TheAgitator.com
Coercion for a Better World, Ct’d…
Tuesday, June 29th, 2004Drudge links to this oddly candid quote from Hillary Clinton:
“We’re saying that for America to get back on track, we’re probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We’re going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.“
I dare Kerry to make that last sentence his campaign slogan.
What’s even scarier is that Sen. Clinton was playing to a crowd who will actually respond to such sentimental nonsense.
Scared me when I saw it. You still voting for him, Radley? :)
Never was.
I am still voting against Bush, however.
At least she came out and said it. Of course, it’s a safer thing to say to a bunch of San Francisco “Democrats.”
I’m just dumbfounded when I think of the mental image of her saying this to a group of people who then respond to the statement with applause. This kind of sentiment is TRULY out of touch with the Framer’s intent. I just put my faith in the American people, and the American Ideal, and hope that the former (at least most of the former) will not stray too far from the latter.
Well, how about a little guidance, Radley? Who do you think is the best candidate?
As a lifetime DC voter who has never cast a ballot for a winning candidate, I could use some help. Badnarik, perhaps? Wait a second — how about a “Draft Radley” movement..!
Why is there no link included so we can read the Hillary quote in context?
Just got back from a Badnarik fundraiser. He is the best candidate on the ballot.
I’m with Peter K. What she said wouldn’t be so awful if she was talking about taking away cumbersome government programs (yeah, I know, fat chance!).
How’s this, an article on the speech she gave:
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/politics/9034240.htm?1c
Oops,
try this click here
And actually, here is another article on here speech.
click here
This makes me wonder, not only what is to be taken for the common good, but who determines what “common good” is?
Heil Hitlary! Heil Hitlary!
I saw this on drudge yesterday too. The article said the morons at the event had paid as much as $10,000 a piece to be there.
Frankly, it is obvious that these people are simply not intelligent enough to be controlling that much of the countries wealth. I mean, if blowing 10 grand for that is their idea of ‘good spending’ then, for the “common good” I believe their wealth should be siezed and properly redistributed to the peasantry.
Oh, what was that Hitlary? Let them eat cake? I’ll be sure and pass that along.
how can anyone with half a brain vote democrat?? or republican for that matter…
OK, the statement is evil. We can all agree on that.
But, reading the newsreport on the speech, she was talking about the Bush taxcuts. Those taxcuts, in fact, were a sham, folks. And not just because of the old mantra about how they favor the wealthy. No, in reality, nobody noticed, but the tax “cuts” were a big publicity stunt. While he made “cuts” here, he added and increased taxes in concurrent areas.
I’m not a rep or dem, and yes, Hillary’s a big windbag…but the tax “cuts” she’s referring to are bullshit in the first place, and if she wants to do away with them, fine. go here to read a Cato report on the cuts:
http://www.cato.org/research/articles/vandoren-030727.html
Here’s a rather poignent link…
http://www.theonion.com/news/index.php?issue=4026&n=3
Evan,
the Cato report is very interesting. I am a true political conservative, meaning I advocate small government and the federal government existing mainly for the purpose of international affairs. Beyond that, in a truly free society the government should mostly just keep their mouths shut. And the cato report, if accurate, clearly shows that the republican party isn’t doing that.
So where does that leave us? I can’t vote Democrat, it is clear that they think they shuold decide how much of my money I should be allowed to keep and how much they should be able to give to people to lazy to do for themselves.
The Republicans at least say that I should get to keep my money, but aren’t practicing what they preach.
I can’t vote outside of the two big parties because that is just a wasted vote.
Both Dems and Reps are made up of the filthy rich and don’t really give a rat’s ass about people making less than six figures. John Kerry-Heinz saying he understands the little guy? Dubbya relating to the working class? Give me a break.
I am a faithful voter, but it gets easier to see why many people don’t bother.
I’m either not going to vote (which is not a good choice) or I’m going to vote for Badnarik and risk my father never speaking to me again, especially if Kerry wins.
Boy did I get an earful when I said I wouldn’t vote for Bush. Wow. My ears are still ringing.
I don’t know what’s freaked him out so badly. I live in Indiana for Christ’s sake. Although by the time November rolls around I’ll be in Kentucky. Same difference. My vote will make its tiny, quiet little statement and my state delegates will put in their votes for Bush, anyway.
It is very easy to see why so many people just don’t bother at all.
I can’t vote outside of the two big parties because that is just a wasted vote.
You’re like a guy in a boat, and it’s sinking because everyone keeps pouring water into it from the sea; and the guy says “well, I have a choice, I can pour water into the boat with a blue bucket, or I can pour water into it with a red bucket. But since everyone else is pouring water, if I decide to pour water OUT of the boat, then I’m just wasting my energy. So I may as well decide which color bucket to use.”
It’s a self-propegating statement. As long as enough people believe it, it will be true.
Michael Badnarik’s campaign commercial is perfect. First, it shows a pic of Bush and it says “I’m George W. Bush, and you can trust me to run your life.” Then, a pic of Kerry, saying the same thing. Then, a pic of Badnarik that says “I’m Michael Badnarik, and I trust you to run your own life”.
Not bad. Not bad at all.
That’s great Evan, nice anology too, except that I did say I would be voting. Sounds like Badnarik really has his head on straight though. Gotta love common sense.
Unfortunately, he has no chance whatsoever of winning the election. And if he did, i don’t think the electoral college would put him in. I think it would be another huge scandal.
