Government---the bigger the better !!!!

Subject: Government---the bigger the better !!!!
From: Art Thieme
Date: 23 Oct 00 - 12:28 PM

In these days of 'shrink the government', I take the opposite point of view.

BIGGER IS BETTER from where I stand. Over the years great things have come from big government.

The New Deal
The Great Society
The New Frontier (space exploration with tll it's spinoffs)
The National Endowments For The Arts, Humanities etc.
Social programs to help ill and down people.

And so many more great programs to help the people of the U.S.A. in the constant fight that seemingly must be waged against the abuse of corporate power.

These have NOT cost too much. No, these fine programs would've been inexpensive at three times the cost. And they have allowed so many good people to find alternative ways to make their ways through this world without joining the ranks of the Capitalists whose main job seems to be monetary growth just for growth's sake. To me, that is and always will be the ideology of a cancer cell.

Art Thieme

Subject: RE: Government---the bigger the better !!!!
From: Mrrzy
Date: 23 Oct 00 - 12:36 PM

Not to mention that if everybody worked for the goverment we'd have achieved global unity! I am with you, Art.

Subject: RE: Government---the bigger the better !!!!
From: RWilhelm
Date: 23 Oct 00 - 12:38 PM

If everyone were lobotomized we would achieve global unity.

Subject: RE: Government---the bigger the better !!!!
From: catspaw49
Date: 23 Oct 00 - 12:39 PM

Oh boy....I can hardly wait to see what this one brings!

Spaw

Subject: RE: Government---the bigger the better !!!!
From: Mrrzy
Date: 23 Oct 00 - 12:45 PM

Earl, that's not unity, sorry!

Subject: RE: Government---the bigger the better !!!!
From: Whistle Stop
Date: 23 Oct 00 - 12:45 PM

Art has a valid point (and not just because I work for the government). The whole "shrinking government" movement is one of those things that people tend to support without examining it too closely -- it makes for good bumper-sticker politics, basically. Unrestrained growth of anything is bad, but I'm glad that a lot of what my government does isn't left to the private sector.

Subject: RE: Government---the bigger the better !!!!
From: RWilhelm
Date: 23 Oct 00 - 12:51 PM

I don't think you guys have much to worry about. The Republican congress just passed the biggest spending bill in the history of mankind and it was signed by the president who said "the era of big government is over." If you want fiscal responsibility you have to vote for the Drunken Sailor Party.

Subject: RE: Government---the bigger the better !!!!
From: mousethief
Date: 23 Oct 00 - 12:53 PM

IMHO, the government should do those things that are in the collective best interest of the nation, and which cannot be done or should not be done (due to conflict of interest, disparity of outcome based on wealth, etc.) by the private sector. Paving roads comes to mind, funding schools, that sort of thing. All of the programs Art mentioned are arguably fall into this category. Whenever someone gets on their "government is bad, taxes are bad" kick, I point out that taxes pay for the roads they drive their gas-guzzling SUV's on, and the fire fighters who will put out the flames should their mansion catch on fire, and the police who will arrest the assailants who try to rob them, etc. etc. etc.

And DON'T get me started about the a**holes who refuse to pay any federal income tax and make self-righteous noise about the constitution. It's not about the constitution, it's about the social contract. Them what live in society, and partake in the benefits of society, must pay for society. Period.

Just my US$0.02.

Alex
O..O
=o=

Subject: RE: Government---the bigger the better !!!!
From: harpgirl
Date: 23 Oct 00 - 03:04 PM

Well put Art. I also agree. Many of us want all those goodies, but, too many dont want to pay for them. You hate taxes? thats the price we pay for the great society we live in. You dont approve? move to Bosnia.

Subject: RE: Government---the bigger the better !!!!
From: katlaughing
Date: 23 Oct 00 - 03:04 PM

I totally agree with you Art. We were just discussing what it might be like if we get an all Republican Congress and President. A Progressive Democratic Senator from VT, who was on NPR, says we will see a swing farther to the right than we've ever seen in the history of our country and I am inclined to agree with him.

MT, out here in Wyoming we have a lot of those so-called "constitutionalists" and the grumblers about paying taxes. I always tell them just about the same thing you do.

kat

Subject: RE: Government---the bigger the better !!!!
From: Kim C
Date: 23 Oct 00 - 04:18 PM

Well, you know, the Good Book tells us to render unto Caesar, and I don't have a problem with that. I know we have to have taxes to pay for the things we enjoy. But I also think so much of that money is wasted and we never get a full accounting of it. And a lot of times, before the Fed will give any project money to states, they say, we'll give you this money but only if you do so and so or pass such and such law in your state. Personally I think that is a blatant violation of state sovereignty. But what do I know, I'm just an unfrozen caveman...

Subject: RE: Government---the bigger the better !!!!
From: mousethief
Date: 23 Oct 00 - 04:30 PM

State sovereignty has been dead since the end of the Civil War.

Alex
O..O
=o=

Subject: RE: Government---the bigger the better !!!!
From: DougR
Date: 23 Oct 00 - 04:54 PM

Mousethief: Uh, tell me about this social contract, please. I was not aware that we had a social contract with society. Who wrote it? Who signed it?

DougR

Subject: RE: Government---the bigger the better !!!!
From: mousethief
Date: 23 Oct 00 - 04:58 PM

DougR: you did, by not leaving society when you were old enough to make that choice.

This is all in Rousseau and Locke. Our constitution is based on it. Time to complete your education.

Alex
O..O
=o=

Subject: RE: Government---the bigger the better !!!!
From: RWilhelm
Date: 23 Oct 00 - 05:25 PM

I don't care what them pompous, wig-wearin, Eurotrash philosophers said. I never sign a contract without reading the fine print.

Subject: RE: Government---the bigger the better !!!!
From: mousethief
Date: 23 Oct 00 - 05:28 PM

spoken like a true conservative, Earl.

Alex
O..O
=o=

Subject: RE: Government---the bigger the better !!!!
From: RWilhelm
Date: 23 Oct 00 - 05:31 PM

Conservatives are mean. I'm a libertarian.

Subject: RE: Government---the bigger the better !!!!
From: Jim the Bart
Date: 23 Oct 00 - 05:47 PM

I like libertarians. I figure we should send them all to their own little planets to let them find out what "making their own way in the world" is really all about. Problem these days is that everybody's had the safety net there for so long that they don't even see it anymore.

As for Art's original post - Hear! Here!

Bart

Subject: RE: Government---the bigger the better !!!!
From: RWilhelm
Date: 23 Oct 00 - 06:05 PM

That should reinvigorate the space program.

Subject: RE: Government---the bigger the better !!!!
From: Midchuck
Date: 23 Oct 00 - 06:16 PM

I bethink me that libertarians have gotten to be almost as doctrinaire (how the f*** do you spell that, anyways?) as liberals or conservatives.

I like Heinlein's term: "Rational Anarchist."

Now we'll have a moment of silence so everyone can yell "Oxymoron!" in chorus.

O. K. Everybody done?

An Anarchist believes that all government is evil.

A Rational Anarchist believes that some government is a necessary evil.

The issue is, how little we can have and still make society work.

I don't know exactly how much that is. But since all the liberals and all the conservatives obviously do know, I probably don't need to.

Peter.

Subject: RE: Government---the bigger the better !!!!
From: Bill D
Date: 23 Oct 00 - 08:07 PM

People get the government they deserve.....

That is, the people collectively get the government they deserve collectively. Individually, it just don't work out. In some ways, the Republicans are the greatest pragmitists...if THEY win, they immediately do things that specifically benefit themselves, and the class/economic gap in society grows ever wider. The only real difference between older style conservatives and todays, is that now they also do a good job of lying to themselves about the real consequences of their actions.

They complain about "big government" because the bigger the government, the harder it is to control.....why, if it gets TOO big, it might even have room for some real programs to DO things for people, like Art and mousethief said.

Subject: RE: Government---the bigger the better !!!!
From: DougR
Date: 23 Oct 00 - 08:43 PM

Yep, Bill D, everybody knows in a republic like ours, government is supposed to take care of everybody! I guess to be fair that applies to the rich too.

Mousethief you explanation of the contract we have with society causes me to wonder.

DougR

Subject: RE: Government---the bigger the better !!!!
From: Carlin
Date: 23 Oct 00 - 10:24 PM

You left a few things off your list Art...

Segregation...was this not the essence of 'Big Government'?
Jim Crowe was the result of the government taking it upon itself to decide where people sat on the bus, which water fountain they used, where they sat to eat, who they went to school with, etc.....
Sounds like a government that is too big to me.

McCarthyism...the government decided what political parties you could belong to, who could write for the movies, who gov. employees could associate with.
Too much government for my taste.

And a personal favorite of mine...the Hayes office. I think I like it so much because it was a public-private partnership. The goverment cowed Hollywood into industrial censorship. By threatening to bring the full weight of government power to bear on them, the gov. actually forced the movie business to set up its own little Film Czar.....
Big government ain't always friendly.

Subject: RE: Government---the bigger the better !!!!
From: Rick Fielding
Date: 23 Oct 00 - 10:47 PM

I used to be a Socialist til I realized that with my uncooperative attitudes to authority, I'd be one of the first people jailed or shot.(or worse..put to work in the fields!) I think I'm a "benevolent anarchist" these days.

Rick

Subject: RE: Government---the bigger the better !!!!
From: DougR
Date: 23 Oct 00 - 10:50 PM

I think it would be interesting for someone to post, in their opinion, what government can do better than private industry can. There are obviously some social progams that private industry would have no reason to be involved in because the purpose for privatization is to show a profit. But other than those programs, what can government do better, and particularly more effeciently, than private industry?

DougR

Subject: RE: Government---the bigger the better !!!!
From: DougR
Date: 23 Oct 00 - 11:19 PM

Jeeze, Rick! I'm glad you "Saw the Light!" You're a good man! DougR

Subject: RE: Government---the bigger the better !!!!
From: Jim the Bart
Date: 23 Oct 00 - 11:34 PM

Earl - I'm glad you have a sense of humor.

I was going to comment again, but I'm too tired to make a point and all I'd end up doing is pissing in the wind. So I'm going to wish you all a good night.

Goodnight
Bart

Subject: RE: Government---the bigger the better !!!!
From: JamesJim
Date: 24 Oct 00 - 01:53 AM

Art, you would have liked the system in the Soviet Union. Wonder why it, as well as the country, collapsed? Could it be because everyone had their hand out? No creativity? No innovation? Thank God for the balance here -- conservatives and liberals seem to create a balance (I can't help but remember the old saying: "Making law is like making sausage. Neither are very pretty to watch being made)."

