Perchoutofwater Posted June 25, 2010 Share Posted June 25, 2010 A few short years ago, several Huddlers who are posting in here who have a new-found interest in championing individual rights, believed the Patriot Act wasn't "that big of deal " Consider the source for what it is. Several of us in our youth and inexperience lacked the wisdom to see the the outcome of that, and later changed their stance. I was one of those people. Of course the Patriot Act is a lot easier to repeal than an entitlement, and actually had several sunset provisions, which the democrat controlled congress extended. One would hope that as one ages that they would gain wisdom and see the error of their ways, rather than throw what wisdom they had out the window. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westvirginia Posted June 25, 2010 Share Posted June 25, 2010 Again, freedom is not equal to taxation rates. If it was, then we are freer now than we were under Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, Truman, Kennedy et al since tax rates are lower. There are other arguments here too. Is social security a bad thing? I doubt the retired tea party folks who use their SS-funded leisure time to go rail against government programs would say so. Is Medicare a bad thing versus the total impossibility of getting insurance? I doubt the old guy having a heart attack thinks so. Ursa, we've been over this. If you'd like, I can dig up the old thread where I pointed out to you and pope the vast difference in EFFECTIVE tax rates versus NOMINAL tax rates. In fact, pope pointed out his ignorance in saying that credit card interest was never deductible in that thread. The nominal rate means nothing without also taking into account the deductions available to reduce income. For the most part, the slide is gradual, but one can easily point out where fedgov power "lurches" forward. This is one of those times. The obamessiah is BLATANTLY disregarding the law in the GM/Chrysler issues and you folks don't even give a rip. You literally don't care. So don't jump into perch's grill for doing the same thing. That's the epitome of hyppocrisy. Not only that, the current administration makes shrub look almost competent! Where is the outrage over the idiocy in the gulf? Ursa, your hotbutton issue has been the stupidity on wall street, and the bill that's fixing to come out of comittee doesn't address the problem. The healthcare bill doesn't address the problem. These are two demonstrable examples of plain old power grabs by government. And you guys defend this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted June 25, 2010 Share Posted June 25, 2010 "Confiscated" just undermines your argument. Taxation is spent on things large chunks of us think are a waste of money or, at least, get zero benefit from. Did we really need the last billion-dollar aircraft carrier when we had 11 already? I don't think so but you might. Did I-35W / US-62 need to have tens of millions spent on it? I never go that way. Does SS / Medicare underpin your privilege of not dying in the street or being a burden on the taxpayer? Yes it does and don't tell me you'll never need it because I doubt Mark Brunell thought so either. Confiscation, taxation call it what you will it is the same thing. I'm sorry that my choice of words does not appeal to you. Taking what we have regardless of what you call it for whatever reason impedes our freedom. Yes or No? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pope Flick Posted June 25, 2010 Share Posted June 25, 2010 Ursa, we've been over this. If you'd like, I can dig up the old thread where I pointed out to you and pope the vast difference in EFFECTIVE tax rates versus NOMINAL tax rates. In fact, pope pointed out his ignorance in saying that credit card interest was never deductible in that thread. The nominal rate means nothing without also taking into account the deductions available to reduce income. For the most part, the slide is gradual, but one can easily point out where fedgov power "lurches" forward. This is one of those times. The obamessiah is BLATANTLY disregarding the law in the GM/Chrysler issues and you folks don't even give a rip. You literally don't care. So don't jump into perch's grill for doing the same thing. That's the epitome of hyppocrisy. Not only that, the current administration makes shrub look almost competent! Where is the outrage over the idiocy in the gulf? Ursa, your hotbutton issue has been the stupidity on wall street, and the bill that's fixing to come out of comittee doesn't address the problem. The healthcare bill doesn't address the problem. These are two demonstrable examples of plain old power grabs by government. And you guys defend this? No - you'll see I made the mistake of entering the conversation late and thinking you were talking about one thing, when in fact you were talking about something else. I'm pretty sure that was settled then, but if not we can do so now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted June 25, 2010 Share Posted June 25, 2010 Taking what we have regardless of what you call it for whatever reason impedes our freedom. Yes or No? If you want a black / white answer, then No. It depends entirely on what it is spent on. I happen to think the hugh government "entitlements" are very good things, differentiating us and the civilized world from the craphole that the vast majority of humanity exists in. Sure, they all need adjustment but overall they are good things beyond a doubt. My freedom to starve in the street