Federal oversight of legislature. The congress is not allowed to pass any old law that they wish. Or, rather, they may, but the supreme court then has the duty to destroy those laws which contradict the constitution.
Did you think I meant oversight of the economy?
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not to interrupt the entertaining venom-spewing, but a statistic interested me from the original post:
quote: 501: Number of American servicemen to die in Iraq from the beginning of the war - so far
You realize that there were about the same number of deaths over the same time period in New York City alone, yes?
There were 564 murders in 2003 as of Dec 14th, just under 12 months (the lowest in years - and only the second year since 1968 that it's been under 600). There have been 501 over roughly 10 months in Iraq.
Now, these numbers have nothing in common, obviously. I mean, in one, there was a war. There are militant groups actively attacking US soldiers, laying ambushes and waging a guerilla campaign. Many people have fully automatic weapons and explosives. Comparisons to Vietnam are being made. The loss of life is so tragic that *something must be done*. It's unnatural. It's wrong. It's terrible.
Yet, there were a comparable number of murders in New York City (not including other means of death) over the same period. There is no war there. There are no guerillas. The police are far less heavily armed. And a similar amount in Detroit. And Washington, DC (our murder capital, with 262 murders and only 600,000 people). And Baltimore. NYC is not even in the top ten cities for highest murder rate.
All in all, for fighting a war and maintaining a military presence in a country without a centralized government, that has groups of regime loyalists still attacking and killing US troops... I'd say 501 is pretty good.
quote: 0: Number of American combat deaths in Germany after the Nazi surrender to the Allies in May 1945
I got a laugh out of this, too. Care to count the number of combat deaths before the Nazi surrender?
While loss of life is always tragic, the numbers of deaths for the invasion and occupation of Iraq are still very low.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also, if you look at the end of the war in Europe and the war in Iraq, you'll see that the populations of the two countries were dealing with something entirely different.
In Germany, the people had literally been ground down to the point where resistance was the last thing on their minds. They'd suffered through death and destruction that is pretty much unimaginable in this day and age. The fire Bombing of Dresden, the constant bombing of every manufacturing facility, large battles fought in their own cities, Russian, American, British and Canadian troops numbering in the millions inside their country, plus the discovery of the concentration camps and the horrors therein. This was a defeated and shattered people. The Germans were also completely disarmed, as were the Japanese after their surrender.
The Iraqis never got to even see one percent of the destruction that was invested upon the Germans. The Iraqi citizenry was also not completely disarmed, being allowed if I remember to keep one AK-47 per household.
Isn't it amazing that we allow them to each keep an AK-47 but our own citizens can't do the same?
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dagonee, the problem with that bill is that even if it is passed, the funds will be re-appropriated once the Admin. is not able to find hardly any/no places for the money that abide by the Mexico City Agreement. You want a source for this try looking up Bush's executive order's at whatever .gov site they are at.
All we've got is your word for this. This isn't the only press coverage that uses the 2.4 B or fivefold numbers.
If the effect will be to cut 80% of the funding (which would actually be cutting something like 96% of the funding from the 2.4 B mark), I'm assuming some advocacy group would have documented and laid out the claim.
Participating in a political debate is impossible under these conditions. You've rejected the official unemployment figures, without ANY source that says their inconsistent with the past, and yo've made this accusation about AIDS funding that at least on it's face is instantly refutable.
posted
Robes, i used to agree with a lot of what you've been saying so i'm going to ignore all the pettiness that's been going around here.
first, it amazes me to no end that you're not familiar with Ayn Rand (or at least seemed not to be when the Fountainhead was mentioned), as you would probably consider her your soul-mate.
second, you keep talking about "rights", and i'm curious where you see these rights as coming from? do you see them as being god-given, and if so please elaborate on exactly what you see the natural rights of man as including. if not, then the only "rights" which we can say we deserve are those we fight for, somewhat reducing the validity of the "you're taking the money that i have a RIGHT to keep" argument against taxation. if you can't protect that money it's not really your right to have it now is it?
