Bye Bye American Pie

[SparrowHawk]

Bad idea. Cut spending where it needs to be cut. Across the board cuts damage the effective programs and do little to stop the ineffective ones.

Did you see the Gates interview this AM on the morning shows?

He said the same thing.

How about a new Federalism?

You know only provide those services as defined by the COTUS? Seemed to work out pretty well up until about 1913 and the creation of the Federal Reserve. Everything else reverts to the states.

That way you have 50 entities competing to GROW. Grow as in number of good jobs, better schools, better roads, lower taxes. Why to attract certain types of people. Ones who work hard, pay there bills and don't break the law.

YES it would be Social Darwinism as opposed to the Progressive notion of Social Justice. States like MA & RI would be free to choose to continue their Nanny State ideals, providing everything but the turds that go in the "Free" Diapers.

So called "Federal Aid" is nothing more morally than a mafia style Protection racket. The Feds in the form of the IRS make the "Collections" and "Godfather Obama" takes his cut, The "Capos" aka Senators & Members of the house take their cut and help their "associates" aka Campaign contributors with "Earmarks" over 8,000 last year alone. The legalized extortion of the working class continues unabated and it's all because of our failure to restrict the size of government.

Lot's of Conservatives blame FDR as the root cause of the expansion of the role the Federal Government plays in our lives. I respectfully disagree. For me the blame begins and ends with Woodrow Wilson, The creation of the Federal Reserve and the implementation of the Personal Income tax. A few years back I read a rather scholarly piece on the causes of the Great Depression and in this analysis the theory brought forth was that FDR had nothing to do with either causing it or leading us out of it. Instead the author posited the belief that the monetary policy and the shift therein in the late 20's sent our economy into a death spiral from which it barely escaped. As I look around at what's happening now our staggering debt if we all want to be brutally honest with ourselves, the debt is the result of the Federal Reserve and their monetary policies. We have a currency that right now is dangerously close to losing its status as the worlds reserve currency. In the end, Barack Obama doesn't set monetary policy. Ben Bernanke and the BoD of the Federal Reserve do and I do not recall them being elected. Does a POTUS hold some influence? YES, but in the end the Fed calls the shots. Deep down I don't like blaming Bush or Obama for the economy being what it is. I do blame Ben Bernanke and I'd like to see him swinging from a tree and not metaphorically speaking. Having sound money is far more critical IMO then just about any stimulus we can have. It's kinda like building a house. The first thing you need is a strong foundation (sound money)! Once you get the foundation set properly you can build damn near anything you like.

 

[Ms Tree]

So those who for what ever reason cannot provide for them selves and live in a state that cannot or chooses not to provide a helping hand can do what?

 

[SparrowHawk]

So those who for what ever reason cannot provide for them selves and live in a state that cannot or chooses not to provide a helping hand can do what?

I think what you'd see is a far leaner social safety net, delivered by State, Local & Charitable organizations. The mere mention of Social Darwinism just frightens the crap out of some people and one thing we do know for certain is that fear is a powerful motivator.

In politics you hear the phrase "American Exceptionalism" when describing the spirit and soul of a nation. As a nation we're not going to allow our citizens to starve on the streets in anything resembling large numbers. We clothed and fed ourselves during the Great Depression and out of that crucible was born America's Greatest Generation and their offspring, the baby Boomers.

We were and mostly still are a nation of people who are incredibly giving and forgiving. One need not look past the outpouring of financial & emotional support to the Police and Firefighters after 9/11, not to mention the victims and their families. This is not what we do! It is who we are as a nation. Want another example? Here in my adopted home town we have a huge Hmong community. There are a great many towns here in the upper Midwest that took in the orphan families of our misguided adventurism in South East Asia. There was no greater challenge for the communities here as these were primitive tribal people in a strange land, alone and abandoned in many ways by our government after they out lived their usefulness as cannon fodder for the Pathet Lao. White Bread America opened their hearts and arms to the refugees and I can think of few times when I've been prouder to be both a Christian and an American. The community here is vibrant and alive thanks to the kindness of strangers in a strange land welcoming other strangers to sit at the table to feast upon the blessing of living in a free society. Back in February the Hmong lost their leader, General Vang Pao passed at age 81. He was the leader of the "Secret War' in Laos for the CIA until the Pathet Lao took control of the country and began reprisals against the Hmong. General Pao used his considerable influence to bring nearly 50,000 or more of his people to the US and found churches to help take them in. The bulk of the Hmong live in the Upper Midwest with a large group in CA as well.