I spent my career in managing employee benefits and have studied government programs. It's true that many good benefits have come out of political ideas. However, there is so much waste in Medicare (as an example), you wouldn't believe it. I firmly believe that a major reason medical costs are so out of control is that government got into the business of providing healthcare. It was a great idea, but has been so fraught with fraud and mismanagement that we have paid substantially more for our care than necessary. The providers have seen it as a free lunch, especially when they can bill for services never rendered and no one audits them. Thankfully things have improved somewhat, but we are headed for many more problems.

No, my friend....the SMALLER the government, the better. It would be wonderful if politicians would quit promising the moon to everyone, just to get their vote. So many don't realize that it's there money that's being wasted. From the looks of it however, I doubt that will happen in our lifetime. If you like big government, you should continue to be happy with the way things are going, no matter who is elected.

Peace!

Jim

Subject: RE: Government---the bigger the better !!!!
From: Whistle Stop
Date: 24 Oct 00 - 08:43 AM

Doug, I think that government (federal, state, or local) can do a better job of anything where services need to be provided at a comparable level to people regardless of their economic status. That includes police services, firefighting, military, education, welfare (in all its forms), environmental protection, and a whole host of other areas. I know it is currently a hot issue, but I also believe that this applies to medical care, and that the medical system in the USA will keep getting more problematic until we all come to terms with this reality.

I have spent most (but not all) of my adult life in government. In my eight years with the United States Coast Guard I have saved lives, ensured the safety of navigation and shipping, cleaned up the environment, evaluated and guarded against terrorist threats, and served as a deterrent to the military forces of other countries (I am fortunate enough to have never been required to serve in wartime; I have enormous respect for the dedication and sacrifices of those who have done so). None of these things would have been done as well, or with as much regard for the rights and safety of ALL citizens (irrespective of their economic status), had we been forced to rely on the private sector. As you have acknowledged, the essence of the private sector is the profit motive. Had the private sector been responsible for these functions, the wealthy would have been saved and protected, while the poor would have been left to fend for themselves.

In my career since leaving the USCG, I have worked in the environmental protection and cleanup field, in both the public and private sectors. While there are well-meaning individuals in both, the essential underlying motivation is what makes the difference. A corporation MUST put profits first, or it will lose out to the competition. Therefore ALL companies and corporations that I have represented as a private sector consultant (a very large number, from small businesses to multinational corporations) required my services primarily to see how little they could get away with in fulfilling their legal obligations to clean up the environment. I don't blame them for this, but I recognize that it is so. And the more successful I was in meeting their needs, the more the environment was put at risk. The victims of my successes include every individual in the affected area who breathes the air, drinks the water, and otherwise partakes of the resources that are supposed to be here for all of us.

Our democracy, of course, functions increasingly as a public/private partnership. That is as it should be; both are necessary, and need to be kept in balance to ensure that we have a viable AND responsible economic system. I am all for efficiency, but in my experience the private sector is no more efficient in its use of resources than the public sector. The private sector keeps getting bigger; shouldn't the public sector as well?

Subject: RE: Government---the bigger the better !!!!
From: rabbitrunning
Date: 24 Oct 00 - 08:58 AM

Governments do free public libraries better than private corporations do, for one.

I think that government is a necessary check, sometimes, on the "profit is everything" motive. Having the people regulated write the regulations (as G.W.Bush did in Texas) is irresponsible. Modern corporations recognize only their responsibility to the stockholders. The other "stakeholders" (employees and the community) are usually only given consideration because of government regulation or incentives.

I was watching a show on FDR the other night, and it seems to me that the modern Republican party is doing it's level best to reverse the entire New Deal. The stock market instead of Social Security? That's what worked so well in the nineteen twenties, isn't it? Before the New Deal, government didn't provide any kind of safety nets. It was all private charity and people starved.

Government needs to be large enough to cope with the size of the population it governs. It needs to be large enough to provide services to the people who need services. I wouldn't mind seeing more accountable government -- who spent what where -- but downsizing government leaves necessary programs underfunded or staffed by overworked burnout cases.

Ahh... gotta get off my soapbox and go to work...

Subject: RE: Government---the bigger the better !!!!
From: Art Thieme
Date: 24 Oct 00 - 12:26 PM

This is exactly the discussion I had hoped to provoke pretty much. Many well taken points are here. I would not, as someone has indicated, be happier in the old Soviet Union. As I've said before, the Soviet people were rebelling against totalitarianism more than Socialism. But they tossed the baby out with the filthy washwater.

My question is this: Is it possible to have a benevolent and caring system within a Democracy?

I think it is---or ought to be. It's something to shoot for anyhow. But the majority (in a Democracy) can be pretty tyranical given the right circumstances.

Art Thieme

Subject: RE: Government---the bigger the better !!!!
From: Frankham
Date: 24 Oct 00 - 12:32 PM

Art, not only that but if we hadn't had government support for American folk music through the Library of Congress and the Lomaxes, the folk music revival might not have happened. It was government grants that enabled many folklorists to do their work. Woody Guthrie's first big gig was the Grand Coulee Dam Project financed by the TVA and through the Lomaxes, Alan in particular.

I think our taxes were put to good use.

Frank

Subject: RE: Government---the bigger the better !!!!
From: mousethief
Date: 24 Oct 00 - 12:34 PM

One thing government does better than the private sector: hold the toes of business to the fire to force them to treat their employees equitably, to protect both employee and public safety, and to not damage the environment. Among other things. As you say, Doug, the purpose of business is greed, and greed doesn't take equity or cleanliness into account; those things cost money. Without a progressive government forcing business to do these things, we would be (indeed, were, in the past) much worse off.

The frightening thing is, the press has all but given up its role as watchdog over industry, being after all a part of industry itself, and owned by huge, polluting conglomerates with no motive but greed. Who will protect us from the Rollerball future we seem to be heading toward? Either government, or nobody.

Alex
O..O
=o=

Subject: RE: Government---the bigger the better !!!!
From: Frankham
Date: 24 Oct 00 - 12:41 PM

No Carlin, segregation was ultimately about "states rights". As I see it, Lincoln, the Kennedys and Johnson were thrown reluctantly into having to deal with segregation. Wilson was egregious in employing it but the government eventually "righted itself" in this regard as they will ultimately do with the gay issue.

McCarthy was a product of hysteria and was supported by a conservative regime under Ike but this was "righted" as more enlightened people took their place in government because the American public had sense enough to vote better people in office.

Ultimately, we are the government. They represent us and if we vote for them, they are us. Republicans remind us that this is not a pure democracy, but a republic. Still, we need to remind them that they can't buy the election by corporate welfare and lobbies. The people still count.

Frank

Subject: RE: Government---the bigger the better !!!!
From: catspaw49
Date: 24 Oct 00 - 12:45 PM

Oh I dunno Art.........I'm really getting into Carlin's ideas on all this in both of the threads. Big government has taken over as he says and his desire to eradicate it is admirable. His points above all show how big government has taken over our lives in many aspects, so I would assume that a major downsizing and getting them out of our lives would be a good idea.

If we take control back and downsize the feds, then they won't be able to make those decisions which get us into so much trouble worldwide so we should be able to reduce the size of the military by at least 75%.

Let's take back total control of our own selves and by doing so we can forget the whole drug thing and all the money that's spent on stopping drug traffic. Big government cannot tell me what I should or should not partake of!

And getting them out of our lives should do away with any further discussion on abortion and all the Roe v. Wade stuff entirely. It is entirely the woman's choice than.

Yeah Carlin....I'm with you!

Spaw

Subject: RE: Government---the bigger the better !!!!
From: Whistle Stop
Date: 24 Oct 00 - 12:56 PM

Art, I think that it is possible to have a benevolent and caring system within a democracy -- as long as we're willing to recognize that "democracy" means more than "majority rule". For all its failings, the US Constitution is predicated on striking an appropriate balance between serving the desires of the majority and defending the rights of the minority. The government needs a certain amount of muscle to do this effectively, and needs to be willing to stand up to a misguided majority on occasion. The misguided majority may be motivated by racism, or religious intolerance, or the profit motive -- whatever the motivation, the government has to be enough of a presence that it can have some hope of ensuring fair and equal treatment for all.

That concept is abstract and simplistic, but the application of it to specific issues is often quite complex. Therefore, I think that it is probably impossible for an effective and benevolent democracy to run on auto-pilot -- it needs tending by good people who will move beyond simple slogans to deal with real-world problems in all their complexity. My preference is for a government run by intelligent people, who can articulate goals and principles in a straightforward manner, but can deal with the complexity of the real world as well -- people who can handle both the "macro" and the "micro". My objection to so many of the "small government" crowd is that they seem to feel the slogans are enough, and paint anyone who understands the details as a "pointy-headed bureaucrat" who advocates waste and inefficiency. "They trust the government; we trust the people" is one recent example that comes to mind.

Subject: RE: Government---the bigger the better !!!!
From: DougR
Date: 24 Oct 00 - 12:59 PM

Excellent discussion. Wish I had nothing else to do, i'd like to present counter arguments for some of the points made, but all in all, I agree with Art that it is a good discussion.

Just one thing, though, Mousethief if you are going to quote me, quote me correctly. I did not use the word, "greed" in my post. I used the word, "profit." Those two words are in now way synonymous.

If businesses are not profitable, they cannot stay in business. People are employed by businesses. If businesses cease to exist, jobs cease to exist. If jobs cease to exist, the country has a huge unemployement problem. The businesses that cease to exist and pay taxes and the people who worked for those failed businesses that also paid taxes, no longer pay taxes and cannot support government.

Is that so difficult to accept?

DougR

Subject: RE: Government---the bigger the better !!!!
From: Grab
Date: 24 Oct 00 - 01:01 PM

DougR, just by having a crap in a toilet, you've participated in society. Reason - society needs to pay for adequate water supplies to an area, repair of drains, sewage processing, all the rest.

So opt out of society and tell them you're not going to take their shit any more...

Grab.

Subject: RE: Government---the bigger the better !!!!
From: mousethief
Date: 24 Oct 00 - 01:07 PM

Hey, DougR, calm down! I never said businesses were evil, or unnecessary. I work for Boeing, one of the biggest businesses in the business (so to speak), and hope it continues to be profitable for a long time.