thirdly, the core of my disagreement with your stance is that social programs funded by the state have greater value than they cost. for example: public education creates an educated public, leading to the development of industry and the inflow of foreign investment capital, leading to higher wages and better standard of living. you benefit directly from the education of those around. you said earlier that government's don't create wealth and i'm sorry but i have to diagree wholeheartedly with you. if companies can take money, invest it, and create profits, why can't the government do the same? especially when the government is doing things like educating, protecting, and potentially even housing the populace? would these things not create a more productive workforce? do you really think that we'd be better off if people only learned to read if their parents chose to spend the money to put them in school or knew how to read themselves? you're proposing a return to 20's era government policies, but look at how much our country has grown from the social programs you're so bitter about.
finally, you've said multiple times that socialism doesn't work, and while that maybe technically be true, i don't think anyone on this board is really arguing that socialism is the answer, the comments i have seen are for a type of socialist capitalism in which the state provides certain base services such as road maintenance, military protection, and maybe medical care. you can't say that one is ok (for example an interstate highway system) and then say that another is impossible (social healthcare). most importantly, these types of socialism do work, as can be seen in many countries other than our own.
to truly adhere to what i hear you saying government should be able to do, government would not really exist. the idea of a social contract itself goes against the concepts of "rights" you've been proposing, which really leaves nothing but anarchy, and i don't know many people who are willing to sacrifice that much just so they can say the've earned everything they own. And if it's opression you're worried about, what do you think would happen if corporations were left to do whatever they wanted?
Posts: 380 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Whew, finally read the speech (it was the night of my Grandma's funeral). One thing stuck out at me from the initial list:
"0: Number of American combat deaths in Germany after the Nazi surrender to the Allies in May 1945"
Maybe, but a lot of German Children were being killed in the combat just prior. But the under 18 definition.
I think the term Vietnam gets tossed around a lot because, you know, it was also a war type thing and it happened during the lifetime of the baby boomers. Sarcasm aside, the baby boomers seem to be suffering mass post traumatic stress disorder. Or it makes them feel young again.
Would the same commentators who scoff at a linkage between Saddam Hussein and the attacks of 9/11 be willing to assert that there are no Al-Qaeda in Iraq fighting Americans now?
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Are you saying that there were Al Qaeda in Iraq before we invaded? If so, do you have some kind of proof of this? How long ago are we talking?
Posts: 346 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"The omnibus spending bill completing its passage through Congress has $2.4 billion for AIDS..."
sigh... Dubya's "AIDS bill" consists of: 1) Funding missionaries to run around preaching abstinence, and sex solely within the confines of a monogamous marriage. It specificly forbids funding for condoms, advocating the use of condoms, and the promotion of other 'safer-sex' practices. Considering Dubya's population control funding effectively allows only "keep it zipped" messages, I doubt that there is any shortage of preachers in Africa running around spreading such anti-effective propaganda and general disinformation about condoms and 'safer sex'.
2) Drug funding disallows use of generic versions of AIDS drugs; manufacture and purchase of even patented drugs without paying patent fees allowed for national health emergencies under international treaty, which the US signed. So Dubya's bill is solely to prop up the absurd profit margins -- some exceeding 20 times cost -- of FirstWorld drug manufacturers by stealing the US taxpayers' money to blackmail/bribe African nations from producing or purchasing cheaper versions of AIDS drugs.
3) And as far as actual funding, Dubya's program has so far given back half or less of the funding that was taken away from previous US AfricanHealth programs to fund the Afghan occupation health&education programs.
MEMORANDUM FOR THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE UNITED STATES AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
SUBJECT: Restoration of the Mexico City Policy
The Mexico City Policy announced by President Reagan in 1984 required nongovernmental organizations to agree as a condition of their receipt of Federal funds that such organizations would neither perform nor actively promote abortion as a method of family planning in other nations. This policy was in effect until it was rescinded on January 22, 1993.
It is my conviction that taxpayer funds should not be used to pay for abortions or advocate or actively promote abortion, either here or abroad. It is therefore my belief that the Mexico City Policy should be restored. Accordingly, I hereby rescind the "Memorandum for the Acting Administrator of the Agency for International Development, Subject: AID Family Planning Grants/Mexico City Policy," dated January 22, 1993, and I direct the Administrator of the United States Agency for International Development to reinstate in full all of the requirements of the Mexico City Policy in effect on January 19, 1993.
GEORGE W. BUSH
It should be noted that a seperate follow-up executive order expanded this policy to include all forms of advocating, educating about or condoning the use of contraceptives.