With the above two examples as backdrop I find it difficult to believe that we as a society abandon the least of our Brethren. Abandon our dependence on the Nanny State policies of the morally & fiscally bankrupt Federal Government? One can only hope

 

[Dog Wonder]

AAAUUUGH!!!!!

COMMUNISS!!!!

THEY ARE TAKIN' OVER THE WORLD.

 

[SparrowHawk]

AAAUUUGH!!!!!

COMMUNISS!!!!

THEY ARE TAKIN' OVER THE WORLD.

The Hmong fought the Commies.

 

[delldude]

AAAUUUGH!!!!!

COMMUNISS!!!!

THEY ARE TAKIN' OVER THE WORLD.

Sad part is you don't see it..don't worry, everything will be ok.....just ask your government for help.

 

[Ms Tree]

With the above two examples as backdrop I find it difficult to believe that we as a society abandon the least of our Brethren. Abandon our dependence on the Nanny State policies of the morally & fiscally bankrupt Federal Government? One can only hope

How many homeless are there? Hungry? Un/under educated?

The thing is you are hoping, thinking or what ever that we will not forsake those who need help. What I am asking is if someone needs help and their state is unwilling or unable to provide help, what do they do? If a woman needs prenatal healthcare and planed parent hood is not available where does she turn? If a cities foster system gets over burdened who do they turn to if the community is tapped out or unwilling to give more? Where does Kentucky or Alabama (some of the poorest states in the nation) go for help if they cannot manage?

Survival of the fittest (social Darwinism) means that some people do not make it. I hope you do not find that acceptable and that you chose your words wrong or phrased your statement poorly. Killing off the weak and feeble in the animal kingdom is one thing. Doing it with humans is something a bit different. I hope I am misinterpreting your statement.

 

[SparrowHawk]

How many homeless are there? Hungry? Un/under educated?

The thing is you are hoping, thinking or what ever that we will not forsake those who need help. What I am asking is if someone needs help and their state is unwilling or unable to provide help, what do they do? If a woman needs prenatal healthcare and planed parent hood is not available where does she turn? If a cities foster system gets over burdened who do they turn to if the community is tapped out or unwilling to give more? Where does Kentucky or Alabama (some of the poorest states in the nation) go for help if they cannot manage?

Survival of the fittest (social Darwinism) means that some people do not make it. I hope you do not find that acceptable and that you chose your words wrong or phrased your statement poorly. Killing off the weak and feeble in the animal kingdom is one thing. Doing it with humans is something a bit different. I hope I am misinterpreting your statement.

I find it perfectly acceptable and you can use the experience of the Hmong. A mostly primitive tribal culture uprooted due to our adventurism, can't speak a word of English and they find themselves dropped in the Upper Midwest. Did we give them a hand? We sure did! Did they grab that hand and make it work for them? Yep!

Progressives always jump to homeless dying in the streets, the infirm sitting in their own feces as a way to discredit. Which of course is utter BS, but that's the arrogance of the Progressive. The assumption that we as human beings can only survive with governmental help when nothing could be further from the truth.

For proof one only need go to the Sioux Reservation and she first hand what decades of government helping hands have done to their society and culture. Pine Ridge makes Dog Patch, MS look like Beverly Hill. Why? The non stop parade of programs has created a permanent underclass where 35 to 40 percent of those under 30 exhibit some symptoms of Fetal Alcohol Syndrome due to the sloth created by handouts and a culture that developed around them. Equally not surprising is an unemployment rate among males that is roughly the same as the FAS birth rate. This is what you get when you have cradle to grave social programs. Faced with the prospect of starvation, people can and do get very resourceful. People "On the Dole" wait for the next check.