Nevertheless, without government controls, businesses would have little or no incentive to protect the environment or employ equitably and safely, because these things COST rather than EARN money. Why is THAT so hard to accept?

The desire for profit is the desire for money, for profit means "the money left over after you pay all the expenses." People don't start or invest in businesses because they hate money. I guess it depends on how you define "greed." I can agree to disagree on this one.

Alex
O..O
=o=

Subject: RE: Government---the bigger the better !!!!
From: DougR
Date: 24 Oct 00 - 01:24 PM

Grab: that's funny.

DougR

Subject: RE: Government---the bigger the better !!!!
From: Bill D
Date: 24 Oct 00 - 01:34 PM

Private industry 'could' do many things that big government does not do very well...but they often do NOT!

You simply can't depend on altruism to go any farther than the bottom line..profit. Whether it is a 'reasonable' profit or an outrageos, greedy profit is often hard to tell, as they don't usually have to open the books and make the details known.........The thing is, the competition that made America great is rapidly dwindling as mergers & buy-outs make us ever more dependant on the whims of suits & ties in board rooms. I used to have 3 or 4 small drug stores within 5 minutes drive...one was bought and summarily closed by Safeway, so that THEIR pharmacy had no competition across the street, and most other small pharmacies in our area are being flat driven out of business and bought by CVS corporation.....who simply makes little attempt to carry the same lines and give the same personalized service. They sell ONLY what they consider good for CVS and are working to be sure the coming generation has few choices beyond what CVS determines they need. Government COULD restrain this process, but it takes so much money to BECOME part of the lesgative body anymore that lawmakers are usually drawn FROM the private industry they need to regulate.

I am not enamored of government for its own sake, I just have more interest in Utilitarianism, rather than Pragmatism, being the guiding principle. In theory, a benevolent despot would provide the most efficient government, but they seem to be in pretty short supply these days....(anyone want to give ME the job? *heh-heh*)

Subject: RE: Government---the bigger the better !!!!
From: Skeptic
Date: 24 Oct 00 - 01:45 PM

IMO, in part, we have big government (in the sense of scope, not just numbers) because the social controls that worked well in smaller communities, tend not to work as well for urban, mobile societies. The controls are needed and government stepped up to the plate. And in the nature of all large organizations, government moved to solidify its power. The problem with taking back control of our lives from the government is that, at least in our Republic, the majority don't want to. (By majority I mean those who vote). If the People don't want big government, they can stop it by demanding accountability from the people they elect. And not re-electing them if they don't step up to the plate. But its so much easier to let some organ of governmental do it to you, rather than take personal responsibility. Letting the government take responsibility also lets the individual off the hook for the consequences.

I think Whistlestop understated the inefficiency of big business. Having lived in that world for 12 years, and since moved to work for a local government, what I notice is that government is more concerned with looking at the effective use of its resources before they jump into something. I've seen a private company put $12 million into a project that failed, and write the whole thing off as "opportunity cost". Imagine your local government paving a couple of miles of road and then deciding not to use it because it turned out the public didn't need a road there to begin with?

Regards John

Subject: RE: Government---the bigger the better !!!!
From: Carlin
Date: 24 Oct 00 - 01:51 PM

"Oh I dunno Art.........I'm really getting into Carlin's ideas on all this in both of the threads. Big government has taken over as he says and his desire to eradicate it is admirable."

That's great spaw.....I'll have you believing in freedom soon.

"If we take control back and downsize the feds, then they won't be able to make those decisions which get us into so much trouble worldwide so we should be able to reduce the size of the military by at least 75%."

Works for me. Bring the troops back home. No more peacekeeping, no more nation building, no more Euro-troubles, and no more human landmines in Korea.

Of course as Al Gore so proudly pointed out during the debates he wants to spend twice as much money on the military as Bush. He has also ridiculed Bush for his proposed draw down in Europe. Perhaps you should consider voting Republican.

"Let's take back total control of our own selves and by doing so we can forget the whole drug thing and all the money that's spent on stopping drug traffic. Big government cannot tell me what I should or should not partake of!"

Works for me. Legalize it, tax it. I will not use my tax money to support anyone's drug habit. If you want to get high do it on your own dime.

Now if we had socialized medicine the government would be able to tell you where when and how to get high. If they are picking up the tab for your health care, then they certainly have an obligation to regulate behavior that could be detrimental to your health.

"all the Roe v. Wade stuff entirely. It is entirely the woman's choice than."

Works for me.

Subject: RE: Government---the bigger the better !!!!
From: catspaw49
Date: 24 Oct 00 - 02:38 PM

Yep....proves my contention that the "Political Spectrum" is not linear but circular and there's a part where both sides almost meet.

So tell me Carlin..........Do you see it happening? Will either candidate (that has a chance to win) make a difference on a grand scale?

Yeah......I don't think so either, so we're left with trying to elect the one who might affect one or two issues in some small way.

The people will fancy an appearance of Freedom; Illusion will be their native land......Jacques Elull

Spaw

Subject: RE: Government---the bigger the better !!!!
From: Jim Krause
Date: 24 Oct 00 - 02:42 PM

Art, Art, Art, Thank God somebody has the sense God gave geese! I have been saying these same words, or words very much like them for a long time. Sometimes bigger is better. AMEN

Subject: RE: Government---the bigger the better !!!!
From: DougR
Date: 24 Oct 00 - 04:21 PM

And you feel rather strongly about it too, eh Soddy?

DougR

Subject: RE: Government---the bigger the better !!!!
From: Kim C
Date: 24 Oct 00 - 04:45 PM

If state sovereignty is dead it's only because people have become so complacent they have no idea that the Constitution is based on it. Plus the federal government has made it difficult for states to manage their own affairs, for the reasons I previously stated (ie, money, money, and money). But you will notice, that liquor laws, gun laws, speed limits, etc. etc. do vary from state to state and are not regulated by federal mandates, they're regulated by the Citizens of That State. My understanding of the Constitution was that all the Fed was supposed to do was coin money and raise an army. But like I said, I'm just an unfrozen caveman and probably have no idea what I'm talking about. :)

Subject: RE: Government---the bigger the better !!!!
From: mousethief
Date: 24 Oct 00 - 05:24 PM

Actually, no, state sovereignty is dead because of a series of court rulings dating from the time of the civil war. At that time the USA ceased to be a federation of independent states and became a single nation. Yes, states still have some autonomy for setting things like liquor laws and speed limits (although the national 55mph speed limit showed exactly how far that could go!), but federalism is dead.

If you grew up when I did, you knew from Saturday morning cartoons that the purpose of the Constitution was to form a more perfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity. At least that's what the Constitution says.

The 10th amendment gave all rights not mentioned in the constitution back to the states. But it has been ridden roughshod over repeatedly in the last 200+ years. Federal drug laws, for example, have absolutely no constitutional standing, yet they have never been slapped down by the courts. The people who wanted to make booze illegal realized that the constitution didn't allow a federal law (let alone a presidential mandate!) doing so, and amended the constitution. But when DuPont wanted hemp made illegal, somehow this was forgotten, and we have a slew of federal anti-drug laws (and mandates) which are wholly unconstitutional, at least if the 10th amendment is still part of the constitution. Alas, it would seem it is is not!

It's not that you're an unfrozen caveman, Kim, it's just that you're mistaking the Constitution in-and-of-itself with the Constitution as it has been defined (some would say re-defined) down through the ages by the Supreme Court.

Alex
O..O
=o=

Subject: RE: Government---the bigger the better !!!!
From: RWilhelm
Date: 24 Oct 00 - 05:24 PM

One problem with these discussions is we are always comparing the private sector to some ideal theory of government. That is not the same as comparing it to the government in the real world. With corporations at least we know that the motivation is to make a profit or at least enough money to keep the wheels rolling. In politics can anyone really say what drives men like Clinton, the Bushes, or Gore? And they are just the top of the heap. We have to hope that cumulative effect of hundreds of these petty, insecure, self-righteous, psyches in congress will lead us forward. We can't guarantee it will get better but it will get bigger.

Subject: RE: Government---the bigger the better !!!!
From: Kim C
Date: 24 Oct 00 - 05:50 PM

Yes, thank you, I learned the Preamble from Schoolhouse Rock; but I still believe that the United States is a union of 50 free and independent states. The Tennessee Constitution uses those exact words: "free and independent state." To me that means that the citizens of Tennessee can govern the state of Tennessee in any way they see fit.

I think in the last few years, the Colorado anti-gay legislation, the California legal pot legislation, and the arguments against the Brady Bill have ALL been about state sovereignty. So maybe it's dead in practice, only because the Fed has killed it, but it lives on in the hearts of individual citizens. :)

Subject: RE: Government---the bigger the better !!!!
From: mousethief
Date: 24 Oct 00 - 05:55 PM

Can't argue with you there, Kim!

Alex
O..O
=o=

Subject: RE: Government---the bigger the better !!!!
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Oct 00 - 07:30 PM

Big government is bad enough, but the real threat to freedom now is big business. Without cutting that down to size and putting it under the control of ordinary people -the peole who work there, and the people who use what it makes, (if it makes anything, which can't be assumed these days), rolling back the state just gives a better killing field for the predators all around us.

There are other choices as well as having a big centralised bureaucracy on the one hand or a capitalist conspiracy against the public on the other. Cooperative federations can do anything that government or big business can do, and do it better. And with the new technology we've got now, the computers and the phones and so forth, that is more true than it has ever been.

"Making a profit" does not just mean covering your costs and paying a decent wage to everyone in the firm, including the people who are paid to manage it. That would be fair and juast. It means making as much as you can when the opportunity arises, regardless of what that does to other people - and it also means holding down the wages of the people working for you to the lowest level that is in keeping with the market. (And in some case that means lots of dosh, in others very little indeed.) Whether you call that greed or not doesn't matter. But it is essentially a form of theft.

As for the assumption that a publicly funded system of health care means waste - that's just not true. The British National Health Service isn't perfect, largely because of interference by the last givernment over 18 years, but the cost of the bureaucracy and administration is far lower than in equivalent private health services. (And the logic of that isn't to take the health service out of the public sector, it's to take the government out of the health service, but keep it public.)

