neither all the time) and I thank you for your civil response. Yes suffering is a part of life - however, IMO, we are here to do what we can to alieveate (pardon my spelling) it and it appears to me these modern day, self-discribed, conservative are actively causing suffering to themselves and others by tearing down a system, though flawed, that has evolved over many years and works for more and more people in the west and can provide care for all if, and it's a big if, we want it to.

I think the moral or I prefer ethical point here is whether or not to KNOWINGLY cause suffering to others who are less favored by fortune.



posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 08:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by FyreByrd

Originally posted by Bilk22

A better question is why are libs against it? After all it was Obama's idea. Now it's not a good idea?

Oh another question is why does $85billion make a difference in a "budget" (I use that therm loosely as there is no budget) that exceeds $1.5trillion? This is a scam but I can't figure out what it is yet.
edit on 26-2-2013 by Bilk22 because: (no reason given)


It was not my intention to talk about the budget or lack thereof. And I don't understand what was Obama's idea that liberals are against. Are you talking about the sequestation idea that he floated? He has since said that he didn't believe that 'a deal' could not be made. The man is naive.

I wanted to hear about this idea of conservatism and personal responsibility and that conservatives believe that they don't receive anything from the common pot. I even put it in red and still it's not seen.

Color me puzzled.


As others have already stated, ultra-conservatives do not believe they built everything themselves. That is a label given to them by liberals.

What they do believe is that they have taken advantage of opportunities and through personal responsibility, used what was available to make themselves better. They strived to become something greater than they were.

Liberals/progressives do not share this ideology, they believe the State should help the individual become something greater than what they were and if they fail it is the States job to support that individual whether he tries again or gives up.

Conservatives believe that if a person gives up that they are on their own.



posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 10:29 AM
link   
reply to post by FyreByrd
 


Being a Libertarian with Conservative roots, I will address this.

My rights come from my creator, not Govt. My success and failures are a direct result of my actions. Govt has no business in promoting or trouncing of it either.
Now, I believe in the Country as it was founded, on those laws and principles as well.
What I do on my Property is my business, unless it directly affects someone else in a negative manner that limits their own pursuit of the rights given to them by their creator.

So, this whole idea that Libertarians and Conservatives want no Govt is false. That is the ideals of Anarchists. Most Libertarians and Conservatives understand there is a need for Govt, but as small of a Govt as possible.
As we see today, as govt expands, rights are limited and encroached upon.
We see the need for roads and services and such, just not done from a centralized all knowing Govt. The US was created to establish that the States, counties and towns/cities had the most freedom, with the individual having the top portion of freedom. That has been taken away with the centralization of everything.

The Federal Govt is a necessary evil, and that evil has grown to being something that the masses are dependent upon for almost everything. That is not the way things were designed.


We do not want to see the Govt fail, that us a falsehood. But, I see where most Liberals see it as such, as We want the individual to succeed and thrive, not the Govt.

Make sense?



posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 01:52 PM
link   
reply to post by FyreByrd
 


First off, you posted an opinion piece. This is how the author sees the situation. So it's not factually based on quotes or real data. Secondly, I think the whole sequestration issue is bunk. It's pennies in the pot. If they can't run the country efficiently without these pennies, then something is drastically wrong. That's my opinion on the matter.

For the record, I think both parties are corrupt and morally bankrupt - this from a staunch fiscal conservative. I think both parties are robbing us blind - mostly for the same reasons - pandering to big corporate donors and pandering to their constituencies. Their interests are self-serving no longer represent our collective interests very well.



posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 09:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by macman
reply to post by FyreByrd
 


Being a Libertarian with Conservative roots, I will address this.

So, this whole idea that Libertarians and Conservatives want no Govt is false. That is the ideals of Anarchists. Most Libertarians and Conservatives understand there is a need for Govt, but as small of a Govt as possible.


In response to the above I will quote from a FOX Columnist about the Anarchistic roots of Libertarianism:
From: www.mondopolitico.com...