But that is irrelevant, because the only reason he even has a slightly higher chance of winning the election than I do is because he is on the ballot and I am not.
So, the winner of the election and the person who will then impact the way this country runs for the next four years will come from either the Republican or Democratic party. Voting for anyone outside of those two parties is to vote for someone that WILL NOT have any impact on the policies of this country.
Not much different then not voting at all. Might as well write in Bozo the clown. (the original Bozo, not the current guy whose voice doesn’t sound right.)
So voting outside the two main parties is to voluntarily choose to not have your vote count and you lose the ability to even try for the lesser of two evils.
As far as the boat goes…I do see it sinking. I see both sides as hoping to get it ashore before it goes under. But the republicans want to keep it afloat by throwing everybody who is not rowing overboard. The Democrats want me to row harder so they can invite the Mexicans on.
I guess I never was in doubt about who I was voting for. Hope the Dems can swim :^)
But Chris, the simple fact that people like you think the way you do is precisely why votes like mine “don’t count”.
I’m tired of baaing like a stupid sheep and following the fatalistic approach. Dammit, I’m going to vote for the guy I think best represents my interests. If more people did that, third-party candidates may actually have a chance.
Vote based on your conscience, not on your perception of probabilities.
Bronwyn,
Idealistically, I totally agree with you. Truly I do. But this is a two party system, like it or not.
If a president outside the big two did get elected, he would be stonewalled at every turn. Regardless of which party controlled congress, they would block his every move. He would be the most ineffectual in history.
And those two parties would destroy this guy at every turn. Punishment for the country having the balls to go outside the big two.
And most of America knows this, so like me, even if they don’t like it, they will vote for one of the big two. It is why these others never have a chance of getting enough of the vote to make a hill of beans.
I appreciate voting your heart. But you have to understand that one of two individuals is going to win. All other candidates are irrelevant. You owe it to your heart to vote for the guy that is closest to representing this country the way your heart sees it.
I can vote outside the 2 major parties, but I won’t. For the same reason Chris says: it’s a waste. My votes for president have been about 50/50 between the libertarian candidates and the 2 major parties. Even though I considered my libertarian votes as voting my conscience, in retrospect I see them as wasted votes. They counted for nothing. Not even back in 1972 when I voted for Dick Gregory.
I’m voting for Bush because he is the only candidate who will let me keep the most of my money in my pocket, who also has a chance to win. If I truly thought the libertarian candidate had a snowball’s chance in hell of winning I’d be there for him. But he no chance, and this election is so close the thought of “wasting” my vote turns my stomach. And I honestly believe Bush is the better choice over Kerry.
Now, having said all that let me clarify that this is only my personal feeling. But I arrived at this point through “been there-done that experiences. So I’m doing the most practical thing I know: voting for the candidate who will let me keep the most of what is mine; AND, who also has a bona fide chance of winning in November.
well said bruce.
“We’re going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.”
Sigh…
Isn’t that fully implicit in your plan too, Radley?
Aren’t you in favor of taking things from people on behalf of the public good? Isn’t the Cato Institute in favor of it?
What can you possibly be thinking when you post something like this?
It may be well said, but its just plain wrong! Voting is not about being a part of the winning team, its about making a statement on the direction you want to see the country move in. By voting for Bush or Kerry you endorse their entire agenda. If Badnarik were to receive 10% of the vote, both Republicans and Democrats would take notice and start to adjust their policies accordingly.
I’ve voted for Bil Clinton once and for four years felt like crap about it. Last time I voted Libertarian, though I didn’t pick the winner, I didn’t feel like I needed a shower afterwards.
Kevin
John, I didn’t get the impression that Radley agreed with the comment.
And I hope Radley doesn’t start taking it on himself to start censoring. He posted it because she said. She should be exposed for her rediculous socialist views. Hiding it just takes away the ability of the otherwise uninformed to start hating her too.
What’s even scarier is that Sen. Clinton was playing to a crowd who will actually respond to such sentimental nonsense.
What’s scarier than that is that Radley is playing to a crowd who will actually respond as if he’s not in favor of taking from them on behalf of the public good too.
If any level of taxation at all is justifiable then what the hell is wrong with that last sentence from HRC Radley just drew your attention to?
Chris,
John, I didn’t get the impression that Radley agreed with the comment.
Then read this:
“To answer your question, I personally subscribe to Lockean natural rights theory. So I think some form of state is necessary to preserve those rights, from forces both internal and external. So yes, I do believe in a minimalist state, and in the taxes we’d need to impose for a criminal court system, prisons, and a national defense.” – Radley Balko
So how is that not taking from people on behalf of the public good?
All he’s really arguing with HRC about is how much to take from you and what to spend it on.
Kevin/Anvil:
It may be wrong for you, but it is not wrong for me. I think I went out of may way to point that out. This November I will vote in my 9th presidential election, and in the previous elections I have voted Democrat once, Republican twice, Independent once, and Libertarian 4 times. So I really have “been there-done that.”
I don’t think the Democrats and Republicans would take notice if the Libertarian candidate got 10% of the popular vote. John Anderson got more than that in 1980 as an Independent. Today almost nobody even remembers who he was.
This election could well be a watershed moment in our nation’s history that will determine the direction this country takes over the next generation. While I prefer the libertarian agenda and principles, I am enough of a pragmatist to understand that it has no chance. Thus I make my personal choice to support what I consider to be the next best thing.