Subject: RE: Government---the bigger the better !!!!
From: Bill D
Date: 24 Oct 00 - 08:13 PM

"and it also means holding down the wages of the people....etc.."

amen, McGrath..and it also means things like laying off people who are near retirement so they don't have to pay pensions, then rehiring them as 'temps' doing the same job at lower wages....and defending it as 'sound business practice'.

and it means things like Microsoft and AOL owning most of the software we use for these chats, and slowly removing any hope of the 'freedom' the internet/WWW was supposed to bring.

Subject: RE: Government---the bigger the better !!!!
From: kendall
Date: 24 Oct 00 - 08:16 PM

Speaking of profits has anyone else heard on the news that the oil companies turned 3 billion dollars in profit this past quarter? I just got a notice from the gas company that the price of natural gas would go up by 29% in January. The same notice says that there is no need to worry because there is plenty to fill demand!
Local control eh? this is an example of local control.. a couple of years ago in NC the principal of a high school threatened to cancel the senior prom if anyone showed up with a partner of a different race. Thats why we need government control...to keep bastards like him in check!

Subject: RE: Government---the bigger the better !!!!
From: Greg F.
Date: 24 Oct 00 - 10:20 PM

If businesses are not profitable, they cannot stay in business sez DougR. Not true. Government subsidies and tax breaks constantly keep unprofitable businesses afloat. Chrysler? Savings & Loan bailout? Rollbacks of pollution regs? Trent Lot's pet boat? And on and on. Welfare is only "bad" if it helps poor people instead of corporations, it seems.

Best, Greg

Subject: RE: Government---the bigger the better !!!!
From: JamesJim
Date: 25 Oct 00 - 02:10 AM

I am tempted to jump into the middle of the "Big Business" debate, but I won't. I will only say that the majority of Americans work for small employers (those with fewer than 100 employees). The big boys got big through mergers, acquistions, etc. They should be allowed to get as big as they want, as long as they do not become either a monopoly or an ologopoly. The wealth created by a few certainly benefits those few, but it also benefits many, many others. Those "workers" become adept at their jobs and that training is often the jumping off point for creating/starting their own business. I WONDER HOW MANY OF US MUDCATTERS OWN OUR OWN BUSINESS? That would be an excellent thread - I'll have to give it a try.

Yours for wealth (and for spreading it around)

Jim

Subject: RE: Government---the bigger the better !!!!
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 25 Oct 00 - 07:53 AM

"They should be allowed to get as big as they want, as long as they do not become either a monopoly or an ologopoly." But they do. First they squeeze out the little businesses, then they jack up the profit margin when they've squashed the competition.

"If businesses are not profitable, they cannot stay in business" - profitable means two thiigs. It can mean not runnig at a losss. And clearly you can't run at a loss, without some kind of subsidy. But it can also mean, and it does mean, maximising profits, and offloading costs (such as environmental costs) on to other people. And it's quite possible to stay in business without maximising profits.

Most of the time in normal life that's how people operate - if a neighbour asked you to do their shopping, because they couldn't get out, you'd expect them to pay for the stuff you buy; you might expect petrol money; or even conceivably something to pay for the time it took you. But you wouldn't find out how much it would cost them to get it done using a cab, and jack what you charged up to fractionally below that, to "the market price".

Subject: RE: Government---the bigger the better !!!!
From: kendall
Date: 25 Oct 00 - 08:40 AM

WAL-MART

Subject: RE: Government---the bigger the better !!!!
From: Whistle Stop
Date: 25 Oct 00 - 08:47 AM

The "free and independent states" thing was fundamentally decided by the Civil War -- what Gary Wills called "the second American Revolution". The "states rights" crowd lost that one. There are still some rights reserved to the states, but they are more limited than the Confederacy thought they should be. But that's old news. Most of us in the USA are comfortable with the way that turned out, and with the progressively greater role the federal government has played in our lives since the 1860s -- some would argue that this had gone too far, but not too many thinking people would seriously advocate going back to the ambiguity we operated under pre-1860.

[Interestingly enough, "states rights" became a big problem for the Confederacy during the Civil War. As Jeff Davis discovered, it isn't easy to fight a war if each state gets to make up its own mind about the level and quality of its participation.]

Earl seems to assume that people in government are more petty and self-interested than people in the private sector. I've worked in both, and I sure haven't noticed that. I don't advocate carrying on this discussion based on an idealized view of government, but I also don't think we should adopt an idealized view of business. People are people; some do their jobs very well, some don't. Generally, one hopes that the cream will rise to the top, but it doesn't always work out that way. If you worked in government, you might discover (as I have) that government workers have just as many reasons to be efficient and effective as those in private industry do -- and just as much to lose if they don't do their jobs well. Government is a popular whipping boy, because most people work in the private sector, and it's always more fun to say the problem is "them" rather than "us". Those of us who DO have some direct experience in both the public and the private sectors tend to see things a little bit differently.

Subject: RE: Government---the bigger the better !!!!
From: Kim C
Date: 25 Oct 00 - 09:42 AM

Kendall beat me to the Wal-Mart! I think Wal-Mart is the Anti-Christ! But if you're ever in a small town and need something, you can count on them to be there. Ironic, isn't it?

If state sovereignty is truly a dead issue, then let's just have all 50 states trash their own constitutions since they obviously don't mean anything anymore. ;)

Subject: RE: Government---the bigger the better !!!!
From: Jim the Bart
Date: 25 Oct 00 - 10:14 AM

It seems to me that the real villain in our culture is GREED, along with his running mate, CORRUPTION. Those two killed the mess that was masquerading as Communism in Eastern Europe and the USSR. It very nearly killed our system back in the days leading up to the Great Depression (the best argument against unbridled Capitalism that anyone could offer). It has undermined all attempts to create more equitable solutions here in America now, and has since the Roosevelt days.

My only question to those who advocate "free market Capitalism", which has been a phantasm in America (except for the underground economy), is simply "How can a system that rewards greed (the accumulation of capital is clearly an advantage) be expected to correct the problems caused by greed?

you have to keep in mind something that was raised earlier in the political threads - big government in the US came about to offset the excesses of big business, i.e., the free market capitalists. If you don't accept this, get a hold of the PBS series on the Rockefellers; it's probably at your local library.

One last point to stir things up before I get to work. Marx was trying to describe what he saw as a natural economic progression; he didn't posit Communism as an alternative to Capitalism as much as a possible result of Capitalism. What Lenin imposed on Russia and Eastern Europe was not what Marx suggested would happen. Communism would grow in industrialized nations, not the agrarian backwaters like Russia or China. The fall of the Soviet Union was not the failure of Marx's predictions; as far as I know the only real attempt to thwart what Marx saw as inevitable is the socialism practiced in the US and England. A socialism that the Republican administrations have been furiously trying to dismantle, a piece at a time.

I am not an expert on Marx. Nor am I a communist. I think it's impractical in a country this size. I believe there is an accountability problem that comes into place as people who are used to sneaking by (endemic in our society) are suddenly released from the coercive elements of capitalism. I am a republican socialist, in that I put more trust in the republic than in the states, the market or rule by the masses. Democracy in an indifferent and often ignorant society is meaningless.

Jump right in. Enjoy your day. I'll check in later.

Bart

Subject: RE: Government---the bigger the better !!!!
From: Whistle Stop
Date: 25 Oct 00 - 10:22 AM

Kim, I didn't say state sovereignty/states' rights is a dead issue. But it is clearly diminished. The Civil War was the watershed moment, but there have been others -- notably the civil rights struggles of the 1950s and 60s (another example of racist policies being defended on states' rights grounds). Most historians would agree on this. There are bound to be disagreements about how far we should go with the progressive federalization that has been at work in this country throughout history, but clearly it has happened. Moreover, given the increased mobility of the population, and the increased inter-dependence of the states on trade issues and such, I have a hard time imagining that we could have frozen the states' rights issue in time back in the 1770s.

Subject: RE: Government---the bigger the better !!!!
From: Ringer
Date: 25 Oct 00 - 10:26 AM

If government were perfect, I'd be on Art's side. But it ain't, so I ain't.

Government, by its nature, attracts a certain type of person, and the people it attracts are not always (I hesitate to say "never") the best people to run a government. At the top are the power freaks on ego trips and at the bottom are officious busybodies (my experience is with UK governments, but from what I gather, similar things apply in the US). They've all got two things in common, however:

1) they all want to increase their sphere of influence, so government always tends to expand, and

2) they all love spending (my!) money, so taxes always tend to increase.

While government is imperfect (ie until hell freezes over) and while it limits my freedom and takes my money, the smaller the better. And quis custiodet ipsos custodes?

Subject: RE: Government---the bigger the better !!!!
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 25 Oct 00 - 11:11 AM

"Government, by its nature, attracts a certain type of person" - I think there is a certain sort of people who really want power for its own sake, and they often tend to get into positions of power - but that doesn't seem to be peculiar to Givernment, or to the public sector.

They want to have more power for its own sake, and to expand there influence, and they enjoy exercising that power, for its own sake again. Spending wastefully can be one way that demonstrates itself, and that maybe is more chgaracteristic of public sector. Taking grossly inflated salaries and share options and so forth are another way, and that's more typical of the private sector. Now they've worked out a way of combining the two, and tits called public-private partnership, and is described as "the Third Way".

There are also people who have ambitions to do something useful, and they also can be attracted to positions of power, and sometimes make it. I think these are less likely to waste money, since that means there's less to spend on getting useful stuff done. And maybe they are less obsessed with raking in the cash personally, rather than getting to achieve what they want.

I'd draw a distinction between Government and the public sector. But in any case I don't know any evidence that either is more full of crooks and charlatans and generally reprehensible characters than private business. Along with the good guys. But by and large wherever you go, it seems to me that the stuff that rises to the top is more likely to be scum than cream.

Subject: RE: Government---the bigger the better !!!!
From: Kim C
Date: 25 Oct 00 - 11:53 AM

You are right, Whistle Stop, it is greatly diminished. And in truth, if a state voluntarily joins a union, it does have to adhere to certain things. Kinda like when you buy a house in a subdivision where they tell you what you can & can't put in your window. But I do think that many of our problems with governments, be they local, state, or federal, come from a serious lack of participation by the governed, because the governed are so tired of the same old BS that they think their opinion doesn't matter anyway.

I heard that in the last Presidential election, only 50% of registered voters bothered to go to the polls. That means the President was elected by less than 25% of the voting citizens of the United States. Pretty darn pitiful, if you ask me.

