26.9.03
Zuerst: Did you see this? "Big Government" are bad words, especially at the national level. The fact of the matter is that government stifles growth. She points out, correctly, that many functions of government are taken for granted by Americans, including FEMA, Social Security, Medicare, CDC-P, and functions more local by nature such as firefighting, police, and education. I will concede that certain services - not necessarily those listed above - are necessary. However, the problem with big federal government, though, is that government can easily abuse people's rights, such as through Eminent Domain; moreover, the colonists came over from England to escape the oppression of big central government, or of government that would do too much. The fact of the matter is that local government is more accountable than is central government; if I don't believe that government should steal my money for Medicare, for example, it is much easier to vote out a county board of supervisors were this proposed on a local level than it is to vote out congressmen and senators who pay for this boondoggle year after year.
She makes the nonsensical statement that "These are not entitlement programs. These are not excesses." Huh? Of course these are entitlements. Moreover, I happen to believe they are excesses. The U.S. Department of Education, for example, has never educated one single child. And how, exactly, is education free? Last I checked, it was paid for primarily by property taxes, and other local taxes. And, lest we forget, there were no government schools until the 1830s; schools competed with other schools; those that did the best job educating the children, and those which offered the best value for the education dollar, were the ones that got the students; that is, the students who were not homeschooled. And, in the last 40 years, since the explosion of government under President Johnson, poverty has increased - especially in urban areas, crime has had an attendant increase, the American education system - once regarded as the best in the world - has plummeted in its goal of educating children.
The federal government has abused its powers since the administration of Woodrow Wilson, but that abuse kicked into high gear under the administration of F.D. Roosevelt, and the abuse turned on the afterburners/turbochargers/etc. under the administration of L.B. Johnson. Wilson, a central government hawk, forced an amendment through which allowed a tax on incomes; this was for the sole purpose of raising revenue so that government could be expanded. This was followed by the "New Deal", under which FDR expanded the central government to well-beyond-unconstitutional proportions by blackmailing the Supreme Court into going along. Johnson decided that even this wasn't enough, and expanded further. Why, you ask? To get the votes of those dependent upon the expansion. Power. Simple as that.
Social Security, since she brought it up, is nothing more than a Ponzi scheme. Why should I be forced to contribute to a program whose solvency I don't believe in, and when I could get a much better return on investment elsewhere? My father had said, before any of his children (my 2 siblings and me) had started working, that he would be willing to pay social security premiums (they are properly premiums, not taxes, since social security is nominally insurance; however) for the rest of his life if we didn't have to do so. At this point, I feel the same way about any future children that I may have. One of these days, the system is going to collapse. And it ain't gonna be pretty, especially that we'll have to pay for it.
I'll grant that there must exist some government. Certainly, locally, first responders and law enforcement officials need our support. And, certainly we need to invest in infrastructure, such as roads. And, should some things affect interstate commerce (such as the interstate highway system) the federal government should regulate (and, perhaps, help in paying for it). However, the federal government's place is in foreign relations, and to resolve interstate disputes. They have no place owning such land that they will not use in conjuction with their constitutional duties (I am thinking here of national parks and national forests specifically); the only domestic actions that the central government should take involve:
That's it. That's the list. It has no business spending money to educate students; those decisions are best left to governments closer to each child; that is to say, local government. The federal government has no business subsidizing medical care. And under no circumstances does the federal government have any business administering a financial endeavour that would land a private adminstrator of such a program in jail on charges of fraud. The issue is not a blind hatred of government, but government's best function is to make certain that citizens don't violate each other's rights, not to violate the rights of certain citizens to buy the votes of others.
I apologise for the diarrhea of the keyboard. I guess that Ms. Streisand has no problem with the government robbing Peter to pay Paul. I do. She should just shut up and stick to singing.
Pro Football: Just some thoughts on my picks:
More tomorrow...will comment on my college picks - R.
She makes the nonsensical statement that "These are not entitlement programs. These are not excesses." Huh? Of course these are entitlements. Moreover, I happen to believe they are excesses. The U.S. Department of Education, for example, has never educated one single child. And how, exactly, is education free? Last I checked, it was paid for primarily by property taxes, and other local taxes. And, lest we forget, there were no government schools until the 1830s; schools competed with other schools; those that did the best job educating the children, and those which offered the best value for the education dollar, were the ones that got the students; that is, the students who were not homeschooled. And, in the last 40 years, since the explosion of government under President Johnson, poverty has increased - especially in urban areas, crime has had an attendant increase, the American education system - once regarded as the best in the world - has plummeted in its goal of educating children.