Kevin,
I felt the same way once, I thought we needed to send a message to the two big parties that someday we just might vote them out. So I voted for Perot. I did this for three reasons;
1. To make a statement to Reps and Dems
2. He had no chance of winning
3. Saturday Night Live would have been a lot funnier for those four years.
However, though Perot got more of the vote than any other non-big two candidate in history, it did not scare the Dems or Reps at all. It changed nothing about the way they operate. It was, in summary, a waste.
Of course, if you were going to vote Kerry otherwise…Nevermind! Vote your conscience! Stand your ground and do not waver :^)
John, thanks for the quote. You had me at a disadvantage because I wasn’t aware of Radley’s specific view. Your post made it sound like Radley advocated a total nanny state, which he has spoken against here several times.
It sounds like your view is that all taxes are total robbery. I do not subscribe to that view john.
This country was founded on the basis that the people should decide how much is taxed and what the money is spent on. Not that there should be no taxes at all.
You lose credibility to suggest that there is no valid things for which the populace should be taxed. Police, military, etc… have to be maintained. Our founding fathers understood that. So do I.
Now, how the money is spent is another story. Paying way more for a product or service than such an item would cost in the private sector is inexcusable. Blowing money to research how owls fuck is not responsible spending.
Americans pay sixty cents on the dollar to the federal government. That is more than any other society in history and has to be stopped. But we sit around arguing who is going to pay more of the sixty cents rather than acknowledging that it should be thirty cents and the rest is unacceptable.
But eliminating taxes, and subsequently the valid things they provide for a society, like schools, police and roads is not remotely a reasonable or logical solution.
That’s my opinion, I could be wrong ;^)
This election is a historic opportunity for the Libertarian Party. The mainstream news media are highlighting the grumbling of true conservatives within the GOP and the possibility of an LP spoiler. Now is the time to visibily support the LP! If there was ever a time that your LP vote was not “wasted”, it will be Election 2004! :-)
That said, I will probably vote for Kerry or the LP candidate. If CA is a swing state, I will vote for Kerry. If CA is not a swing state, I will vote for the LP to show my support for limited government. I am no fan of Hillary, but I think the political deadlock caused by a Democratic whitehouse and a Republican congress is our most realistic option for limiting government.
How will I know whether CA is a swing state? I’m watching TradeSports odds on BUSH.CALIFORNIA until the last minute. I trust TradeSports’ “investors” more than nightly news. ;-)
BUSH.CALIFORNIA odds:
http://www.tradesports.com/jsp/intrade/common/c_cd.jsp?conDetailID=25877
.
I guess since my money is already being taken away from me to buy uranium-depleted shells and AC-130 gunships, I guess I wouldn’t be adverse to some of that money being redirected to urban education programs and some semblence of a national health care plan. When I was a teenager I subscribed to Ayn Rand’s and Grover Norquist’s take on taxes, but when I moved out of my parent’s house, lived out on my own and got a job, I met people that were truly in need of a helping hand…or maybe I’m just a communist, heh?
Chris,
It sounds like your view is that all taxes are total robbery. I do not subscribe to that view john.
This country was founded on the basis that the people should decide how much is taxed and what the money is spent on. Not that there should be no taxes at all.
You lose credibility to suggest that there is no valid things for which the populace should be taxed. Police, military, etc… have to be maintained. Our founding fathers understood that. So do I.
Then what the hell is wrong with the sentence from Hillary that Radley highlighted here:
“We’re going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.”
Didn’t you just say you and the founding fathers favor taking things from people on behalf of the public good, same as Hillary and Radley?
Richard,
“When I was a teenager I subscribed to Ayn Rand’s and Grover Norquist’s take on taxes, but when I moved out of my parent’s house, lived out on my own and got a job, I met people that were truly in need of a helping hand…”
So you figured it would be nice to force people to help them….
Posted by: John T. Kennedy on June 30, 2004 01:49 PM
Umm, “force people”? I’m sorry you look at “taxes” as “forcing people” to pay for things – like roads, police and fire and military personnel and an educational system. I guess we could keep all of our own money and pay for those things ourselves. I mean, since I have no kids, why should I pay for someone elses kids to get an education – never mind that an educated workforce helps create a vibrant economy. Hey – I don’t plan on burning down my house – to hell with firemen. Hey – I don’t want to pay for daycare for working mothers – so what if they can’t work without it and go on welfare – I’ll just cancel welfare – don’t they have families to watch the kids? As my post clearly tried to point out – it’s “childish” to look at our society in a “taxes are bad for me so they are bad” way. If you need to be foreced to help those less fortunate than you, I guess you don’t know Jeebus.
The defeatist idea that it’s a 2 party state, and that’s just the way it is so I have to vote for one of the 2 parties is what KEEPS it a 2 party state.
Everytime I hear someone say voting 3rd party is wasting a vote, I think of the Simpsons Halloween episode where the aliens take over Dole and Clinton’s bodies before the election. When they are exposed as aliens trying to take over the earth, a man in the crowd states he will vote for a 3rd party candidate. Kang (or Kronos, I can’t tell them apart) responds by laughingly saying “Go ahead, throw your vote away!” Next scene is hamn slavery at the hands of the aliens, and Homer saying “Don’t blame me, I voted for Kang”.
Perfect description of the American people.
No John, the founding fathers said that as a government of, by and for the people, the PEOPLE would decide how much of their money should be taken and what it should be spent on. If they wanted somebody else to decide for them how much would be taken and what it would be spent on, there would never have been a revolution.