Dagonee, its nice to hear Bush say "ok heres a whole bunch of money for AIDS" and quite another to see that even though it's been aproved, there are hardly any organizations or entities qualified to recieve it due to this regressive policy.
quote: it amazes me to no end that you're not familiar with Ayn Rand (or at least seemed not to be when the Fountainhead was mentioned), as you would probably consider her your soul-mate.
Okay, lets clear this up.
Sopwith said:
quote: Isn't it sad when you hear the Fountainhead sputtering and see Altas Shrug about the real world tragedies around us?
I responded:
quote: What's this? Does this mean something?
Now, as other may know from previous discussions, I indeed am familiar with the writting of Ayn Rand. I would not label her my "soul-mate" but I do not deny that I sympathize with her positions. However, sop's statement was some non-sense about(I assume) Rand's ideas failing in the real world. He didn't explain this at all. There were no examples given. I am perfectly willing to discuss things logicaly, and if I am wrong, I will admitt it. However, I will not allow emotional appeals. Baseless rhetoric will do nothing to convince me. If Rand's ideas are so evil, tell me why and give me examples of real world situations that you think apply.
quote: you keep talking about "rights", and i'm curious where you see these rights as coming from?
These rights are self-evident. Because we exist, these specific rights exist. The Declaration of Independence does a good job on this topic.
quote: From the Declaration of Independence: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
I don't believe that its necessary for there to have been a creator for these rights to apply. The fact that we exist is enough for me. God is not the source of morality. If there were no God, would it be moral to own slaves?
quote: if you can't protect that money it's not really your right to have it now is it?
Only if violating another person's right to their own property is moral.
Lets clear up something very important. During discussions of this sort, it is common practice to mistake wishes for rights. When we hear a phrase like "right to medical care" or "right to housing" or "right to employment" what is really meant is a WISH for medical care, a WISH for housing, and a WISH for employment. A right is a basic moral unit, which does not burden others save for preventing them from violating the right. My right to speak freely does not require someone else to speak less, or to provide me with a radio show. However, a so called "right" to health care DOES require that someone else's rights be reduced. They have less of a claim on their own personal property than if the demander of health care could afford it.
While I wish that every American had good health care, nice housing and a good job, I don't recognize the right of American's to these same things. They have the right to persure them at their own expense, and to do so unecumbered by the government.
quote: social programs funded by the state have greater value than they cost.
The value of these programs is irrelevant. The government has no consitutional right to loot money from one group of people and then give it to another.
However, I will still disagree with your statement. The program you mention, education could be valuable if it were run correctly. However, it is not. I don't deny that education is a very important part of our economy, perhaps the most important part. I am more of the opinion that local governments need to take control of education, as it is not within the responsibilities of the federal government. But this is an issue for another day.
You say federal programs are worth more than they cost. How can you evaluate the worth of the social security program? You might say that without it, the elderly would be eating dogfood or worse. Well, what did they do before SS was created, did it help them? What was the poverty rate among elderly before SS? How much money has been taken from the economy to fund SS, how has that money been kept, and could that money have actually boosted our economy if it had been invested privately in the stock market or elsewere?
How about Welfare and food stamps. What is the dollar value of this program? What is the value of the lesson that you need not work to support your children, that its not important to have a father around to support your children? What is the effect of excessively high income taxes which fund welfare on the economy compared to the slight return of this money to those who didn't earn it? How many people starved to death before this program was implemented, and how many were poor before, and how many after this program?
Okay, you say this:
quote: i don't think anyone on this board is really arguing that socialism is the answer
Then go on to say this:
quote: the comments i have seen are for a type of socialist capitalism in which the state provides certain base services
I do think that they are contradictory.
quote: base services such as road maintenance, military protection, and maybe medical care.
I don't think that anyone has argued that a capitalist government cannot supply military protection or road maintenance and construction. Military protection is specifically mentioned in the constitution as the job of government. We all delegate our right to protect ourselves with physical force to the government to avoid chaos and anarchy.
However, medical care is something that is the responsibility of the individual, and something that the government has no right to ask another individual to cover for.
quote: these types of socialism do work, as can be seen in many countries other than our own.
