Too some best friend , too others worst nightmare

Hi. ATS, Posting the obligatory intro so you can size me up. I am a fiscal conservative and social liberal. I believe in a strong safety net for citizens and much greater taxation on especially the .1% who are making ungodly amounts in capital gains and no production base or other investment in the country from which they reap these profits. I am for an end to corporate personhood and the closing of the tax breaks which have allowed the richest to pay the least or no tax( percentage basis).
I refute the statements of those who think because some get a tax refund they pay no tax with one statement, read your utility bills then go buy some gas and come back saying no tax is paid. I condemn the glutted war machine and the lion's share of resources it consumes and am for funding social programs with a tightly trimmed defense budget
I support the #occupy movement and wonder why there is not even discussion about prosecution of the wall street principles who have recieved the greatest welfare check in history. I am a patriot and I support our young men and women put in harms way on an economic whim.
In short I am not sure how well the fit will be here with some of you but am going to give it a go.
AmericanPitBull

Ron Paul? is that you?

Welcome aboard the crazy train Mr. Pitbull.
Im sure a mod will be along shortly to give you some links to read through regarding our little community.

Have fun, do your research and for the love of humanity..... DONT FEED THE TROLLS !!!

Oh yeah, and dont forget who gave you your first flag.

reply to post by AmericanPitBull


Welcome AmericanPitBull. Hope you enjoy yourself and get something out of the forum. I just joined officially myself last August. It was nice to be a lurker but just couldn't hold my tounge (or fingers? eh whatever) anymore and felt compelled to sign up just to tell others exactly what I thought

Now for a more fitting welcome maybe...

I never understand people who say they are a fiscal conservative and a social liberal, to me that sounds like someone saying I am an orange but I am also a banana. I mean a fiscal conservative is one who advocates the avoidance of deficit spending while a social liberal believes that the government has a large role in providing services funded atleast in practice from deficit spending.

Any thoughts on that? I read how you would fund the spending with cuts to the military and I agree that would make a nice band-aid for the short term but isn't their around $60 trillion or more in unfunded liabilities? Seems short sighted although I would agree a step in the right direction.

I would support a safety net I just don't think the government should run it. I don't understand why people feel like only the government can handle social issues... These programs exist in the first place because people care. Get the government out of the "helping people" business and people will still care. Government is just the current tool being used, get rid of the tool and people will make a new tool to use. I would guess a better one.

Just look at every single government social program and you will see an inefficient, wasteful, bankrupt system. How anyone could support that is beyond me.

Originally posted by sageofmonticello
reply to post by AmericanPitBull

 

Welcome AmericanPitBull. Hope you enjoy yourself and get something out of the forum. I just joined officially myself just a few months or so ago. It was nice to be a lurker but just couldn't hold my tounge (or fingers? eh whatever) anymore and felt compelled to sign up just to tell others exactly what I thought

Now for a more fitting welcome maybe...

I never understand people who say they are a fiscal conservative and a social liberal, to me that sounds like someone saying I am an orange but I am also a banana. I mean a fiscal conservative is one who advocates the avoidance of deficit spending while a social liberal believes that the government has a large role in providing services funded from deficit spending.

> I believe in running things as I have to by budgeting limited resources. I am a relatively financially poor person but i budget my funds so there is money for my personal "social programs". Services do not have to come via deficit spending when we spend more on "defense"( piss poor description of what it really is) than the rest of the world combined. The money is there if it was treated like a family buget instead of a open checkbook. So to answer I believe in a helping hand up that is not holding a gun<

Any thoughts on that? I read how you would fund the spending with cuts to the military and I agree that would make a nice band-aid for the short term but isn't there around $60 trillion or more in unfunded liabilities? Seems short sighted although I would agree a step in the right direction.

>as I said closing the enormous tax loopholes that bleed revenue and produce no benefit. Increased tax on the top tier "job creators" and tax liabilities for not creating jobs on asset shuffling. Severe penalties for american companies for outsourcing and incentives for American jobs. I am no economist but the tally on these alone should put a big plug in the bleeding wound<

I would support a safety net I just don't think the government should run it. I don't understand why people feel like only the government can handle social issues...