Hitlary is saying, “we know what is best for the common good, your opinion is not necessary. We will be taking what we feel is warranted to support what we feel is the common good.”
She is not remotely insinuating that the people will get a say in how much is taken or how the money is spent.
There is a difference.
But eliminating taxes, and subsequently the valid things they provide for a society, like schools, police and roads is not remotely a reasonable or logical solution.
Chris, of all the rotten things the government does, educating our children is one of the worst. That is rightly the responsibility of individuals to take care of and NOT with coerced funds.
“HUMAN slavery” sorry
:)
Charles, how can you make such a statement? I get emotional sometimes but I really try to give everyone’s point of view a fair shake. But that is just a rediculous statement. I was educated by a good public school system in the Chicago burbs. They taught the three R’s, history, lit etc…In what way is that bad? An educated populace is superior and you will have a difficult time gathering people to agree that it is not. The alternative is an educated elite class lording over the ignorant masses. How middle ages is that thinking?
Richard, it is not a defeatist idea to say that America is a 2 party state. That is simple reality. Love it? Hate it? Makes no difference.
In my younger days though, I felt the same way you now feel. And I saw exactly how much everything changed. Or rather didn’t change.
Call me a defeatist if you like, and I’ll call you a dreamer. If we had an informed and concerned electorate you would undoubtedly be correct. But we don’t. And that too is reality.
Chris, I’m skeptical about any education system that talks about the 3 r’s, when only one of those 3 subjects actually begins with the letter “R”.
Bruce, I agree that it is currently a 2 party state, and, no, I don’t have any delusions that will change any time soon. However I do hold out hope that the American people will wake up and throw ALL the bastards out and take back our government. In the meantime, I’m done voting for the lesser of two evils, I will vote FOR someone, and make my insignifacant personal stand.
“Chris, I’m skeptical about any education system that talks about the 3 r’s, when only one of those 3 subjects actually begins with the letter “R”.”
lol bruce! I always found that amusing myself.
Wow! This thread has gone way beyond Hitlary’s statement. By the way, someone should copyright that nickname, although she is clearly more of a socialist than a nazi.
Is it just me or do her words seem to echo the sentiments of Marxism: “From each according to their ability, to each according to their need?” Or is that “The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one.” Oh yeah, that was Spock.
Either way it is really, really bad science fiction and total bullshit to boot.
I think the best hope for Libertarians is to start at the local level. If we could get more Lib’s on City Councils, in State Government and maybe the House, someday the presidency might not be impossible. If more people were able to see the positive effect of voting outside the Big 2 on a local level, success would be more realistic at the national level.
Richard, I really hope you’re are right on this one. But I really believe in my heart that it can’t happen.
I’ve voted my conscience in the past and lived to regret it. I’ve also voted for the candidate I thought would do me the most good personally and could possibly win. The latter option better satisfies my mind.
I guess I’m too old and jaded to see the world through the eyes of an optimistic dreamer any longer. Try not to lose that.
Bruce, I know we are not going to change each others mind, but I have a question for you. Unless the candidate you wanted to win lost by one vote, why would you feel guilty about wasting your vote?
Anvil, I didn’t say I felt guilty about wasting my vote. I would have felt guilty if I had not voted at all. I just said I now feel those votes were wasted. Believe me, there is nothing like trial and error to help you make up your mind.
I regret that because your vote is a thing far too precious to waste. People have died all over this world for the opportunity to exercise the same right to vote for which too many Americans will not walk down the street. The only guilt is in failing to vote at all. IMHO.
Chris,
Hitlary is saying, “we know what is best for the common good, your opinion is not necessary. We will be taking what we feel is warranted to support what we feel is the common good.”
She is not remotely insinuating that the people will get a say in how much is taken or how the money is spent.
There is a difference.
Hillary Clinton is a U.S. Senator, duly elected by the people to the upper house of the legislature created by your founding fathers according to the rules they set down.
She said what she said while campaigning for the re-election of another Senator. It was an appeal to the people for their votes and support in the next election ordained by your founding fathers.
Hillary, Boxer, Bush, Balko, the founding fathers, and you yourself along with almost all of the people agree that it is right and proper to take from people on behalf of the common good.
All you are arguing about is how much to take and what to spend it on.
In the above post the text down to the words “There is a difference” were from Chris. The stuff starting with “Hillary Clinton is a U.S. Senator, …” was by me.
I didn’t close the italics tag properly.
“We’re going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.”
The only problem I have with this statement is the word “we’re”. If I alone could decide what is best for everyone else, then no problem. I have no problem telling everyone else what to do. I don’t want anyone else telling ME want to do. Why? Because I don’t trust any of you that much. I’m not a hypocrite, I’m the exactly same as you.
I think some of you are getting the wrong message. This statement by Senator Clinton wasn`t about whether you or I agree with the tax cuts, this was a very pointed and treacherous statement designed to harm Kerry. I saw the thing being aired on one of the cable channels. It is common knowledge that you never publicly state that you are going to take anything away from the general public during the course of a political campaign and the senator knows this all too well. A Kerry presidency does not fit into her plans for a run in 2008. Howard
Dean made the fatal mistake of announcing that he would soon be the head of the democratic party while campaigning in Iowa and he was ambushed by Bill Clinton and Terry McCaulife. It wasn`t his yelling speech after Iowa that cost him the nomination.t was his terrible defeat in Iowa that led up to the speech. Kerry has two problems in the upcoming election, one is Bush who is trying to beat him on the up an up and the other is the Clintons who will beat him under the table.