like an untouchable in Calcutta has been impeded, so I'm less free? I don't think so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delicious_bass Posted June 25, 2010 Share Posted June 25, 2010 Nearly half of American Adults see the government today as a threat to individual rights rather than a protector of those rights And more and more Americans are becoming increasingly dependent on the gubment. Interesting Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted June 25, 2010 Share Posted June 25, 2010 (edited) If you want a black / white answer, then No. It depends entirely on what it is spent on. I happen to think the hugh government "entitlements" are very good things, differentiating us and the civilized world from the craphole that the vast majority of humanity exists in. Sure, they all need adjustment but overall they are good things beyond a doubt. My freedom to starve in the street like an untouchable in Calcutta has been impeded, so I'm less free? I don't think so. Ok, let's say I have $10. I want to buy something that cost $10. I can. Now let's say I have $10 but the government decides for "the common welfare" they need to take $3.50, so I'm left with $6.50. Can I still buy that $10 item with the $6.50? So government has limited my choices of what I can purchase, thus limiting my freedom. I thought you believed in freedom of choice. Edited June 25, 2010 by Perchoutofwater Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Beatings Posted June 25, 2010 Share Posted June 25, 2010 i asked this previously..... what does it take to really get change? a revolt. how much does life have to suck? how much do you have to lose? whats the breaking point? What kind of change? We're stuck with our corrupt cycle of elections for now. I don't see any way of derailing that machine any time soon. I'll do waht can be done in terms of supporting like-minded candidates, etc. Are you talking about an armed revolution? If so, then I think that it has to get to the point where America's Fathers and Mothers are willing to sacrifice their family lives, knowing that their actions might lead them to death or prison. It's not at that point for me. Is it for anyone here? I doubt it. How bad would it have to get? If the irresponsible fiscal policy of this government (under any administration) costs me my job, my house, the lifestyle that I've worked hard to earn, then maybe I would be inspired. It would pretty much have to get to the point where it directly affects my son (ie. he is hungry but has no food). When I'm forced to become a criminal to feed my fmaily, then I might as well be a political criminal and join the revolution. I think that's my breaking point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted June 25, 2010 Share Posted June 25, 2010 (edited) My freedom to starve in the street like an untouchable in Calcutta has been impeded, so I'm less free? I don't think so. freedom and safety are not the same thing. by your logic here, the freest person in the world is someone who is meticulously fed and cared for while locked in a padded cell. all government action restricts individual freedom. that is the very nature of society and the social contract, we give up some autonomy for the benefits of the social group. in the context of society, there can be no such thing as absolute liberty; and in the context of human nature, there can be no absolute "community" that completely squashes human individuality. so all societies are somewhere on a sliding scale between the two poles. where I come down is, we need rules, we need laws, we need some pooling of resources to tackle certain jobs. but individual liberty is a great good that the best societies have worked hard to protect on the margins. and from a more utilitarian/economic perspective, I am highly skeptical of the relative effectiveness of top-down technocratic management. in addition to reducing individual liberty, it just doesn't usually work very well. I have much more appreciation for the spontaneous orders that arise among relatively free people conducting their lives as they see fit. Edited June 25, 2010 by Azazello1313 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrip Posted June 25, 2010 Share Posted June 25, 2010 By living in a governed society you necessarily give up rights you would otherwise have. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rattsass Posted June 25, 2010 Share Posted June 25, 2010 (edited) What kind of change? We're stuck with our corrupt cycle of elections for now. I don't see any way of derailing that machine any time soon. I'll do waht can be done in terms of supporting like-minded candidates, etc. Are you talking about an armed revolution? If so, then I think that it has to get to the point where America's Fathers and Mothers are willing to sacrifice their family lives, knowing that their actions might lead them to death or prison. It's not at that point for me. Is it for anyone here? I doubt it. How bad would it have to get? If the irresponsible fiscal policy of this government (under any administration) costs me my job, my house, the lifestyle that I've worked hard to earn, then maybe I would be inspired. It would pretty much have to get to the point where it directly affects my son (ie. he is hungry but has no food). When I'm forced to become a criminal to feed my fmaily, then I might as well be a political criminal and join the revolution. I think that's my breaking point. American fathers and mothers are sacrificing their families lives on two fronts, ostensibly