Drawing upon her deep understanding of the development of Anarchism and Libertarianism, she explains that the term "Libertarian" was first used by Anarchists to describe themselves. She points out that it is the Libertarian Party in the USA which has managed to obfuscate or eliminate the Libertarian Party's connection with Anarchism, thereby confusing the meaning of the term Libertarian. She condemns as unwise the ongoing involvement of some Anarchists with the Libertarian Party.




The Federal Govt is a necessary evil, and that evil has grown to being something that the masses are dependent upon for almost everything. That is not the way things were designed.

We do not want to see the Govt fail, that us a falsehood. But, I see where most Liberals see it as such, as We want the individual to succeed and thrive, not the Govt.

Make sense?


Yes, I see your logic however I think your premise is false. The Federal government is smaller (if you exclude the military portion and we are agreed that function could and should be drastically cut) then at any time in modern (say 20th century forward) history in proportion to population. More people require more people to service legitimate needs (roads, air traffic controls, schools, parks, legal system, etc).

As a simple example looked to the underreprestation of the current poplulation by the current 435 members of the House.

From: www.psmag.com...



But a bigger House also meant a more unwieldy House. And so in 1911, Congress somewhat arbitrarily decided that 435 was enough already and set the number down in a statute. The House had gotten as big as it was going to be.
And so it has been ever since, even as the country has more than tripled in size. The average U.S. congressional district now contains roughly 640,000 citizens, as opposed to about 200,000 in 1911.


What is it that defines fiscal conservativism. My mother considered it being conservative with our own funds and liberal with public funds (an example of externalizing costs as businesses do I suppose).

What is your definition?

I guess it's a matter of what you want to invest money in: People or Things. It may take 5 people at good union jobs to build a car (I have no idea what car building entails) but only 1 high priced robot at the same yearly cost. Which would be better for society - Five healthy and thriving families or profits into the pockets of the robot stock holders. I know it's not that simple. One provides meaningful work and the another higher profits and waste products.

You talk about taking advantage of opportunities and I would say not all people have those opportunities to take. The young people I often work with with college degrees are nearing illerate and have to be told what to do. When I see one that can think, figure things out, and just plain 'gives a d**n', I hang on to them as long as I can but am happy to see them move on when they do. Our young people are being robbed of the opportunities you speak of, though horrible education (I worked my ass off for a good liberal private primary and secondary education for my daughter - no college - she was accepted to every school she applied to and didn't want to go through 'indoctrination' at any college she could afford and is doing very well today - but she is an exception and had tremdous help from her family), lack of family support and frankly lack of opportunity. For minority youngsters the opportunities just don't exsist.

So, if conservates don't want to destroy government, why do they create gridlock in legislation? All this posturing and ranting is harming everyone.

I just don't see how the world (big strong strokes here) could possibly be a better place if we abandon mutual aid (to everyone, black, white, brown, yellow, old, young, intelligent and not-so, able bodied and not).

All I hear from conservative, right, tea-party, libertarian, mouths is WE WILL TAKE CARE OF US And the rest of you better just die. I realize that not all are like this, I know conservatives, libertarians - no tea-party or fascists that I know of - but it's all one hears - all our children hear. The OTHER is bad and therefore not human. This is what I reject.



posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 09:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by FyreByrd
In response to the above I will quote from a FOX Columnist about the Anarchistic roots of Libertarianism:
From: www.mondopolitico.com...

Drawing upon her deep understanding of the development of Anarchism and Libertarianism, she explains that the term "Libertarian" was first used by Anarchists to describe themselves. She points out that it is the Libertarian Party in the USA which has managed to obfuscate or eliminate the Libertarian Party's connection with Anarchism, thereby confusing the meaning of the term Libertarian. She condemns as unwise the ongoing involvement of some Anarchists with the Libertarian Party.



And Traditional Liberals believed in Smaller and less Govt with less control. Seems that the terms have been turn upside-down for a while.