I realize Hitlary was elected. Whether or not she was even remotely qualified apparently didn’t matter the people of that state. But that is irrelavant in my opinion. Just because there is a group of people out there that advocate giving up their freedoms and their representation in regards to taxation does not make it right.
Remember, majority does rule, but only within the confines of the constitution. If she could get 51% of the people in this country to agree to make her Queen does not mean it should be allowed. The constitution doesn’t allow it. If Bush could get 51% of the people to repeal the right of women to vote it doesn’t mean that it should be allowed, even if the majority of Americans wanted it.
That is our protection against a bunch of really stupid people getting together and destroying the fundamental basis for our government.
So just because enough morons got together to elect her to a senate seat doesn’t mean that any retarded idea she comes up with should go through. And if enough morons get together to elect the Hitlary/Heinz ticket does not mean that they should then have free reign.
Chris,
Try to track the argument. You’ve demonstrated that like Hillary and almost everyone else you are in favor of taking from people on behalf of the common good.
Is there anyhere who is not an anarchist who can explain what their objection is to the words Radley quoted from Hillary?
We’re going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.
Is there anyone here who wasn’t aware that goverment was going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good regardless of who gets elected?
Unless you’re an anarchist don’t you expect and desire your government to do that?
If you are trying to defend anarchy as a workable form of society I doubt you will have any luck John.
You show me an existing anarchy anywhere on the planet. If the people of the society do not unite and contribute they will be taken over by another society in short order. This is why tribal societies were gobbled up by the Romans, it is why the Indians stood no chance against the white man. The structured society of the colonists trumped the tribal societies of the indians.
But our society calls for the PEOPLE to decide what SPECIFIC things should exist for the common good.
And that is the problem with Hitlary’s statement and the Democratic philosophy in general. They don’t want to deal in specifics. They want a blank check to spend without accountability.
We are not supposed to pay taxes “for the common good”. That is way too open ended. We pay taxes for specific services. If they want more money, they are supposed to be responsible enough to say what it will be used for, and we then decide if we want to support that candidate’s ideas.
I don’t pay taxes for the common good. I pay taxes for my own good. The two usually coincide. I pay taxes for roads. Because a like roads. I pay taxes for schools, because I don’t want to live in a third world shithole, which is what a society of uneducated masses equates too. I pay taxes for police, because I don’t want any anarchists thinking they can come by and take my stuff. It is really all about me, not the common good.
So it is irresponsible of her to make such a lame statement. She should not want to “Take” from us for the “common good.” She should be ASKING us for money and lining out SPECIFIC programs on how every penny of that money should be spent so we can decide if we think it is good.
And just because we have left that constitutional basis for taxation behind (to our detriment) does not mean we should not be striving to regain it. So her statement is a glowing example of the problem at hand and should be alarming to anybody with half a brain.
And the half a brain comment was not a direct insult John, it is an old saying. Not trying to be antagonistic.
So now New Jersey is trying to institute a 6% tax on all voluntary cosmetic surgery. And guess what, it was the idea of two DEMOCRATIC senators! It will be the first tax in the nation on surgical procedures.
here is a quote:
“The tax is expected to increase state revenues by $26 million. The money is intended to go to charitable or uninsured patients, although that is not specified in the bill.”
Not specified in the bill!!!!!
In what way do you not OWE it to the people you represent to SPECIFY IT IN THE FUCKING BILL!!!!!!!
Typical democrats. This is stealing for the common good. It does NOTHING for the COMMON good. And I gaurantee you these ASSHOLES never told the voters BEFORE they were elected that this was in the plans.
The governor still has a chance to kill the lunacy, if he has any BALLS!
Fucking thieves.
Chris, I think the many of bills passed at state and federal levels fail to address exactly where the money must be spent, as opposed to what they intend to spend it on. It all goes into general revenue and turns into the likes of the Lawrence Welk National Historical Home or the John Rockefeller Memorial Highway. Or perhaps a nice foreign junket for a few of our congressmen and their close family and friends for the purpose of monitoring the effects of global technologies on Brazilian beaches. And we, who foot the bill, are the only ones required to do anything: pay up and shut up.
You are right on Bruce. I wonder how much of this crap we put up with before the first revolution?
We are 228 years in and our government is no longer anything like what it was founded to be.
Well, for a democracy, 228 was a good run…comrades.
In the words of Pink Floyd:
Welcome to the Machine!
But that is just a rediculous statement. I was educated by a good public school system in the Chicago burbs. They taught the three R’s, history, lit etc…In what way is that bad? An educated populace is superior and you will have a difficult time gathering people to agree that it is not. The alternative is an educated elite class lording over the ignorant masses. How middle ages is that thinking?
Chris, you weren’t paying close enough attention. Nowhere did I say “education is bad.” I think education is very important. What I think is bad is exactly what I said before: having the government coerce money from me through the threat of violence. Doesn’t matter where the money goes when it’s taken from you in such a manner.
That’s wonderful you were taught well in those public schools. In my case, I grew up almost entirely within the US Army federal school system, so my education is more derived from coerced money than yours. People should be free to pursue an education; people should not be trying to take from me to pay for others.
That’s the principle at stake. If it’s wrong to steal from Peter to pay Paul, then it’s wrong in all cases.