Nationalizing medical care works? By what standard? Have you ever had to use the UK medical system? Its trash. Sure, technically they do "work" but not very well.
quote: what do you think would happen if corporations were left to do whatever they wanted?
Behind this question, I suspect, is the assumption that I believe that no laws should be enforced at all. Well, if you have been paying attention, you will see that I do support the enforcement of laws, specifically, those commited against personal property. If a company defrauds an individual, that individual has a right to seek legal retribution.
What would happen if companies could do whatever they wanted, within the framework of laws? Massive economic growth.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's like arguing with a Communist in 1908... hardcore rhetoric and well thought out positions, but still naive.
Communism might have worked, if it weren't for human nature peeking in. Humans weren't ants working for the nest, and not all were noble enough to happily be part of the machine. Corruption dug in and personal needs/wants were always more than the supposed necessities.
Pure capitalism suffers from the same naive assumption but from the other side of the coin. There is a belief that once unfettered from taxation and social responsibilities based purely on emotion, that the average citizen would take to wing and soar in the new found freedom. But it doesn't take into account the vast variety of abilities, talents, moralities, work ethics and initiative that is presented across a society.
I've referred to Robes as Marie Antoinette many times, I find the similarities to be myriad. "Let them eat cake" was her reply when asked what should be done for the people who could not afford even a simple loaf of bread. It was both condescending and uninformed. And Mr. Guillotine eventually laid her down when the hungry and exploited masses had had enough.
Such is the way of purely basing a lifestyle on wealth and status.
Robes also seems to forget that little line in our sacred national documents that refers to forming a more perfect union, hopefully for the benefit of all.
He also forgets that personal wealth always devolves back to the state. The right of imminent domain is there to remind us that the government (and thereby all of the people) hold final ownership on all real property (real estate). I notice he mentioned the maintenance of highways earlier in his discussion, but didn't proclaim how those highways required the seizing of lands and regular taxation of Americans for their construction and upkeep. Lands of people who might not even have a car were taken, as were their tax monies. Yet, he doesn't complain about that, instead choosing to look at health care and the poor as evil initiatives to separate him from his hard-earned dollars.
Perhaps we always support the things that help us, but turn a baleful eye on that which we have never found ourselves in need of. As someone once said, "There, but by the grace of God, goes me."
You see, the US is a society -- a joint effort by all of its peoples to live together, support each other (in so many ways) and to promote the common good. Robes' dogma naively attempts to promote good, but not truly to all of the commons.
It's a thought process that a plaintation owner in 1859 would heartily embrace. Luckily, we're a bit beyond that now.
And yep, I took a stab at Ayn Rand. She'd probably change her tune nowadays, though, since she's probably found out that you can't take it with you.
quote: Robes also seems to forget that little line in our sacred national documents that refers to forming a more perfect union, hopefully for the benefit of all.
Unpack this. By who's definition of perfect? By what means? Does this call for any and all means possible to achieve the goal?
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: It's a thought process that a plaintation owner in 1859 would heartily embrace. Luckily, we're a bit beyond that now.
You have the amazing ability to speak very much, without saying anything at all. What does this trash mean? Did you just read one or two lines of my post?
quote: I don't believe that its necessary for there to have been a creator for these rights to apply. The fact that we exist is enough for me. God is not the source of morality. If there were no God, would it be moral to own slaves?
Let me answer my own question for you then. I believe there is no God and I also believe that it is immoral to own slaves.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"However, I will not allow emotional appeals."
I humbly submit that it will be difficult to discuss the evil nature of objectivism with you if you aren't willing to allow emotion into the discussion. Because it's exactly the lack of emotion that makes objectivism evil.
"What would happen if companies could do whatever they wanted, within the framework of laws? Massive economic growth."
Isn't this already the case? Can't companies ALREADY do what they want, within the framework of the law?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: Isn't this already the case? Can't companies ALREADY do what they want, within the framework of the law?
Of course not. I think you would admitt that the laws do not apply equally to all people and companies. Those who have special political pull, get special favors.
However, I will agree that we are close enough to this ideal to see that it does work. This is why the US has been so successful. We have had massive economic growth over the past 228 years.
quote: Because it's exactly the lack of emotion that makes objectivism evil.