Originally posted by FyreByrd
Yes, I see your logic however I think your premise is false. The Federal government is smaller (if you exclude the military portion and we are agreed that function could and should be drastically cut) then at any time in modern (say 20th century forward) history in proportion to population. More people require more people to service legitimate needs (roads, air traffic controls, schools, parks, legal system, etc).

Excuses ME? You really believe that the Federal Govt is smaller?? You are either being naive in what you read on certain sites, or lying.
We currently have more Fed Govt Agencies then at any other time in history. So no, it is not smaller.
Even the Fed Budget is larger.



Originally posted by FyreByrd
What is it that defines fiscal conservativism. My mother considered it being conservative with our own funds and liberal with public funds (an example of externalizing costs as businesses do I suppose).
What is your definition?

A belief that anyone in charge of funds, be it private or public, needs to not waste it on crap or piss it away.



Originally posted by FyreByrd
I guess it's a matter of what you want to invest money in: People or Things. It may take 5 people at good union jobs to build a car (I have no idea what car building entails) but only 1 high priced robot at the same yearly cost. Which would be better for society - Five healthy and thriving families or profits into the pockets of the robot stock holders. I know it's not that simple. One provides meaningful work and the another higher profits and waste products.

The Govt has no business in "Investing" in any of it. That is where the issue begins.
It is not the business of the Govt to push a company to either have the 5 workers or a robot. It is the business of the Company. The workers need to adapt and change with the working environment.
Under your ideals, we should have subsidized the Ice Man when the refrigerator came into play.



Originally posted by FyreByrd
You talk about taking advantage of opportunities and I would say not all people have those opportunities to take. The young people I often work with with college degrees are nearing illerate and have to be told what to do. When I see one that can think, figure things out, and just plain 'gives a d**n', I hang on to them as long as I can but am happy to see them move on when they do. Our young people are being robbed of the opportunities you speak of, though horrible education (I worked my ass off for a good liberal private primary and secondary education for my daughter - no college - she was accepted to every school she applied to and didn't want to go through 'indoctrination' at any college she could afford and is doing very well today - but she is an exception and had tremdous help from her family), lack of family support and frankly lack of opportunity. For minority youngsters the opportunities just don't exsist.

All thanks to the fed Govt controlling Education.
Again, it is not the business of the Govt to provide people with opportunities. It is up the the person.
Ever thought that the issue is with the "liberal" education?
As the economy goes to crap, and unemployment hangs in real numbers of 14%, all of those grand liberal colleges have the highest tuition of any time and are not only increasing, they are able to send more money to politicians and receive more money from the Fed


Cont,,,,,,,

edit on 28-2-2013 by macman because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 09:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by FyreByrd
So, if conservates don't want to destroy government, why do they create gridlock in legislation? All this posturing and ranting is harming everyone.

Ahhh...Because they don't want the Govt to expand even more...
So, they are supposed to just bend over and take it?
Progressives and Liberals are a silly bunch. They expect everyone to just lie down and take their crap, and then turn around and offer suggestions on what they think will get the others back in power.
Expanding Govt, and more Govt social programs destroy our country.




Originally posted by FyreByrd
I just don't see how the world (big strong strokes here) could possibly be a better place if we abandon mutual aid (to everyone, black, white, brown, yellow, old, young, intelligent and not-so, able bodied and not).

Because the US is not the Nanny for the rest of the world.
Nor as a Citizen, am I responsible for other citizens.
I don't care about other countries. Stop all foreign aid, bring home all the troops and let the others kill themselves.



Originally posted by FyreByrd

All I hear from conservative, right, tea-party, libertarian, mouths is WE WILL TAKE CARE OF US And the rest of you better just die.

That is because you hear it through the filter of Codepink and other Progressive sites.
If the US is responsible for the rest of the world, then bitching and crying that the Military comes in is about as hypocritical as it gets.


Originally posted by FyreByrd
I realize that not all are like this, I know conservatives, libertarians - no tea-party or fascists that I know of - but it's all one hears - all our children hear. The OTHER is bad and therefore not human. This is what I reject.