> Do you have a viable alternative? Churches like to only help their own flocks, corporations will skim them dry and I do not know of any other organizations neutral enough to do this job for everyone. So in cases like this it falls to government to "promote the general welfare". Another thought was to take corps back to limited scope and duration with no political power as vehicles to administer social programs but it would have to be a publicly held non-profit type system with a citizen board of directors and a strict financial policy<

Hope I addressed the issues clearly from my perspective in my response.
APB

reply to post by AmericanPitBull


Well I have your answer and I respect your right to an opinion but I just have a few issues as to why it still makes little sense to me. You say that the money is there but I just don't see it.

en.wikipedia.org...

Looking at the proposed 2012 federal budget I see $553 billion set for the Dept of defense and $118 billion for overseas contingency (read Iraq/Afghanistan wars, they are not included in the DOD numbers) so this "only" makes for $671 billion. So even if one was to take away every penny planned to go to the DoD and the 2 wars in 2012 it would only make about 50% of the planned deficit for the year. So you would need to double that just to balance the budget and then quadruple that if you wanted to be able to save capital for the $60 trillion in unfunded liabilities and begin to start paying some of the national debt. The money simply is not there.

Don't get me wrong. I want to end the wars and I would much rather see the money go to a cost of living increase for social security or something like that would be good but I just feel like it is not dealing with the problem in a long-term fashion.

As far as my alternative just get the government out and watch the people find ways to help each other. You actually touched on it yourself when you said

vehicles to administer social programs

I actually believe that is the only role for corporations. People should have the right to form private contracts with private corporations to find ways to have things such as unemployment insurance, retirement insurance, medical insurance, etc... Here is the catch though. The corporations will be under yearly government review, function as non-profits. Then we might actually have some of the benefits that our congressmen and women enjoy rather that the crap they feed us.

I might not have all of the answers but I know for a fact that the government being heavily involved is not the answer, just look at the results if you want to know why I feel that way. Their is not one government social program that can be called a success or that isn't bankrupt.

I firmly believe that corporations must demonstrate that they act in the good of the public or should be forced to dissolve. The governments job is to provide oversight, protect contracts and prosecute fraud. They were not created to provide social relief and thus are ill-equipped to do the job well.

Also, I feel you using the general welfare clause to support the validity of social programs doesn't take into account the intent behind the words or the accepted interpretation.

The general welfare clause is mentioned twice in the constitution. Once in the preamble, which the supreme court has ruled is just a list of goals for the constitution and cannot be used for legislation and then again mentioned in section 8 but it was not meant to grant the congress powers that were not delegated to it in the constitution it was meant as a restriction, Its purpose and interpretation is not that congress can legislate for the general welfare but rather that everything that congress does must enhance the general welfare of the USA meaning it can't grant things to individuals. I feel you are using

"promote the general welfare"

out of context in that regard. That's how the supreme court has interpreted it anyhow. Though it doesn't stop people from interpreting it differently for various agendas but it's original meaning is what I stated above. Some would argue but they would not have verifiable facts on their side.

Now some would also say that social programs are in the general welfare of the USA and then some would say that the government has to abide by all of the restrictions of the constitution and not use one clause to over-rule other clauses. Then others would say that the constitution is just a damn piece of paper. I am not one of those people nor do I think you are.

Sorry, I am very long-winded.

Maybe we can pick this up in another thread sometime, I don't want to keep derailing your intro unless your cool with it. Take care, see ya around the boards.

Hey AmericanPitbull, welcome to the ATS forum! From your intro comments, it is easy to see that you should find plenty of interest in some of the forums that are attuned to discussing government, politics and social welfare. I am not going to comment directly on your stated beliefs and opinions about how you think this country should be run and governed, other than to say, your thoughts do not, in my opinion, express the American way, nor the United States Constitutional intent of limited federal government.

That said, I do pretty much agree 99.9% with sageofmonticello, relative to his general comments. I too am a conservative in every way, and, to me, the term "social liberal" is just another way of trying to politically correctly say "communist", or "communism". Of course, here, at the ATS forum, we are allowed to express our opinions, but it does bother me to hear an American speak in terms similar to those used in describing socialist /communist countries.

But AmericanitBull, in this country, you and I both, and all American citizens, get the same "one vote" each in every election that comes along. That is just one of the great things about this country. Every "U.S. citizen" gets to play a part in helping to decide just how this country is governed!!! When a big mistake gets made, as it was in 2008, thank God, we get a chance to correct it in 2012!!

Again, welcome to the forum AmericanPitBull, and glad you are here. There is a lot more for us to talk about around here besides the politics of the planet!