The COTUS does not confer the right to a house with indoor plumbing. What is does confer is the right to go out and earn enough money for the biggest house you can afford regardless of its carbon footprint or Al Gore internet invention. Everyone who is born here comes from the womb naked and squealing and ends up in an urn or a box. Only in the United States is what happens in between those two days largely up to the individual. The role of government is to keep the playing field ship shape so the players can excel and create their own American Dream free from the encumbrances of the Nanny State. Capitalism has winners and losers. The very last place our government needs to be is in the middle of picking winners and losers, which is what they do now. Whether it be General Motors or Affirmative Action.

Now does that mean we're cold & heartless? NOT in the least. What it means is we spend our resources wisely. Habitat for Humanity is a classic example of the private charitable sector just kicking HUD's ass when it comes to delivering services at a price. Ditto the efforts of the Salvation Army. Imagine what those 2 groups could accomplish if they had the same financial resources as HUD & HHS? Everybody would own a home. The least of our brethren would be fed and clothed. The drug and alcohol ravaged would be healed or at least in rehab at a cost that wouldn't bankrupt the nation.

Same goes for the Empire building interventionist policies. We could easily save half a Trillion per year. Germany's Freedom and Liberty is their responsibility, not ours! Same for the rest of the world. Be serious for a minute would you rather curtail the empire building or curtail childhood healthcare?

Obama is enamored with European style economics and is taking us in that direction. Several European economies are headed over the cliff and now we are following them! BRILLIANT!

 

[Ms Tree]

I am always amazed how people on either extreme take an example and then inflate it out of proportion to fit their agenda. I never said people were dying in the streets or the infirm sitting in their excrement. What I did say is that we have people who are homeless. Some because of stupidity and other because of just plain bad luck. We do have people who are unable to have medical care for the same reasons.

All I am asking and what you keep failing to answer is what happens when the local government is unable or unwilling to help? If I understand your argument correctly that in the absence of federal programs that thee private programs will experience a windfall? Seems like a stretch but there is nothing to prove that theory one way or the other. The problem with that idea is the same as the problem with using lotto revenues for hiring teachers. They cannot because the lotto revenue is not guaranteed not constant. There may be shortfalls that prevent the program from helping people who need the help. Then there is the problem with the poorer states not being able to collect enough revenue.

Again, what happens when the local programs fail for what ever reason? There is no reason to believe that local government or local companies are any more efficient, just or competent than the federal government.

Are we following or leading? Our economy has been heading for the cliff long before this administration shoved it over the edge.

 

[SparrowHawk]

I am always amazed how people on either extreme take an example and then inflate it out of proportion to fit their agenda. I never said people were dying in the streets or the infirm sitting in their excrement. What I did say is that we have people who are homeless. Some because of stupidity and other because of just plain bad luck. We do have people who are unable to have medical care for the same reasons.

All I am asking and what you keep failing to answer is what happens when the local government is unable or unwilling to help? If I understand your argument correctly that in the absence of federal programs that thee private programs will experience a windfall? Seems like a stretch but there is nothing to prove that theory one way or the other. The problem with that idea is the same as the problem with using lotto revenues for hiring teachers. They cannot because the lotto revenue is not guaranteed not constant. There may be shortfalls that prevent the program from helping people who need the help. Then there is the problem with the poorer states not being able to collect enough revenue.

Again, what happens when the local programs fail for what ever reason? There is no reason to believe that local government or local companies are any more efficient, just or competent than the federal government.

Are we following or leading? Our economy has been heading for the cliff long before this administration shoved it over the edge.

Leadership often means tough love. If the local government has no money or is unwilling to hand it out then the folks who run places like the Salvation Army and the local church will have to get involved. It's not an either/or thing. Private sector could with proper incentive receive a windfall. States should also be able to put social services out to bid and if a faith based charity wins the bid so be it. The quickest way to not have state government employee unions is to have as few employees as possible by contracting the services out to local businesses and allow them to compete. I've sold outsourcing and if the contract is done right more is delivered for less, especially if it's an ancillary service like trash or meter reading. The resources exist so NO ONE need be hungry or homeless unless by choice. What does not currently exist is the proper attitude in Government that they are here to serve we the people, NOT the other way around.

This last sentence is the single most valuable issue the Tea Party has raised and if they keep that message going all of this will take care of itself. "When the people fear the government there is tyranny, when government fears the people there is liberty" Jefferson was right then and he's right now.