No, as you have been presented this opposite side many times here.
You are ignoring it.
It is not human to expect others to take care of themselves, without the Govt interjecting in it?
People helping people is Human.
Govt taking from one person to give to another is not. It is theft.

edit on 28-2-2013 by macman because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 09:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by VictorVonDoom

Originally posted by Common Good
reply to post by VictorVonDoom
 


:::applaud:::

If I were staff you would have a message in your mailbox giving you one thousand brownie points.

Liberals dont understand that conservatives of your nature contribute more to the less fortunate than they could ever possibly hope to achieve.



I appreciate the support. I really do. But our biggest problem is dividing ourselves with labels like liberal and conservative. I want what's best for America and Americans. So do you, and so does FyreByrd. We're really all on the same side, here. But when we let other people tell us, "Well, those people are like this and those people are like that; you shouldn't listen to them. They are not like us." That is the time when we really need to look at what we want. And really, really listen to what the other people are saying. Then ask ourselves, who is stopping us from getting what we want, and why?

Truth be told, I couldn't give you a textbook definiton of liberal or conservative. I may be one or the other, something elses, or just schizophrenic. All I know is what makes sense to me. And it doesn't make sense to me that a 2% reduction in the increase in government spending should have that much of an effect on infrastructure and the needy when it's not that large a part of the overall federal budget. There is a lot of other crap we could spend less money on without hurting the people that really need it. So why are they trying to sell sequestration by threating to do less for the needy?


That is SO true.

We could cut probably more than 10% and not touch necessary funding here at home. Support America--not the world.

Around here, we have a big nuclear facility run by the Feds. They are getting ready to furlough everyone for 20% of their pay. It's like the Feds are trying to inflict as much pain as possible on people.

Politics. Blech.



posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 09:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by macman


Originally posted by FyreByrd
Yes, I see your logic however I think your premise is false. The Federal government is smaller (if you exclude the military portion and we are agreed that function could and should be drastically cut) then at any time in modern (say 20th century forward) history in proportion to population. More people require more people to service legitimate needs (roads, air traffic controls, schools, parks, legal system, etc).

Excuses ME? You really believe that the Federal Govt is smaller?? You are either being naive in what you read on certain sites, or lying.
We currently have more Fed Govt Agencies then at any other time in history. So no, it is not smaller.
Even the Fed Budget is larger.

edit on 28-2-2013 by macman because: (no reason given)


A careful read would have shown that I said "in proportion to population".

As an example, in LA we have less police officer's per 100,000 people than 10 years ago, then 20 years ago. The number of officers may be the same (actually less) but they are proportionately responsible for twice as many people. Same with Fire and other services. So - longer response time, more incidents, etc. This is the same at the federal level. Every try calling the IRS - you used to be able to get through to a human now - next to imposible.

And I was excluding the military in my statement as well. And then there's that whole new federal security department that Bush saddled us with called "homeland security". But actual usefull stuff (the stuff that always gets cut) we have a very small government indeed.
edit on 28-2-2013 by FyreByrd because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 09:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by macman

That is because you hear it through the filter of Codepink and other Progressive sites.
If the US is responsible for the rest of the world, then bitching and crying that the Military comes in is about as hypocritical as it gets.


edit on 28-2-2013 by macman because: (no reason given)


I do not hear it through a codepink filter. I've never been to their site - don't know there politics, yadda, yadda. I read and research in sites (and books, magizines and films) of all types and do see the world through my own filter. Do certain places resonate more with me then others? Yes. But I wouldn't be here, if I only spent time on sites that I agreed with. Read "The Filter Bubble" for the danger to independant thought that Google and other 'individualized' search engines pose to the cause of 'freedom' of thought.

I've been known to change my mind and I've been wrong more times then I care to count - but I don't take my ideas and values on faith or authority but on practise and ethics.





new topics
top topics
 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join