That might be correct. However, I am not arguing about objectivism. I am arguing about the constitution and the current state of our union. Complaining that I lack compassion for the poor and hungry because I disagree with you about how best to help them, is cheap.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Lay it on us man, fill us in on the brighter side of being poor in a society that only embraces wealth?
(And yes, I did read your entire post, just like I read all of the previous ones. I don't ignore you, I just get creeped out by you.)
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Robes, I have yet to see you motivated by any real compassion. Logic is a poor substitute.
Compassion for whom? Where does logic not apply when we are discussion the state of our union?
quote: Lay it on us man, fill us in on the brighter side of being poor in a society that only embraces wealth?
What do you mean by a "society that only embraces wealth"? Is it possible to not violate the rights of others and help the poor at the same time? I believe it is. Private charity, where one has the option to give, has proven to be a very viable method of helping the poor and sick in the past. Right now, Americans donate $125 Billion per year to charity. I would argue that if 30% of people's paychecks were not taken from them by force, this number would be much higher.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd argue that without tax write-offs and tax shelter foundations, the amount of private charity would be much, much lower.
That's why they gave the tax write-offs and allowed the creation of foundation grants -- to promote charitable donations.
Like I said before, lay it on us man, how does a purely capitalistic society care for the poor and sick? The charity line isn't going to work and statistically charitable donations drop when tax write-offs for them are rolled back.
What's in it for the poor and sick in your society, Robes? Lay the theory on us, I'd be very interested to see it spelled out. Perhaps I could be wrong, it's always a possibility with me, but I'd like to see it laid out there first.
(C'mon, fess up, it's about eating the babies, right Mr. Swift?)
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Compassion for whom? Where does logic not apply when we are discussion the state of our union?"
I believe YOU'RE discussing the state of the union. The rest of us are discussing the plight of the poor. Maybe that's why you're confused. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: believe YOU'RE discussing the state of the union. The rest of us are discussing the plight of the poor. Maybe that's why you're confused.
Could be. I was working under the assumption that "What George Bush won't say today" was referring to the State of the Union speech, and that the discussion was about the state of that same union.
quote: Lay the theory on us, I'd be very interested to see it spelled out.
I am not going to continually restate what I have said over and over for you. Go back and read it yourself.
The only theory that has NOT been discussed in detail here, is yours. Please explain to me how so called "compassion" can help the poor. Please speak about existing government programs which use "compassion" as their basis, and speak about their effectiveness. Do they indeed help the poor?
quote: charitable donations drop when tax write-offs for them are rolled back.
So when the government allows people to keep less of their money, they give less to charity. This is what you are saying with this statement. So, is the reverse true? When the government lets people keep more of their money, do people then give more to charity? I would say they do.
quote: (C'mon, fess up, it's about eating the babies, right Mr. Swift?)
You are trying very hard to cover the lack of any logical support for your claims.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I find it mildly amusing that someone who says emotion has no place in these arguments falls back to the kindness of strangers to help the poor. 'Course, I'm easily amused.
Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Robespierre, I'd like to submit that the situation of the poor in this country has improved dramatically since we instituted welfare and other social programs. Ironically, the situation of the rich has ALSO improved.
Clearly, welfare is not as apocalyptic as you would have us assume; over the last hundred years, it's worked out pretty well for the country and its richest citizens.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:BrianM said: Dagonee, I eventually got sick of your insinuations that I was making this up so here you are.
I was following your instructions... It’s interesting that you think posting sources that contradict your unsourced statements is insinuating that you are making something up.
I note the attached release does not outline the extent the money is not distributed.
Why is it a regressive policy to not fund abortion promoters and advocates?
quote:Nationalizing medical care works? By what standard? Have you ever had to use the UK medical system? Its trash. Sure, technically they do "work" but not very well.
Robespierre, what is the basis for the claim that the UK system is trash?
If you go by WHO outcomes measures for national morbidity and mortality figures, Canada and New Zealand do better than the US. If you go by international surveys of customer satisfaction, Canada, New Zealand, Great Britain, and Australia do better than the US.
quote: Robespierre, what is the basis for the claim that the UK system is trash?
Personal expirience and anecdotal evidence, which I admit can be faulty. I will assume that your stats and surveys are all acurate and ask, by what right can our government impose such a system? And at this point, the discussion is better off finished in the "rosepierrian capitalism discussion" thread.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