in the name of "freedom", but when it becomes clear to the majority that the real affront on our freedom comes from within our own government, maybe they will decide that standing up for themselves on American soil is even more important than it is in Afghanistan. What form standing up for themselves takes is still a question. I would like to think that it will be achieved through non-violence, as the resulting chaos and potential vacuum of power would be very dangerous in and of itself. We need to start cleansing the system. Get these manipulated bought and paid for compromised puppets out on their asses, and see if we can't get some real human beings with real human feelings and good sense in office. Edited June 25, 2010 by rattsass Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted June 25, 2010 Share Posted June 25, 2010 Several of us in our youth and inexperience lacked the wisdom to see the the outcome of that, and later changed their stance. I was one of those people. In that respect you gained a heckuva lot of experience and wisdom on November 4, 2008, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted June 25, 2010 Share Posted June 25, 2010 In that respect you gained a heckuva lot of experience and wisdom on November 4, 2008, you know, if you want to keep beating that drum, why don't you look in the mirror. when is the last time you complained about rendition, gitmo/bagram, habeas corpus? november 3, 2008? an honest lefty breaks it down Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted June 25, 2010 Share Posted June 25, 2010 Ok, let's say I have $10. I want to buy something that cost $10. I can. Now let's say I have $10 but the government decides for "the common welfare" they need to take $3.50, so I'm left with $6.50. Can I still buy that $10 item with the $6.50? So government has limited my choices of what I can purchase, thus limiting my freedom. I thought you believed in freedom of choice. It's because you are part of the common welfare whether you agree or not. You can't opt out because that would endanger everyone else in that common welfare. It's the same principle as driving on the right - opting out is......not an option. This principle has been established since the first clans. Donne was right - no man is an island. There is a cost to maintain the western lifestyle and it's tax. The society you envisage is not the one I want to live in. Yours would rely on charities that can't even keep up in good times. Mine would provide a safety net in the same way that my house insurance provides a safety net. I notice that I have to pay my insurance company every month so that they can pay me if my house burns down. Likewise I pay the government monthly so that when I am too old and tired to work any longer, I can at least buy groceries and not have to throw myself on the mercy of the charity du jour. Many of us also squirrel away our own cash to enable a comfortable retirement but people like me are fully aware that for an ever-increasing number of people, meaningful saving is just not possible. Furthermore, we also know that tomorrow is promised to no-one and those that think they don't need to buy in are full of hubris. That is why we have the programs we do - we have agreed in a social compact that we are not India, we are not some squalid dump in Africa, we are America and we can do better. To do that requires contributing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pope Flick Posted June 25, 2010 Share Posted June 25, 2010 It's because you are part of the common welfare whether you agree or not. You can't opt out because that would endanger everyone else in that common welfare. It's the same principle as driving on the right - opting out is......not an option. This principle has been established since the first clans. Donne was right - no man is an island. There is a cost to maintain the western lifestyle and it's tax. The society you envisage is not the one I want to live in. Yours would rely on charities that can't even keep up in good times. Mine would provide a safety net in the same way that my house insurance provides a safety net. I notice that I have to pay my insurance company every month so that they can pay me if my house burns down. Likewise I pay the government monthly so that when I am too old and tired to work any longer, I can at least buy groceries and not have to throw myself on the mercy of the charity du jour. Many of us also squirrel away our own cash to enable a comfortable retirement but people like me are fully aware that for an ever-increasing number of people, meaningful saving is just not possible. Furthermore, we also know that tomorrow is promised to no-one and those that think they don't need to buy in are full of hubris. That is why we have the programs we do - we have agreed in a social compact that we are not India, we are not some squalid dump in Africa, we are America and we can do better. To do that requires contributing. Socialist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted June 25, 2010 Share Posted June 25, 2010 Socialist. Not on Az's sliding scale. Just a person who understands that society is essential and I don't want to live in a house with no roof. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted June 25, 2010 Share Posted June 25, 2010 (edited) you know, if you want to keep beating that drum, why don't you look in the mirror. when is the last time you complained about rendition, gitmo/bagram, habeas corpus? november 3, 2008? When was the last time you believed the CBO projection before you didn't? Read any Rolling Stone articles lately? ETA: If you read my "current" comments in Patriot Act Threads you'll find my view is consistent. Edited June 25, 2010 by bushwacked Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westvirginia Posted June 25, 2010 Share Posted June 25, 2010 What kind of change? We're stuck with our corrupt cycle of elections for now. I don't see any way of derailing that machine any time soon. I'll do waht can be done in terms of supporting like-minded candidates, etc. Are you talking about an armed revolution? If so, then I think that it has to get to the point where America's Fathers and Mothers are willing to sacrifice their family lives, knowing that their actions might lead them to death or prison. It's not at that point for me. Is it for anyone here? I doubt it. How bad would it have to get? If the irresponsible fiscal policy of this government (under any administration) costs me my job, my house, the lifestyle that I've worked hard to earn, then maybe I would be inspired. It would pretty much have to get to the point where it directly affects my son (ie. he is hungry but has no food). When I'm forced to become a criminal to feed my fmaily, then I might as well be a political criminal and join the revolution. I think that's my breaking point. And that's the crux right there. You have to be at the point where you've nothing left to lose. To where you really don't see a downside for yourself/your family if you get killed popping some fedgoon. And I'm certainly not there yet. Oh, another possibility is if fedgov decided they were confiscating all arms. If you give up your ability to fight you've just quit, so... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted June 25, 2010 Share Posted June 25, 2010 Many of us also squirrel away our own cash to enable a comfortable retirement but people like me are fully aware that for an ever-increasing number of people, meaningful saving is just not possible. Furthermore, we also know that tomorrow is promised to no-one and those that think they don't need to buy in are full of hubris. And why is that? Could it possibly be that they can't save what the government takes, that they face less in wages because the corporation has money going to your social programs via taxes that might other wise go to the employees in a profit sharing program? Could it be that regulation based on determining a specific outcome rather than public safety is driving up the cost of the goods that they would buy? Could it be because they spend foolishly knowing that the government teat is there should they fall? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted June 25, 2010 Share Posted June 25, 2010 (edited) When was the last time you believed the CBO projection before you didn't? Read any Rolling Stone articles lately? Adults are trying to have a conversation here, if you have something to contribute please do so, other wise shut up and listen. You might actually learn something. Edited June 25, 2010 by Perchoutofwater Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted June 25, 2010 Share Posted June 25, 2010 (edited) Adults are trying to have a conversation here. Clearly. Edited June 25, 2010 by bushwacked Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrip Posted June 25, 2010 Share Posted June 25, 2010 (edited) And that's the crux right there. You have to be at the point where you've nothing left to lose. To where you really don't see a downside for yourself/your family if you get killed popping some fedgoon. And I'm certainly not there yet. Oh, another possibility is if fedgov decided they were confiscating all arms. If you give up your ability to fight you've just quit, so... When the country was formed a group of armed and trained civilians could conceivably stand up to a government army. Today, civilians would stand no chance. Like 0.00%. Americans will be at the whim of whoever is in power until the day the country is taken over by another power or the entire world is vaporized in nuclear war. Edited June 25, 2010 by mrip Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted June 25, 2010 Share Posted June 25, 2010 When the country was formed a group of armed and trained civilians could conceivably stand up to a government army. Today, civilians would stand no chance. Like 0.00%. Americans will be at the whim of whoever is in power until the day the country is taken over by another power or the entire world is vaporized in nuclear war. Well, now that is a defeatist attitude. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrip Posted June 25, 2010 Share Posted June 25, 2010 Well, now that is a defeatist attitude. Perhaps, but in my opinion it's pretty clear that the US government has set things up so that a successful violent revolution simply isn't possible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pope Flick Posted June 25, 2010 Share Posted June 25, 2010 When the country was formed a group of armed and trained civilians could conceivably stand up to a government army. Today, civilians would stand no chance. Like 0.00%. Americans will be at the whim of whoever is in power until the day the country is taken over by another power or the entire world is vaporized in nuclear war. That was certainly the theory behind the 2nd Amendment: farmers had the same kind of cannon the federal army did. I'd still love to see a lawyer argue original intent in the pursuit of acquiring a Huey for his client. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.