Why do you believe that without public-funded education the country would be mostly uneducated? Do you believe that people won’t set up education businesses to provide services that are quite obviously important for people to partake in so they may do better in life? Do you believe the government is the ONLY entity that can educate people effectively? Do you understand what I’m getting at?
The only honest and moral way to fund someone’s education is when that funding is done voluntarily. Theft versus mutual agreement. If that is “middle aged” thinking, then you and I have a serious disagreement over that is moral and what isn’t.
Charles, I believe that a totally private school system would be too costly for many americans. Even given the fact that competition between private schools would lower prices. And home schooling is simply not always an option, especially if the parents do not have the schooling themselves to pass along.
It would also be difficult, by your own argument, to expect mandatory schooling if you were then forcing parents to pay whatever the local schools charged. In the absence of mandatory schooling you would have many, many parents that do not send their kids to school at all. This leads to more and more kids that are uneducated and not remotely able to compete in the labor force. A total class system. The lucky ones get an education and therefore effective employment, the unlucky ones do not. Society was there once, and moved past it because it was better.
Now, since we are not paying taxes to pay for education, it stands to reason that we cannot expect people to pay taxes to fund welfare. So, in absence of education and welfare, whole generations have no choice but to turn to crime and start stealing from the ‘haves’. Now, the only way for the ‘haves’ to protect themselves from this is for police forces and more prisons. Which they voluntarily contribute to in order to protect themselves. But they are paying so much for security it becomes an issue.
So now someone comes along and says “hey, wew could pay less overall and need fewer police and prisons if we just helped these uneducated ones get more skills so they could get legitimate jobs. The ‘haves’ vote on it and decide by a mojority that this is a good idea. Better for all. And as these newly educated people gain employment, they too begin to contribute to the education money, lessening the overall burden.
Now, since all the ‘haves’ benefit from this, it is not fair that some of the ‘haves’ don’t pay into it. Maybe they don’t have any kids, but they do have stuff and money they don’t want stolen. So they have another vote. By a majority decision they decide that everybody should contribute to the fund. A few people disagree, but they are in the minority and since the want to remain part of the community they are compelled to go along.
Holy shit! We have taxes ‘taken’ from everybody, but it was decided by the people, for the people and of the people to do it this way. The way it was planned out for this country to work in the first place.
You are not stealing from Peter to pay Paul. Peter and Paul and Stan and Eddie and Jim all benefit from it, whether they currently have kids or not, and voluntarily pay their part for the benefit they get. Now Frank is over here bitching because he says he has no kids and shouldn’t pay. But he has better employees because Peter, Paul, Stan, Eddie and Jim all paid for it. Frank has more overall security because of what the others paid. So when Frank bitches, the others tell him to pay his share or he cannot stay in the community. You can’t eat the bread if you do not help bake the bread.
Now the community goes from coast to coast and the administration of the education system has become a monster, but the fundamental reasons it was started still remain, the fundamental benefits from it remain, so it should remain. It may need updated, but not eliminated.
And I realize that with the public education system we still have crime and we still have some uneducated people. What we do not know is what things would be like without it. I for one volunteer my tax money so we do not have to find out.
I think it could be scarily like some bad Mad Max movie, with walled communities and more money spent on guards to protect us from the evil badlanders than we spend now. And a lesser world as a whole to boot.
This is FAR different then taking money from us to study how owls fuck. If they ever put that to a vote of the people it would NEVER happen. But the freaking politicians do it without our approval. Grants and subsidies right and left without the input of the people paying the bill. And there is so much of it, done by ALL of them, that you can no longer even have your voice heard by casting your vote. These things are obviously wrong.
But we can’t shoot ourselves in the foot by rallying against the tax spending that is genuinely worthwhile. We are taxed more than any other society ever, and much of it is total bullshit, paying for bullshit. Eliminate the bullshit, and nobody would mind paying the tax bill that is left.
Any body that read this whole rant, I thank you. I feel better anyway :)
We may just have to seriously disagree, but I like the fact you come at me with valid arguments. Many people prefer the “Nuh uh” style of arguing.
Keep on Keepin’ on my friend.
Chris,
I don’t pay taxes for the common good. I pay taxes for my own good. The two usually coincide. I pay taxes for roads. Because a like roads. I pay taxes for schools, because I don’t want to live in a third world shithole, which is what a society of uneducated masses equates too. I pay taxes for police, because I don’t want any anarchists thinking they can come by and take my stuff. It is really all about me, not the common good.
Imagine for a moment that you become the subject of a government tax experiment. All taxes are made voluntary for you, you can donate as much or as little as you like. How much would you voluntarily pay in taxes?
John
I would love to do just such and experiment! It would give me an opportunity to express my opinion on what was valid and what was bullshit.
Keep in mind that I acknowledge much of what we pay is shit, but that is different than thinking I should pay nothing.
To do such an experiment I would need an itemized, prorated list of all the tax revenues I paid and what SPECIFIC programs and services they went to…
example:
Last year I paid $10,000 in taxes
$900 went to public schools
$700 went to the highway department
$1100 went to law enforcement
$500 went to study how owls fuck
and so on.
The amount I would voluntarily pay is the sum of those programs I think benefit the community I live in and my family in particular. And I only want to benefit the community so that I enjoy living there more. It just so happens that generally coincides with what most other people want, so it coincides with the common good.
This is a different argument than whether or not I think that an enormous amount of waste exists in all these systems and they are costing too much. I also acknowledge that the tax payers deserve a complete accounting of expenditures and that everything the government manages is now terribly inefficient and needs major streamlining.