I'm all for government - but we really need to get back to this by the people and for the people business. The government belongs to you and me and all of us, not just the people who go to Washington. So for that reason alone, I think we are all entitled to a turn in the Lincoln bedroom. :D

Subject: RE: Government---the bigger the better !!!!
From: Ringer
Date: 25 Oct 00 - 12:20 PM

My word, McGrath, you really have swallowed the Tony Blair spin, haven't you?

My comments were directed at government; I made no mention of the private sector.

Subject: RE: Government---the bigger the better !!!!
From: DougR
Date: 25 Oct 00 - 12:48 PM

Bald Eagle: I tend to agree with you. I only spent two years as an employee with a federal agency in Washington, D. C., but it didn't take me long to realize that the federal bureaucracy was not for me. Power building was a common occurance among department heads as each program director vied to hire more people and introduce new programs. If the agency's success had been measured the same way as even a small business is, "profit", it would have failed miserably. When I joined the agency there were 45 employees. When I left two years later there were well over three hundred.

I have never worked for a very large employer (G.E., IBM, etc.) and I imagine that the bureaucracy exist there too, but because the company must show a profit in order to continue doing business, I would bet that they are operated much more efficiently than government is (at any level). Just my opinion, of course. DougR

Subject: RE: Government---the bigger the better !!!!
From: Whistle Stop
Date: 25 Oct 00 - 01:07 PM

Kim, at last we agree on something! I also feel that more participation by the electorate will ultimately result in better government.

Doug, you are welcome to place that bet. My experience suggests otherwise; I think that the myth that waste and inefficiency only exist in government is so pervasive because it's always expressed in non-specific tems, which are difficult to refute. Also, I would note that, in the USA of the 20th/21st century, government and private industry are often "blended" when it comes to large industries -- whether they be part of Ike's "military-industrial complex" (so many of our big corporations are), or the energy industries, or many of the other industrial sectors. We don't truly have an independent private sector; the truth is that government and industry these days are virtually inseparable.

Subject: RE: Government---the bigger the better !!!!
From: mousethief
Date: 25 Oct 00 - 01:17 PM

I work in Big Industry, and can tell you that at least here, at the Lazy B, nepotism, absurd empire-building, and horrific slop and waste are no strangers.

I have also worked for government (directly for the county government, but my position was funded by a grant from the feds).

I realize that this is a very limited comparison, but there is a hell of a lot more slop, waste, and empire-building here at Boeing than there was at the Health Department.

Those who think government is inefficient and business is efficient due to the profit requirement are sleepwalking.

From my experience, at least!

Alex
O..O
=o=

Subject: RE: Government---the bigger the better !!!!
From: Jim the Bart
Date: 25 Oct 00 - 01:53 PM

It's kind of funny, in a way - business wastes money and recoups it through various tax write-offs or by raising the price of goods, government wastes money and recoups it by raising their budget and our taxes. The average person gets it from both ends.

Subject: RE: Government---the bigger the better !!!!
From: DougR
Date: 25 Oct 00 - 02:05 PM

True, Bart. Mousethief: I can only report how it was with the federal agency where I worked. When the agency hired a person to stamp the return address on large envelopes with a rubber stamp, rather than have them printed, it offered me a clue. I think I stated that one probably finds the same kind of empire building, etc. with the large companies but I have had no experience with them so I can't comment on that. I'll take your word for it. Whistle Stop: I agree with much you that wrote.

DougR

Subject: RE: Government---the bigger the better !!!!
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 25 Oct 00 - 02:40 PM

"My word, McGrath, you really have swallowed the Tony Blair spin, haven't you?"

You really must have been seriously overdoing the speed reading Eagle.

Or maybe I should have spelt it out more fully. I sometimes tend towards the gnomic. So I'll spell it out now: I was suggesting that, with traditional big givernment, you can get the power freaks going for wasting money by spending it foolishly; with private enterprise, they tend to go in for diverting it into hyper-inflated salaries and so forth. Either way the public gets ripped off.

And when you combine the two in Tony's "Third Way" we can end up with the hyper-inflated salaries and perks of the private sector and the waste that sometimes (by no means always) characterises the public sector.

I somehow don't think that's what Tony Blair's spin-doctors are trying to persuade us is the case.

And for an example of how private companies can screw up seriously when they are handed a public enterprise )at a knockdown price), look no further than what has happened to the British Railway system since it was privatised. Massive subsidies, shoddy services, fragmentation, accidents because the whole thing has been run down to give maximum dividends to shareholders...

Subject: RE: Government---the bigger the better !!!!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 25 Oct 00 - 02:42 PM

A lot of good comments here. I mainly agree with Art's original position, and yes, we ARE all part of a social contract...unless we decide to be thieves, lawbreakers, rapists, or whatever....in which case we have violated a part of the social contract which all of us take for granted most of the time.

Of the 5 main political parties in Canada, 4 of them offer people a tax cut every time they run for office. This is nothing more than cynical political opportunism, appealling to people's selfishness and short-sightedness.

A friend of mine is presently running for city Council in Orillia, Ontario. We're having municipal elections right now. (And a federal one too, which really adds to the confusion and hoopla).

He sarcastically remarked that a national party should launch a platform saying this: "WE PROMISE TO CUT ALL TAXES TO ABSOLUTE ZERO! NEVER AGAIN PAY A SINGLE CENT OF TAX TO THE GOVERNMENT! ZERO TAXES NOW!!!"

And then in very, very tiny print down below...*(of course you will not have any roads to drive on, any schools, any hospitals, any police, any civil defense, any 911 to call, any fire department, any national monetary system, any courts to regulate the laws and secure justice, any government to represent you in any way whatsoever, any national identity, any diplomats, any...got the picture? If you're rich you will hire a small private army from the desperate starving masses around you, and when you run short of vital necessities (or just get bored) you can loot, pillage and rape the general region in which you live...but watch out for your rich neighbour who may have a bigger army than you do.)

The Dark Ages, in other words.

There are a whole bunch of areas of human life that the private sector has neither the will, the morality, or the ability to deal with. Those are the areas that naturally fall under government jurisdiction.

Where private enterprise is tremendously valuable is in all the other areas...farming, small business, restaurants and other service industries, manufacturing, entertainment, and so on.

I believe the finest system possible at this juncture is one that combines an equal measure of socialism and goverment on various levels with an equal measure of capitalism.

Thank God that in Canada we have a government-funded national radio station, for example. It provides an alternative to commercial radio that is a breath of fresh air. This in no way has imperilled the healthy growth of privately owned commercial radio in Canada...there's just as much of it, and it's just as obnoxious and riddled with commercial advertising as it is in the USA. I would gladly pay MORE taxes to continue having the CBC, which has no ads and plays folk music, ethnic music, and all kinds of music you will virtually NEVER hear on commercial radio.

Thank God that we have a universal medical plan. What the hell is private enterprise doing playing games with people's lives by denying them medical care, because they're poor, and driving them into bankruptcy when they get sick? It's so corrupt what you have in the States in this respect that people from western Europe or Canada can hardly believe it!

If you combine equal measures of socialism, capitalism, and human rights with a democraticly elected system...you can hardly do better than that.

Small government, by the way, is more responsive than big government to a local problem, so I would encourage more funding to LOCAL governments very much. Save the BIG government for the areas that small government can't really handle too well...like a national currency, a justice system, and so on...

As for huge corporate capitalism...it ends up being just as oppressive and monolithic as Communism, just as centralized, and for even more ignoble motives. Your Communist bureaucrat is replaced by a group of CEO's, and like the Communist bureacrat they are in it strictly to feather their own nests.

Corporatism (which presently rules America) IS centralized Communism under another name, falsely posing as free enterprise, without benefit of a specific political party or philosophy...or indeed of any moral position whatsoever...all that matters to the corporation is money, money, money.

"Money doesn't talk, it swears" - Dylan

Subject: RE: Government---the bigger the better !!!!
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 25 Oct 00 - 07:03 PM

There's "private" and there's "corporate". Corporatism bears the same relationship to free enterprise as Stalinism did to socialism.

Socialism could be a great system. Real free enterprise could probably be a pretty good system. A good mix of the two could work well also.

I always like the expression State Capitalism to describe what happend in Russia.

Never mind, one monster overthrown; one monster getting ready to fall some day not so far away.

Subject: RE: Government---the bigger the better !!!!
From: Art Thieme
Date: 25 Oct 00 - 07:31 PM

Someone here said that you can't stay in business without making a profit.

Well, it IS possible to stay in business without making a profit. I did it for a long, long, long time -- singing folksongs. It was amazing to head East and do a tour up and down the East Coast and get home a month and a half later, if I was lucky that trip, fifty bucks ahead. ;-)

Art

Subject: RE: Government---the bigger the better !!!!
From: DougR
Date: 25 Oct 00 - 08:38 PM

Yeah, Art, I said that. You didn't make enough to start a 401k maybe, but you still showed a $50 profit! :>) DougR

Subject: RE: Government---the bigger the better !!!!
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 25 Oct 00 - 08:50 PM

Fair profit. "Take what you need and leave the rest."

Subject: RE: Government---the bigger the better !!!!
From: DougR
Date: 26 Oct 00 - 01:28 AM

Yeah, I agree with McGrath. Keep at least 25% for yourself and give the rest to the government. Takes a lot to support big government! :>) DougR.

Subject: RE: Government---the bigger the better !!!!
From: Ringer
Date: 26 Oct 00 - 04:23 AM

You're quite right, McGrath. Sorry.

Subject: RE: Government---the bigger the better !!!!
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Oct 00 - 05:31 AM

I was thinking more don't rob your custiners and employees and fellow citizens.

Subject: RE: Government---the bigger the better !!!!
From: Art Thieme
Date: 26 Oct 00 - 09:30 PM

I WASN'T COMPLAINING. That is for sure.

And the many times I came out ahead was because the Paton's and so many others opened their homes and their refrigerators to me for all the down time between gigs.

But what is a 401K anyway?? Is that a new model of Martin guitar?

Art

Subject: RE: Government---the bigger the better !!!!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 Oct 00 - 10:21 PM

You can run any number of enormously valuable programs without turning a profit, if you mean a MONEY profit. Like raising your children properly for example.

The trouble with the prevailing free enterprise system is that they think the word "profit" means money profit alone. How about emotional profit, experiential profit, educational profit, spiritual profit, etc...

I have seen a whole society where decisions were made to "profit" everyone in the community by having a place where everyone had a decent life and could afford the basics, like medical care.