The federal government has abused its powers since the administration of Woodrow Wilson, but that abuse kicked into high gear under the administration of F.D. Roosevelt, and the abuse turned on the afterburners/turbochargers/etc. under the administration of L.B. Johnson. Wilson, a central government hawk, forced an amendment through which allowed a tax on incomes; this was for the sole purpose of raising revenue so that government could be expanded. This was followed by the "New Deal", under which FDR expanded the central government to well-beyond-unconstitutional proportions by blackmailing the Supreme Court into going along. Johnson decided that even this wasn't enough, and expanded further. Why, you ask? To get the votes of those dependent upon the expansion. Power. Simple as that.
Social Security, since she brought it up, is nothing more than a Ponzi scheme. Why should I be forced to contribute to a program whose solvency I don't believe in, and when I could get a much better return on investment elsewhere? My father had said, before any of his children (my 2 siblings and me) had started working, that he would be willing to pay social security premiums (they are properly premiums, not taxes, since social security is nominally insurance; however) for the rest of his life if we didn't have to do so. At this point, I feel the same way about any future children that I may have. One of these days, the system is going to collapse. And it ain't gonna be pretty, especially that we'll have to pay for it.
I'll grant that there must exist some government. Certainly, locally, first responders and law enforcement officials need our support. And, certainly we need to invest in infrastructure, such as roads. And, should some things affect interstate commerce (such as the interstate highway system) the federal government should regulate (and, perhaps, help in paying for it). However, the federal government's place is in foreign relations, and to resolve interstate disputes. They have no place owning such land that they will not use in conjuction with their constitutional duties (I am thinking here of national parks and national forests specifically); the only domestic actions that the central government should take involve:
- regulation of interstate commerce
- resolution of interstate disuptes
- regulation of lower governments, to make sure that the citizens' rights are not abused or infringed.
That's it. That's the list. It has no business spending money to educate students; those decisions are best left to governments closer to each child; that is to say, local government. The federal government has no business subsidizing medical care. And under no circumstances does the federal government have any business administering a financial endeavour that would land a private adminstrator of such a program in jail on charges of fraud. The issue is not a blind hatred of government, but government's best function is to make certain that citizens don't violate each other's rights, not to violate the rights of certain citizens to buy the votes of others.
I apologise for the diarrhea of the keyboard. I guess that Ms. Streisand has no problem with the government robbing Peter to pay Paul. I do. She should just shut up and stick to singing.
Pro Football: Just some thoughts on my picks:
- Jacksonville sucks. Houston isn't much better. But the game is at Houston, so I figure that gives Houston the edge.
- I figure that Minnesota will win against San Fran, if only because the game is in Minneapolis. If Minnesota wins, perhaps they prove that they are legitimate. Their wins thus far haven't done so, though.
- Fine, Arizona beat Green Bay. Does that mean I should pick them? Nope.
- Patrick Ramsey has passed for close to 700 yards the last 2 games. Add to this a New England defence which is banged up, and maybe, just maybe, Washington doesn't fall far behind.
- I'm picking Pittsburgh solely because they're at home. Tennessee is good, Pittsburgh is good, but the game is at the Pickle.
- Baltimore got thrashed in week 1 against Pittsburgh. Kansas City beat Pittsburgh a couple of weeks ago. I can't see how KC loses this game, especially since Baltimore is one-dimensional offensively.
- Buffalo has kicked everyone's asses at home. Philadelphia has scored, to date, 10 points all season.
- Atlanta is still without Michael Vick.
- Since I don't live in Ohio, nor do I have Ohio roots, I don't really care about the Cleveland-Cincinnati game.
- San Diego sucks. Oakland hasn't played well, but San Diego sucks. I don't think you can say it enough. San Diego sucks.
- How could I pick Detroit to beat Denver? Denver laid an ass-kicking on Oakland, while Detroit has lost its last 2 to division rivals. And the game is in Denver.
- The Tuna beat a Giants team which is better than this Jets team. And Chad isn't back.
- Indy is good. New Orleans isn't, especially. Doesn't matter that the game is in New Orleans.
- Chicago is Green Bay's bitch. Chicago may be everyone's bitch, this season (except maybe San Diego).
More tomorrow...will comment on my college picks - R.
Comments:
Post a Comment