But that has been the case for a long time. The fact that a program needs overhauled does not make it invalid or mean it should be eliminated. It means it needs fixed.
I think if you actually did this “experiment” with say, a sampling of 100,000 people, you would find that there are many services people are glad to pay their share for and you’ll find exactly what everbody considers bullshit. Which is exactly why no such experiment will ever happen. See, the politicians that voted for the owl fucking study new that only a handful of treehuggers would support it and everyone else would kill it.
But, the a couple of treehuggers donated a fat check to their campaigns. So, they put it in, even though the platform on which they got elected never spoke about such bullshit and the “will of the people” was never really respected on that issue. The “special interests” problem that the politicians will never address because it is too profitable.
Again, strip out the bullshit and I think the vast majority (which is all it takes in a democracy) will be glad to pay their share for mutually beneficial public programs.
I think if you actually did this “experiment” with say, a sampling of 100,000 people, you would find that there are many services people are glad to pay their share for and you’ll find exactly what everbody considers bullshit.
If people would voluntarily pay for public roads and schools in this manner, what do you need to fund them via compulsory taxes in the first place?
If people would actually volunteer to pay for government services you think necessary, as you imagine they would, what possible justification can there be for taxes?
Well, John, I guess because you can’t just throw five bucks down on a pothole to fix it.
For crying out loud John, make a coherent argument. You haven’t actually said anything this whole time. You explain to me what you think this society would be like, how it would run and how things like interstate highway systems would be administrated in the tax-free society you are talking about.
I described exactly what would happen in my HUGE post to charles. If you eliminated all taxation, the people would voluntarily bring it back, piece by piece, the way it happened in the first place 200 years ago.
And taxes are not compulsory in any way. You can leave any time. There are no threats of violence like charles refers to either. Simply stated, you got to pay to play. But you don’t have to play. It is a free country with a wide open door.
If you want to debate, then debate. All you keep saying is that you don’t feel you should pay your taxes. Justify that stance with some logical and better alternative. Explain how we have a centralized system of highways and courts and cops and prisons and a military and all of the things that we have to have so our country can survive. Because unless you can convince me otherwise, I think the society you want could easily be conquered by a little shithole like Cuba. And then you might get those threats of violence for not paying your taxes. Oh yeah, and you couldn’t leave if you do not like it.
Your up big guy. Make a lucid and sensible argument for a no tax society.
“If people would actually volunteer to pay for government services you think necessary, as you imagine they would, what possible justification can there be for taxes?”
Because their is always someone that wants all the benefits without paying. If you could keep all the people that did not pay taxes off the publically funded roads that would be a different story.
And I expect that you could commit any crime you want against any of the non-taxpayers because there is no one they can call, no one to investigate it, no courts to try it and no prisons. Not for the non-taxpayer. Only tax payers get the benefits.
Really John, Reconcile these anomolies in your response. Remember, it has to be a tax free, all voluntary society…that will actually work.
I am truly interested in your response.
Because their is always someone that wants all the benefits without paying. If you could keep all the people that did not pay taxes off the publically funded roads that would be a different story.
That would be dead easy Chris, in fact it’s already done. You don’t pay pay your motor vehicle taxes and you don’t get the magic sticker.
Obviously it would be equally simple to keep parents from sending their kids to public schools if they didn’t pay – do it the same way private schools do now.
And I expect that you could commit any crime you want against any of the non-taxpayers because there is no one they can call, no one to investigate it, no courts to try it and no prisons. Not for the non-taxpayer. Only tax payers get the benefits.
People who didn’t want to use your public agencies could use alternative private agencies if they liked. They could get any of these services for a fee in a free market.
That’s it John? I call you out with large posts outlining NUMEROUS points and challenge you to present your case for your whole plan for society and you pick two little items and come up with easy to destroy responses to those. Face it John, you cannot make a valid case for your point. But I will counterpoint anyway…
you said
“That would be dead easy Chris, in fact it’s already done. You don’t pay pay your motor vehicle taxes and you don’t get the magic sticker. ”
So you will NEVER leave your house. Your not allowed to bicycle on MY roads either.
As far as the schools, what about the parents that do not pay school taxes and won’t pay for private schools either? See big post to Charles. When these kids come up dumb as stumps because of their ignorant parents, can’t get a job, there are no publically funded food, welfare or unemployment programs so they have to steal to survive. I will make sure they no where all the ‘easy pickings’ are in your neighborhood. You may think you will have a private agency to protect you, but it will suck. It will suck because there will be people that move into your community and after they are there they refuse to pay their dues that pay for the security. Then they will have lame arguments with you about why they should not have to pay.
you said
“People who didn’t want to use your public agencies could use alternative private agencies if they liked. They could get any of these services for a fee in a free market.”
Perhaps, but I don’t have to respect or acknowledge their false authority. I do not have to ‘be arrested’ by them, your ‘judges’ can make no rulings that involve me and any attempt ‘take me into custody’ will be seen as a kidnapping by a foreign power (you don’t pay to be part of our society so you are like a different country.) You will start a war and your pissant little ‘we pay for our own security’ group cannot stand up to our publically funded military especially since your mercenary security people will quit you like a bad habit when the shooting starts so you will gladly hand me back over unharmed.