If you think that profit is a matter of money alone...you are mistaken. We could have no money at all, and run everything just fine, according to actual human need, and genuine overall profit in quality of life, instead of cleverly marketing cancer-causing substances, for example. This society provides daily proof that "the love of money is the root of all evil".

Subject: RE: Government---the bigger the better !!!!
From: Carlin
Date: 27 Oct 00 - 11:23 AM

Wow! Take a couple of days off and you get behind!

First to clear up a few things....

McCartyism was a very bi-partisan affair. He had pretty broad support throughout the country and no politician from either party really wanted to challenge him. He lost his ass when he went after Ike's administration and the Army. But in the meantime the episode provided a clear example of the government overreaching and challenging the rights of the citizens.

To say that segregation was not the result of 'Big Government' because it mostly (but not exclusively....Washington DC was a segregated city) went on at the state level is a bit dishonest. The states are part of the government too.

There are many things that the government (at all levels) can and should do, providing police protection, fire departments, building and maintaining roads and schools, and guarding the coast and toting the mail. The government can and should foster economic developement in depressed areas.

But then we come to the question of direct transfer payments by the government....redistribution of wealth. If I decide that I have more money than I need and I decide to give some of it to the poor, that is charity and it is a wonderful thing.....if a self appointed activist for the poor decides I have more than I need and puts a gun to my head, in the form of the IRS, and takes what he feels is my over abundance and redistributes it....that is theft.

I see a lot of talk about soaking the rich, and making the corporations pay and so forth....let me clue you in on a secret of the universe--"Shit flows downhill".

The rich don't get hurt by high tax rates....the middle class does. The rich can hide their money, they can afford huge numbers of accountants and lawyers to protect their assets. Failing all else, they can afford to purchase whatever government functionaries they need, to escape burdensome regulation.

The people that really get screwed are the working middle class....the guy that spends 60 hrs a week swinging a hammer or running a saw and then discovers he is suddenly in that 28% tax bracket.

Corporations do not pay taxes. No corporation has a printing press to make money. Taxes and expenses that corporations are required to pay, are paid by the consumer....and the corporate employee. When you make it expensive to do business, the corporation starts looking for ways to save money. They start by cutting employee benefits (like health insurance and pensions), then they start laying off employees.

They also have the option of packing their toys and moving their operation to some third world shit hole where they can get a hard day's work for 25 cents and a bowl of rice. The people in the US that made 14 or fifteen dollars an hour working at the factory are now making minimum wage flipping burgers.

And you will note that the price of the product never goes down when a corporation moves overseas. The money saved on labor costs and so forth is now available for advertising. The best example of this I can think of is Nike.

"Well, it IS possible to stay in business without making a profit. I did it for a long, long, long time -- singing folksongs. It was amazing to head East and do a tour up and down the East Coast and get home a month and a half later, if I was lucky that trip, fifty bucks ahead. ;-)"

No wonder you can't afford to go to the doctor and can't provide a pension for yourself. If you aren't willing to take the responsibility of providing for your future I will be damned if I will.

Subject: RE: Government---the bigger the better !!!!
From: mousethief
Date: 27 Oct 00 - 11:48 AM

> If you aren't willing to take the responsibility of providing for your future I will be damned if I will.

Now THERE is compassion.

Alex
O..O
=o=

Subject: RE: Government---the bigger the better !!!!
From: Jim the Bart
Date: 27 Oct 00 - 11:57 AM

DougR - About that 25%

If I make a million a year my 25% is $250,000 on which I can live pretty well. If I'm making $30,000, my 25% is $7,500 on which I can live not well at all. That's why when George W. talks about equal tax cuts across the board and calls it "fairness", I can only laugh.

Carlin, about your last line - spoken like a true capitalist. Pay as little as possible to your indentured workers throughout their productive years, contribute to pension funds and social security begrudgingly (kicking and screaming all the way) and castigate an independent working man for "not providing for his future". Capitalist self-justification is sickening.

One more thing: someone in a past post stated that capitalists created jobs. That is only partly true. Capitalists create wealth - for themselves. As a bi-product of that act jobs are created, goods are created, and services are created. When a point is reached where more wealth can be kept by eliminating jobs, creating a narrower range of goods, or providing less services, jobs will be eliminated, etc.

How this will work under George W. (if, God help us, he is elected): George's oil buddies will move to drill for oil on publicly held lands. they will promise that this will ease our dependence on foreign oil and create jobs. George and the Republican congress will allow this over the objection of environmentalists and just about anyone who doesn't stand to make some money on the deal. They will cut access roads, clear timber, create pipelines, and drill, drill, drill. For a short period of time there will be some oil. The sale of SUV's will go on, alternative power research will be slowed, people in the oil biz will have jobs and Bush will crow over the "great deal he made for all Americans". Then the oil will run out. The jobs will be gone. The publicly held lands will be left to be cleaned up at our expense. Oil imports (which, like oil prices, never really went down)will go up again. And the oil barons will be that much richer. And it will all begin again.

Johnny Paycheck said it - "Take this job and shove it".

have a nice day.
Bart, who is not amused.

Subject: RE: Government---the bigger the better !!!!
From: Jim the Bart
Date: 27 Oct 00 - 12:29 PM

Another bit about jobs, the government and the "free market". A few years ago, I read an article that said that the big layoffs that occurred in the mid-seventies in the music business (mostly in artist development) were the result of a slowing in the rate of growth of the profit margins for the big record companies. Take a moment to look at that statement: it wasn't that record labels weren't showing a profit. The problem was that the amount of additional profits that they anticipated was levelling off. And the odd thing was that this happened at all labels across the board.

Anyone who worked in the music biz at that time, or who (like me) was trying to get a band recorded, remembers the slashing of jobs as devastating to the development of acts and diversity of what was being recorded. Coincidently, this all took place after the government closed "blue sky" tax loopholes that allowed labels to write-off development costs and essentially pay for their mistakes in reduced taxes, rather than take losses.

All of this laid the groundwork and set the stage for the "corporate rock" of today.

Subject: RE: Government---the bigger the better !!!!
From: Frankham
Date: 27 Oct 00 - 02:25 PM

I think we need Big Government to help protect us against the tyranny of Libertarians. :)

There are many ways of paying the price for ignoring the plight of the poor who can't afford medical insurance.

Robbery is in the eye of the beholder. When there are have-nots in our society, we all pay the price.

Although McCarthyism was a bi-partisan effort, it took the right wing longer to wake up. Some Republican stalwarts still defend what McCarthy did. Of course, they weren't hurt by it like some of the people I knew.

Here's a little ditty-in-progress as part of the folk process to the tune of Yellow Rose of Texas. Please feel free to add to it if called upon by the folk muse.

"There is Jesus Day in Texas As part of the faithful crowd, All sorts of Christians welcome, But no Jews are allowed.

You may talk about your holidays That you may like to push, But Jesus Day in Texas Doesn't beat around the Bush.

It's the sweetest little faux pas That you have ever seen It would make some folks in Congress Turn a darker shade of green.

You may talk about the principle Of separate Church and State Takes Jesus Day in Texas To keep Bush on the slate.

Frank

Subject: RE: Government---the bigger the better !!!!
From: GUEST,Stackley
Date: 27 Oct 00 - 06:33 PM

Come on, K-K-Karlin, you didn't GET behind, you ARE one! Did you have to repeat Kindergarten & still never learned how to share? Pretty sad.

Blaming 'big government' for racism & segregation would be amusing if you were just joking- but seems that you actually believe this garbage.

The tax man puts a gun to everyone's head, not just yours, boyo.Your persecution complex stem from mom stopping breast-feeding too soon, or what? You think its so damn hard living on a middle class income, try being poor; halve that salary of yours, or quarter it, & find out what tough really is.

If the middle class is getting screwed over so badly with taxes & the rich getting off scot free, how is it that y'all support the tax cut proposals for the rich including the so-called 'death tax' BS ? Are you just stupid, or is there something to the concept of "False Class Consciousness" after all?

Many of the businessess excesses you whine about were at one time restrained by the very "Big Government" you piss and moan about, before the 'deregulation' and pro-corporate crud of the Reagan/Bush era.

That's the spirit Karlin- me first, and screw everyone else; the Amerikan Way.
Cheers.

Subject: RE: Government---the bigger the better !!!!
From: Troll
Date: 27 Oct 00 - 09:44 PM

Hang in there Carlin. You are not alone. There are plenty of people who believe that they should get to keep what they make and most of them are in the "working class", something that I doubt most of the posters on this thread would recognize if it walked up and spit in their latte.
Sharing is fine and I'll share some of what I have but ONLY after I've taken care of MY family. Sharing toys is NOT the same as being forced to give over part of that which you've sweated for to support someone who doesn't work and doesn't want to. And if you don't think they are out there, your mommy needs to put you to bed. You shouldn't be up so late.
Socialism is a nice theory and it's fun to discuss it but don't get carried away. For those people who don't have medical insurance or who can't afford it (NOT always one and the same) there is medicaid, indigent care at emergency rooms and the like. So Bart and Stackley and Frank and the rest of you, when you have to make that paycheck stretch to cover the house payment and the groceries and you buy your clothes at goodwill and drive a fifteen-year-old car and have to hit your retirement savings to have a new roof put on, you come and talk to me about how I owe the bums and the welfare cheats and the ne'er-do-wells.
Until then I'd strongly suggest that you temper your words.

troll

Subject: RE: Government---the bigger the better !!!!
From: kimmers
Date: 27 Oct 00 - 10:32 PM

Well, I'm joining this one rather late,but I'll see what I can do.

I've been on both sides of this issue, economically speaking. I grew up poor... not dirt poor, just working-class poor with a single mom. No health insurance, old beater cars to ride in, clothes from K-Mart, and bad memories of the low-cost county dental clinic. Because of caring grandparents and a creative mother, we did pretty well; I was in high school before I realized we were poor. While we were never on welfare, we did get free government cheese and other foods and I qualified for programs such as Headstart.

Now, I'm a physician and I pull in a pretty decent income (which my husband is exceptionally good at spending). Every year I see an awfully big chunk go off to the Feds and to the State. Do I grumble about this? Not really. Oh, I'd like to see less spent on the military, but overall I have no big complaints. Why?