The single first step is to make the government in the form of the POTUS, House and Senate fear an energized, engaged and involved electorate. Once that transpires we can go about the business of deciding as a nation where we fall on the line between Libertarianism and Communism.

As for government services and costs, have you ever heard, "Damn the service sucks and it's sooo inefficient! Quick go hire some civil servants"

 

[xUT]

The resources exist so NO ONE need be hungry or homeless unless by choice.

This is BS. There are many 'special needs' people and families that can not work or make enough money to live. In some states, if you have an IQ above 70 then you can support yourself. Have you communicated with people a low IQ? Tough to make them balance money or use an ATM.

IMHO, people are ,myopic. If 'I' can make it, anyone can, which of course is not true.

Then we have the 'welfare class'. Two or three generations of families that 'never worked'!
Section 8 housing full of 'single mothers' with 6 kids and 12 daddies, none of whom work!
How do we turn that around without 'jobs'!

Our hospitals, jails and schools are overcrowded.

 

[SparrowHawk]

This is BS. There are many 'special needs' people and families that can not work or make enough money to live. In some states, if you have an IQ above 70 then you can support yourself. Have you communicated with people a low IQ? Tough to make them balance money or use an ATM.

IMHO, people are ,myopic. If 'I' can make it, anyone can, which of course is not true.

Then we have the 'welfare class'. Two or three generations of families that 'never worked'!
Section 8 housing full of 'single mothers' with 6 kids and 12 daddies, none of whom work!
How do we turn that around without 'jobs'!

Our hospitals, jails and schools are overcrowded.

It should go without saying that those who have no real chance of fending for themselves would be cared for in an appropriate manner. However apparently it needs to be said over and over again.

As to the second group you mention, these are the ones you allow to be "resourceful". They clearly spent a significant amount of time learning how to scam the system, Now they can channel their collective efforts towards their own survival. Life is nothing more than a series of annoying choices. They made their choice now they can live with it. It's just like my Heroin addict ex. I don't give a rats arse if she's face down in the gutter or not. I offered a way out for her and her 2 boys and she chose heroin and abandoning her kids. TOUGH. Not a Bob problem. Not a government problem either IMO as the kids are safe with their father.

Conversely, it you're like another friend of mine who slipped into the abyss of addiction and is now 2 years clean and sober, him I want to help. Local governments and faith based organizations can make these assessments and place the resources where they will do the most good for society. Washington adopts a one size fits all approach because they wouldn't be able to manage the programs.

No one remembers that the flip side of Freedom & Liberty is responsibility and accountability

 

[Ms Tree]

All I keep hearing is a lot of if, should, could and other hopes.

Again I ask. What happens when the state is unable to do what needs to be done? You seem to think it will happen but do not offer any examples of where it has happened. Sure charities have succeed on a small scale but nothing on the level of SS, Medicare or HUD. Sure they have flaws. Any major undertaking will be imperfect. So far I do not see an alternative goat I like better. I certainly do not see anything in your theory that indicates it would succeed or be superior to our current system.

 

[Ms Tree]

Who will take care of them in an appropriate manner?..The city? What if they are unable or incapable?

While the few may do a one size fits all that may not work all the time, they do have the resources to help far more people than local programs.

Why not combine local and federal resources? Seems that this would be a far more efficient way of doing things.

 

[SparrowHawk]

Who will take care of them in an appropriate manner?..The city? What if they are unable or incapable?

The answer is many will take care of them and until we build a private infrastructure we will need some sort of bridge, like vouchers until we can ween the programs off the Federal Teet.

While the few may do a one size fits all that may not work all the time, they do have the resources to help far more people than local programs.

Not if you don't send the money to Washington in the first place. My current state sends a great deal of money to Washington and receives about 75% back. So our rewards for running frugal and effective programs is to get less money. Whereas if you're RI and you can't organize a one car funeral the feds take my states money to help the Morons in RI. That's fair!! Reward sloth and corruption and give Buddy Cianci a radio show.

Why not combine local and federal resources? Seems that this would be a far more efficient way of doing things.

Because as defined by the COTUS it's not the role of the Federal Government. Somebody summed it up rather well on the debate. I think it was Romney. "If you can find goods or services readily available by doing a google search then the Federal Government shouldn't be involved"