This wasn’t even close John. I am not impressed my friend. I am challenging you to lucidly make a case for a workable, viable example of the society you advocate. Not “I don’t have to pay that tax because I could do it this”. A whole society John. Offer something dude. Show that you have a thought out platform supporting your cause, because right not you honestly just sound like a dead beat that wants all the benefits our society offers without chipping inon the bill.
Wow me John. Come on.
Chris wrote:
You have to understand that one of two individuals is going to win. All other candidates are irrelevant.
If only two candidates are relevant in a field of only three or four nationally known Presidential candidates, then your one vote is astronomically irrelevant when you consider that it is cast among a field of millions upon millions of other votes.
Lynette,
I don’t understand the logic of that. The polls show that for the second election in a row this is going to be a tight race. Everyone’s vote for one of the big two is relevant because it will decide which candidate wins your state and therefore the electoral college votes for that state. That is why the democrats for example hate guys like Nader being in the race. They see him as stealing votes. Why? Because generally speaking the people that vote for third parties are more closely aligned with the Democrat’s platform than the Republican’s.
Knowing that someone is going to be president, if put under the gun most Nader supporters would say “But if I can’t have Nader I would rather have the Democrat.” But in a state where the vote comes in 49% Republican, 48% Democrat and 3% Nader the Republicans win, the Nader people do not even get their second choice and their votes were directly detrimental to their own wishes. So I guess they were not wasted, they were cast with the foreknowledge of advancing the Republican party JUST AS MUCH AS IF THEY HAD VOTED FOR BUSH DIRECTLY.
Don’t get me wrong, I hope everybody here votes for the Bednaricks, Naders and Kerry-Heinzes every time.
We Republicans thank you for your support.
But in a state where the vote comes in 49% Republican, 48% Democrat and 3%Nader…
…your individual vote will still make zero difference in the result of the election. As an individual you don’t get anything like 1% of the vote, you just get one vote. In the entire history of the republic you will not find a single case where your individual vote would have decided the outcome of a national election.
Maybe this time though?
What state are you voting in?
I said if 3% of the voters vote Nader John. 3% of the voters. What is 3%? It is the collection if INDIVIDUAL votes that add up to 3%. To make it even more clear, that means that if 1000 total voters cast a vote and 30 of them vote for Nader, that would be (need a flash card…) Right! 3% If only 29 voted Nader it would be 2.9%. Am I going too fast? And in my example that means the Republican get the electoral votes for that state. ANY STATE! But if those thirty people, instead of voting Nader voted Democrat….ready…here it comes…the Democrats get the electoral votes.
And I’ll take that as your glowing answer to my challenge John. Nice to know you can back up your political philosophy with absolutley nothing. Zero. Zilch. Nada. You can’t even remotely defend your position.
I am done slappin’ you around John, it bores me. You got nothing.
Chris,
You wrote:
Everyone’s vote for one of the big two is relevant …
…but in fact the election result will be the same regardless of who you vote for. The expected return on your individual vote is roughly zero.
Chris said:
“Remember, it has to be a tax free, all voluntary society…that will actually work.
I am truly interested in your response.”
Chris Said:
“Your up big guy. Make a lucid and sensible argument for a no tax society.”
Chris Said:
“Show that you have a thought out platform supporting your cause, because right not you honestly just sound like a dead beat that wants all the benefits our society offers without chipping inon the bill.
Wow me John. Come on.”
Chris wrote:
The polls show that for the second election in a row this is going to be a tight race. Everyone’s vote for one of the big two is relevant because it will decide which candidate wins your state
Since no *one* vote has ever decided the outcome of a national election and it never will, it won’t matter if you’re voting for Bush, Kerry, Badnarik, or Nader, your one vote is irrelevant any way you slice it.
If you, alone, were given special dispensation to cast your vote in blocks of five or six hundred then your votes could be relevant in the closest of states, but since you’re only allowed one vote, Chris, your vote is statistically insignificant in a Presidential race. It’s pure superstition or delusion to think otherwise.
Okay, Lynette, I can’t argue against the illogical. You and I both know that statistics can be used to defend or attack any position. Because statistics do not lie, statiticians do.
Note to all Democrats…Lynette says your votes do not count. It is statistically impossible for your vote to make a difference. No one vote over the last 228 years has counted. Please do this country a favor and stay home in November.
(Republicans, please take advantage of this logic by casting your useless votes in November.)
I can’t argue against the illogical. You and I both know that statistics can be used to defend or attack any position.
Do you know of any individual whose vote has changed the outcome of an election?
Nope, you win Lynette. Even if a state race actually came down to a single vote that decided it (which it can’t) you could never tell whose one vote it was, since it was actually everyone’s. If anyone’s vote had been different the outcome would have been different. But my example still stands. There have been times when, if the independant votes had been added to the democrat votes, that would have caused a state to swing to the other party. And those votes were a collection of individual votes. So those individual votes did have an impact. Again, I get the feeling it is in my best interest that you believe your vote does not count, so you win. Do not vote. Teach the machine a lesson by your silence. Choose not to choose. It does not matter.
those votes were a collection of individual votes. So those individual votes did have an impact.
Your error is that you don’t distinguish between individual votes and the collective vote. Acknowledge the distinction or you’re likely to just continue to go about spouting mystical junk math.
But my example still stands.
Your example stands as an illustration of how a collective mass of votes counts. It doesn’t show how an individual vote makes any difference at all.
I get the feeling it is in my best interest that you believe your vote does not count
My $1000 to your $20 if your vote matters. I’m paying 50 to 1, Chris, if your individual vote changes the outcome of the Presidential election.