I could not be the person I am today, without the public benefits I received as a child and young adult. I was helped, therefore I owe help in return. What gifts did I receive from society growing up? (and mom never made enough to pay much taxes, so they *were* gifts)

Free preschool (which I credit for the fact that I learned to read at age 4) and a free k-12 education, for starters. The reduced cost of dental care. PUBLIC LIBRARIES!!! I spent half my childhood at the library, it seems. Safe streets to drive/ride down. Parks to play in. Cheap swimming lessons. Protection by the police and the fire department, especially the time Mom almost set fire to the kitchen with oven cleaner. A jobs-training program for youth that landed me my first part-time job in high school, when the economy was so bad (this was the Reagan years) that a respectable 16-year-old with a 4.00 GPA couldn't get a job flipping burgers. And many other things that I can't think of now.

Oh... mustn't forget low-interest student loans and grants, that enabled me to complete my education. And the grant from FEMA four years ago when a flood took out our basement (after our idiot insurance agent advised us that we didn't need flood insurance!) I don't begrudge the tax money, even though the equation doesn't always balance.

My in-laws are extremely right-wing, and I find them very very scary. My father-in-law believes that the public sector really shouldn't be providing libraries, that people should just buy books if they want to read them. And he believes that if the city or county IS going to fund libraries, that the old graceful marble libraries should get the boot in favor of lots of mini-libraries in shopping malls, full of the latest John Grisham novels and to hell with the classics. He doesn't believe in public transportation ("if they can't scrape up the money to buy a car they should stay home") and absolutely despises public schools. Yet this same man (he's seventy-two) insists on milking every last cent out of his Medicare and takes advantage of a Jobs Plus employee (that he doesn't have to pay) for his small business as often as he's allowed to do so. What a hypocrite.

So many people want the benefits of both local government and federal government without the responsibilities. They don't want a lot of rules and regulations to hem them in, but what's the first thing out of my father-in-law's mouth when something distasteful happens to him? "There oughta be a law!"

Subject: RE: Government---the bigger the better !!!!
From: Troll
Date: 27 Oct 00 - 10:43 PM

Kimmer, You are one of the ones that the government programs helped. But how many of the people that were in the same programs you were in opted to stay on the dole and let you support them. They had the same problems and the same chances you did. What happened to them? Why didn't they take advantage of the opportunities that they were given?

troll

Subject: RE: Government---the bigger the better !!!!
From: kimmers
Date: 27 Oct 00 - 11:01 PM

Heck if I know. And I see people like that all of the time... yes, they annoy me too. Especially in our robust economy, everyone ought to be able to find some work. BUT... I can't look at the kids and not want to help. The adults may often be messed up beyond redemption, but the kids constitute that point at which the cycle can be interrupted.

Subject: RE: Government---the bigger the better !!!!
From: Troll
Date: 27 Oct 00 - 11:17 PM

You can't POSSIBLY be a doctor. I mean they're right up there with the lawyers and businessmen as the heartless money-grubbing authors of our misery! ***BG***
Sounds like you're one of the good'uns. Whats your specialty, if you don't mind my asking?

troll

Subject: RE: Government---the bigger the better !!!!
From: kimmers
Date: 27 Oct 00 - 11:21 PM

Pediatrics. We're generally a soft-hearted, impractical lot. But you're right... as in any profession, there are some real rat bastards out there.

Unfortunately, they're the ones who get all the press and give the rest of us a bad name.

Subject: RE: Government---the bigger the better !!!!
From: JamesJim
Date: 27 Oct 00 - 11:46 PM

Somehow, somewhere, I hear a soft whisper....far off....it says...."Everything in moderation." Might have come from my sweet mom. Words of wisdom, I'd say (include government in that).

Jim

Subject: RE: Government---the bigger the better !!!!
From: Frankham
Date: 28 Oct 00 - 10:35 AM

Troll,

I know about stretching a paycheck. I've worked at manual labor and never made much money in my life compared to some others. But I consider myself a king because I live in this country. I have had the advantages of the Government who has helped me sustain myself through rough times. I was on welfare for about a week when I was in high school after my mother was institutionalized for mental problems. Thank God for welfare. As to the rejection of the bums, remember that they were prevalent during the Reagan years which saw the rise of homelessness in this country. Some of those bums were not much different than you and I. A turn of fate and you and I could be there tomorrow.

Remember too that money allocated for welfare over the years has been a drop in the bucket compared to the money you pay from your taxes to support the Pentagon, Social Security (which I take it you don't complain about, or am I wrong there?) as well as the measley amount spent on education or the arts. Remember also that some of the bums you talk about were the very people who gave us some of the best folk music. Many were considered to be bums because they needed help through aid by the Government.

I hope that if our children ever get into hard times that they will have a compassionate Government to help them when they need it.

The welfare cheats are saints compared to the corporate junk bond raiders who destroy companies and send working people into poverty.

I'll temper my words through experience.

Frank

Subject: RE: Government---the bigger the better !!!!
From: Greg F.
Date: 28 Oct 00 - 12:23 PM

Frank, you beat me to it; right on the money (oops! as it were) regarding the insignificant sums involved in welfare fraud/bums compared to the sums wasted elsewhere- timely note would be the current Republican Pork-A-Thon in Congress (yes, BOTH parties are involved, tho the Dems. are a bit less hypocritical.

Also, the tax burden in the U.S. is the lowest of any of the first-world (and possibly some second-world)countries, and the proportion of the GNP spent on education in the U.S. compared to other countries should make us ashamed.

Troll & Co.'s anger about may be justified- but its directed at the wrong segment of society!- its not the poor who are preventing them from "keeping what they make".

Best, Greg

Subject: RE: Government---the bigger the better !!!!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 Oct 00 - 12:31 PM

Gee, guys, let's go easy on the vitriol here...

The fact is, right wingers have high ideals when it comes to personal freedom and individual responsiblity to take care of oneself...and left wingers have high ideals when it comes to societal protection of people's wellbeing and human rights, and individual responsibility to assist others who are in need.

One is focused on the individual view of life, the other on the community view of life.

Either one of those views is valuable, and both of them have to be integrated in pretty equal measure to have a successful and healthy society.

Communists went overboard on the collective view of society, and extended state ownership over things they should have stayed out of...like agriculture and retail stores and small manufacturing, and so on.

Capitalist have gone overboard and created a society that worships money above all other considerations, and creates giant profit-seeking corporations that are effectively unaccountable to anyone for the damage they do, since they are multinational and can move money all over the world. The giant corporation is very much like a Communist regime in its nature, only it has a longer reach (beyond the borders of any one country). It is impersonal, vast, and out of touch with the people it affects. It has long range objectives which are to the general detriment of the whole community. Its inner workings are hidden from public view. It is effectively above the law in any one country, because it can just move the jobs to some other country where the labour is cheaper, and the workers' rights less stringent.

Communists exploited people in one country for power and control. Corporations exploit people in the whole world for power, control, and MONEY. The only country where a corporation cannot reach is a "pariah" regime like the Taliban in Afghanistan, or Iran and Iraq or North Korea(at certain times) or some such wretched place. Those countries are made pariahs partly because of their own errors, but more because they have been shut out of the game...the BIG MONEY game...by those who control it.

Right wingers and left wingers need to work together, using their higher ideals and integrating them in a coalition. Otherwise, the BIG MONEY system will continue to just gobble you both up, while using you against each other to keep you distracted. Divide and conquer.

Oh yes, and any society these days that does not provide free and complete medical care to all its citizens, rich or poor, at exactly the same level and availability...is a society living in a partial state of barbarism.

As a Canadian, I declare both Canada and the USA guilty of that....the USA much more so, however. Countries such as Cuba and Sweden have got it right in this respect. We do not.

Subject: RE: Government---the bigger the better !!!!
From: RWilhelm
Date: 28 Oct 00 - 12:54 PM

Ironically, we need government to protect us from the the type of people that government attracts; arrogant, power-hungry bullies. Government gives them a set of rules and an arena for their mud wrestling, in return they protect us from independent power-hungry bullies.

I'm not saying the private sector is that much better. I have worked for a lot of corporation, big and small, and each one is like a huge dysfunctional family. The difference is at the end of the day they have to produce something.

Subject: RE: Government---the bigger the better !!!!
From: Art Thieme
Date: 28 Oct 00 - 05:41 PM

REDUCED TO A BUMPER STICKER:

Under Capitalism, man expoits man.
Under communism, it's just the reverse.

Art

Subject: RE: Government---the bigger the better !!!!
From: Troll
Date: 28 Oct 00 - 08:54 PM

Little Hawk, thanks for the posting. You and I may never agree but at least we keep it civil. All too often conservatives are linked to big business and their way of doing things but, as Sportin' Life says,"It ain't necessarily so." We want many of the same things the "Liberals" want. What we differ on is the way of achieving these goals. This said. Consider the following; men women and children risk their lives almost daily to leave Cuba and Sweden has the largest suicide rate in the industrial world. It is obvious that universal free health care and "Womb to Tomb" state welfare leaves SOMETHING to be desired. That something might be the freedom to do what you want with your life. I don't know. Does anyone? Frank, if you are a working man then it has to anger you to see people who don't work and don't want to living off yours and my paycheck. Welfare was never meant to be a permanent thing. It was designed to help those who were down temporarily-just like you were- until they could get back on their feet. It galls my soul to see families who have been on government assistance for three and four generations. I want to scream when I hear of people with five or six ID's and addresses and collection money on all of them. And the welfare cheats milk the system for millions of dollars each year as do those who practice medicare and medical insurance fraud. I know people personally who have opted NOT to buy medical insurance so that they can have a bigger bass boat or a newer truck. They go to the E.R. and get free care. I don't feel that I should have to support them when they have made a clear choice. As for the bums, to me these are the people who expect the government to take care of them. I know people who are called bums by society. Many of them are Viet Nam vets who never made it all the way back. They live on a lousy little pension and spend most of their time on the street. I help them when I can because I could have wound up there too. But I will not give one thin dime to the lazy S.O.B. who is able-bodied and able to work and instead lives off his girl-friend and her adc checks. As for the assertion that "bums" gave us some of our finest folk songs, I suppose that you are talking about Woody Guthrie, who did indeed spend a lot of time bumming around and writing. He also worked for the Federal Government (promoting the Grand Coulee Dam) and was in the merchant marine in WWII. He wrote some great songs but neglected his family shamefully much of the time. As for others, I don't really know of any except for some of the old blues players and they generally worked dances and parties. I am not closed minded. I can be swayed. But it takes a real good argument with documentation, not emotionalism.(even tho I use it myself on ocassion)
And Greg, I never said it was the poor who were getting my goat. It's the people who abuse the system and feel that it is their "right" to be supported. Anyone who thinks that way is robbing me and mine and I OBJECT!

troll

Subject: RE: Government---the bigger the better !!!!
From: Jim the Bart
Date: 29 Oct 00 - 12:56 PM

Troll -
Thanks for reminding me that all Republicans don't come from the upper and upper-mid classes. There are always those with the good old "Protestant ethic" who's belief in "Christian charity" only extends to people they know personally. The rest gets what they deserve, so they can go to hell the whole lazy lot of them. From reading your past posts, troll, I wouldn't have lumped you in with them. Of course I don't believe in lumping people together so that I can dismiss what they say, anyway. Which is just another way in which we differ.

You see, that's what makes me mad. It seems that I've been getting written off for as long as I can remember. When I was a kid, it was because we really couldn't afford to move out of the city and I didn't really match fashion with the kids in the 'burb where we ended up. My first job was cleaning toilets after school at the Catholic grade school I was attending. That was in the 7th grade and I have never been without a job of some kind since.

I'm not going to bore you with my life story. You'll have to buy the book someday for that. But when fifteen years as a professional musician bottomed out, with a job in the mailroom, a wife and son, I realized no one was going to pay much attention unless I got a degree. Luckily, I still had the state scholarship I'd given up all those years before, and with government help I got into a nice cushy job as a corporate trainer. Until I got laid off. Back on the dole – for two months. Funny, though, they'd only let me draw money that was contributed during the time I was employed and then based on the level of wages I had drawn.

Yeah, troll I have a mortgage, and three kids, and credit card debt up the ass (some run up while I went back to school, but most my own fault – I never was very good at saying no to my kids). My wife has a part time job at a Hospital, but mostly stays home with the kids, because we believe that's what kids need.

Anyway – what's my point? I don't need you or anyone else telling me that I haven't earned the right to my opinion. And my opinion is that we're better off trying to help people than writing them off. And I don't resent the taxes I pay to build a country that I can be proud of. Yes, I work for my money but that doesn't mean I am going to clutch every nickel, while I bolt the doors against lay-abouts and welfare cheats.

When I was getting my teaching degree, I saw what kind of schools the poor kids on the west side of Chicago get compared to the suburbs. I saw good kids and bad kids at both kinds of school. And I saw clearly that we would get a lot more value out of the few additional dollars thrown to the city schools than out of the tax breaks being promised to people who's kids already drive better cars than their teachers. And if Mom or Dad could be home with the kids when they get out of school, rather than scraping the rent out of some fast food job that they spend an hour on public transportation to get to (big business abandoned the west side of Chicago decades ago; and now public transportation is being cut back there, too), I would consider any public support that made that happen money well spent, too.

Troll, you insist on pointing the finger at those around and below you rather than at those on the hill. Do you imagine that you're going to be up there with them someday? Not if they have their way. Unfortunately, there are too many "running dog" Republicans in this country who will never let anyone rise "above their station" and Troll, I'm not lumping you with them. But I can't help remembering a quote from Marat/Sade: "All your revolution amounts to is a prison riot, to be put down by corrupted fellow prisoners".

Troll, you are entitled to your opinion. But don't jump to "confusions" and make judgments about people you really don't know.

One last thing, for all you wanna-be Republicans, remember what Bill said at the convention (quoting Harry S Truman, I believe) "If you want to live like a Republican, you have to vote Democrat".

Subject: RE: Government---the bigger the better !!!!
From: Frankham
Date: 29 Oct 00 - 01:04 PM

Troll,

I'm not angry. I don't feel exploited. Welfare has helped a great many more people than it hurt. There have been abuses. These people need to be gone after. But the record shows that many have been helped despite propaganda to the contrary by those who oppose the system.

Many African-American musicians have not been able to carve out much of a living on their skills. Many have been on welfare. It's too easy to make a judgement on who abuses the system and doesn't. The facts are only good when we evalutate them on a case by case basis. It's too easy to condemn women who are single mothers on the poverty level. But to ignore them and their plight and especially their offspring is to mount up a cost much greater than the measly amount that government offers for welfare. Your tax dollars will go to make more prisons to house the less fortunate and to pay for more policeman to handle the crime rate that soars when troubled people are ignored. Your freedom is already curtailed when you can't walk down certain streets of American cities without fear of crime. This is already a huge price to pay.

Woody's relationship to his family might be considered shameful in some eyes, particularly by those whose judgements stand on some kind of personal moral rigidity without thier evaluating his circumstances. Woody had a crippling disease that he knew about and tried to do what he could. He also realized the plight that some folks have when they don't have a break in society and he sang about that. He was fortunate to have developed a successful career although he never saw much income from it in his lifetime.

The mounting costs created by the less fortunate in our society will eat away at everyone's paycheck unless a more charitable attitude accompanies the American public view. We are all winners when the less fortunate has a chance. I see Bush turning his back on this.

Frank

Subject: RE: Government---the bigger the better !!!!
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 29 Oct 00 - 02:36 PM

Hallelujah I'm a Bum

Which side are you on?

They've got the money, but we've got the songs...

The amazing thing is how the people with the real money seem to be able to turn the anger of the people with not that much money against the people with next to no money, and get clean free away.

Yes, there are people cheating on welfare - and there are two types. There are a few well-organised crooks running a business doing it, the same kind of crooks who run other legal businesses robbing their fellow citizens blind. Illegal or legal, these are the kind of crooks who don't like to pay taxes, and have ways of avoiding doing so.

And there are other people struggling to get by on welfare or benefits of one sort or another who do bend the rules sometimes, rules which are often cruel and inflexible, and full of poverty traps. (I'm talking here for example about someone who gets a chance of a days work, and doesn't declare it - of course the nice middleclass person who gives him the work and pays cash in hand to save on the tax doesn't get slagged off as a tax cheat. He probably mouths off about welfare cheats.)

"The rich don't get hurt by high tax rates.... the middle class does. The rich can hide their money, they can afford huge numbers of accountants and lawyers to protect their assets. Failing all else, they can afford to purchase whatever government functionaries they need, to escape burdensome regulation."

So people should just give in to the big thieves? You should accept that nothing can be done to get the bastards, and just roll over and vote the way they want you to, the way that makes it even easier for them to avoid paying their share - and take your anger and embarrassment out on the poor, because you're too frightened to take on the real enemy.

Once again: Which side are you on?

Subject: RE: Government---the bigger the better !!!!
From: kendall
Date: 29 Oct 00 - 02:51 PM

As long as welfare takes 1% of the budget, and the military takes 20% to defend us from enemies we wouldnt have if we stayed out of other peoples business, I will not complain about "Welfare cheats". Anyone care to discuss the Savings & Loan thing? How much did that cost us? Has anyone noticed that all the Bushes are in on the race except Neil?
I heard something that tickled me today, a good friend of mine, a shell back republican told me he was voting for Gore. When I recovered, I asked him why, and he said "Because every time I look at him I see Ronald Reagan."

Subject: RE: Government---the bigger the better !!!!
From: Skeptic
Date: 29 Oct 00 - 03:17 PM

The last time the US increased the minimum wage (to $5.25) over protests from big business (claiming it would destroy SMALL business), the bill also included corporate tax credits and tax reliefs worth over $125 billion dollars for BIG business.

On one hand we have all the welfare queens (to use a favorite expression from the Regan era), living off of welfare, don't want to get a job, just lay around and have more kids. (Another convenient myth. The last time I saw figures, the average number of kids in a welfare family was 2.1. Non-welfare averaged 2.3).

And then we have corporate welfare. If big business really screws up, not due to market forces but their own unregulated greed, they are the first to demand that the government fix it. The Savings and Loan debacle was minimized by a very big government willing to step in and make good the excesses and outright fraud perpetrated by the Industry. And save a lot of people from the consequences of their own greed, come to that. Very few CEO's went to jail. A lot of middle and working class people lost a lot of money. The government helped get some of it back. There was a noticeable silence from the "on the dole" group over that. Is that any less welfare than food stamps?

The average CEO in Japan makes 10-12 times the average salary in his company and the US CEO makes 22-30 times the average(back in 1998 anyway). The average salary of a CEO increased by over 200% following a downsizing and the average CEO tenure following a downsizing was less than 18 months. And over the course of the next 5 years the performance of companies who did downsize suffered in comparison to the average growth rate. Still, there was all that lovely corporate welfare to ease the pain.

I would argue that the excesses and inequities of people "taking advantage" of the welfare system, pales in comparison to the excesses of corporate welfare. That the percentage of those "taking advantage of the system" is small. (Unless you feel that any welfare is wrong, of course). I would argue that a country where 20 million children live below the poverty level, with inadequate food, shelter and medical care is wrong because it is destructive of the foundation of society. If we, as a society, elevate whether a person is out there trying as being of higher value than a duty to provide for basic physical needs (by whatever means), there is a fundamental flaw in our thinking (IMO) that is inherently destructive of our social order.

Why is government welfare wrong. Because it isn't voluntary?. Neither is corporate welfare. Or the more subtle examples. Forget about food stamps and HUD housing and training programs. What about free public schools, public libraries, free roads, subsidized mass transit. Federal Deposit Insurance, state universities, student loans, the guaranteed minimum wage, federal pension insurance....ad infinitum?

The generality "Oh he/she could get a job if they really tried" is, essentially, an urban myth. The unemployment figures show a robust econony where anyone who wants to can succeed. These is a noticeable absence of figures on under-employment. Estimates on that range from 9-15%. Welfare in the pure sense (excluding medicare and social security) is a fraction of the dollars poured into corporate welfare. Why is it somehow wrong to keep feeding someone, even if they won't help themselves, when it isn't wrong to give big business massive tax breaks that allow the CEO's to get obscene salaries (even by the standards of their fellow capitalists.) and have a 12% rather than a 9% net profit margin?, even by the standards of their fellow capitalists.

Forget about food stamps and HUD housing and training programs. What about the less obvious forms of welfare? Free public schools, Libraries, free roads, subsidized mass transit. Federal Deposit Insurance. State universities. Student Loans. The generality "Oh he/she could get a job if they really tried" is, essentially, an urban myth. The unemployment figures show a robust economy where anyone who wants to can succeed. The underemployment figures are less comforting, ranging from 9% to as high as 20%.

Ad absurdum, is our society really better off if we let someone who won't help themselves (and their children) starve to death?

Regards John