WSO Democrats, help me understand your position
I don't want to get into personal attacks or launching angry tirades, I just genuinely want to understand where liberals/Democrats are coming from on their position on the budget.
Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) puts out an annual waste book of federal waste. He estimates that the sum of federal annual spending waste, fraud, abuse and duplication is as much as $300 billion.
http://www.coburn.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?a=Files.Serve&File_id=b7b…
If you don't believe him because he's a conservative, the GAO estimates that there's as much as $100 to $200 biillion in annual federal waste, fraud, abuse and duplication.
http://www.gao.gov/assets/320/315920.pdf
Democrat Senator Patty Murray put out the Senate Democrats' 10-year budget today that is competing with Paul Ryan's House Republican plan. The Democrats' spending cuts mostly included already planned spending reductions from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan winding down, some accounting tricks with interest and nominal entitlement spending reductions and nominal domestic spending reductions. It also included an equal amount of $1 trillion in new tax increases mostly by closing tax loopholes.
Here's what I'm almost desperate to understand, and I can't get a straight answer from my Democrat friends or colleagues and I'm just trying to undersand--given that there is $100 to $300 billion in annual waste, fraud, abuse and duplication in the federal budget, why aren't the Democrats trying to eliminate this in their budgets? Why can't they at least agree with the Republicans on this point that unnecessary spending is not only ineffective and bad public policy but it also doesn't even meet the Democrats' ideological goals of robust welfare spending, robust and active government regulation, and state-centered solutions to major problems, including education and infrastructure? It's literally $1 to $3 trillion in total waste that is going to be spent over the next 10 years, excluding interest.
To me it seems immoral to ask more from tax payers--any tax payers, rich or poor--when we have so much waste. It's the government being a bad steward of the tax payers' money. Help me understand your position here. Where am I going wrong?
Got any concrete ideas how to eliminate waste/fraud?
The first step would be to acknowledge that it's a problem, that it even exists. I'm not a bureaucrat and I have no experience working with entitlement programs, such as food stamps, Social Security disability, or Medicare. I do know there are all kinds of steps that could be taken to target food stamp abuse, such as limiting that amount one can carry on the card. For example, a store clerk a few weeks ago was part of a news program where he said he had customers every single day come in with a food stamp card that had a balance of thousands of dollars--at least 10 a day. They drive luxury cars, yet the SNAP program forbids the ownership and driving of luxury cars. Nobody ever even looks into the registration of the cars. Simply auditing the files--running a search for people who have $2,000+ food stamp balances--would be a good start. Here is a news article speaking to the original report:
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/02/25/7k-worth-of-food-stamps-per-…
I'm a moderate Democrat and I actually love Tom Coburn. One of my favorite guys in the Senate.
My view, as always, is that I'm ok with trying to get rid of abuse of welfare programs as long as we also fight corporate welfare programs and end bailouts. I don't want to get into deep detail (because it's just not worth it on here), but I find too often that the right is hyper-focused on cutting welfare programs but shy away from cutting waste from the defense budget / DHS / etc. Coburn is one of the few exceptions on the right in the Senate in this regard.
I'd also love to see the Dems and GOP come to a middle ground agreement. Why not take good ideas from both sides?
Obama, to his credit, has offered up cuts that piss off the left wing of the Dem party, but the right seems unwilling to compromise at all. It's really frustrating, generally speaking.
But this is what I don't get--from my perspective as a conservative, there is nothing to compromise on. If you're asking for $100 billion in annual tax increases, how do you justify that when there is at least that much--if not 3 times that amount--in spending that is a total waste and serves absolutely no purpose to either liberal or conservative ideology? How do you ask tax payers to give $100 billion more to the government when the government is possibly wasting $300 billion? This is the crux of what I'm trying to get at--how do the Democrats justify their position on taxes and spending?
Obama is the one unwilling to compromise? Now you're just deluding yourself there.
Huh? I said that Obama is willing to compromise.
At the ground level, I think the GOP is open to cutting waste/pork from the military budget. I do agree that at the elected representative level, there is little push. I think the main reason there is little push to cutting military pork at the elected representative level is because Republicans actually represent states and districts, particularly in the southeast, that have a lot of the military waste spending. I'm not really sure how to combat that thought process--to me, it demonstrates that federal dollars can become slavery to those who depend on it.
I think Coburn's report is $300 billion compared to $200 billion from the GAO because it does have military pork added in.
Oh yeah, dude, the defense budget is a gigantic jobs program. Only, it can be defended on the right as a national security issue instead of gov't stimulus.
I mean, all sorts of people on the right and the left have different views on what gov't should be doing, it isn't black and white. In my view, I don't really want to raise taxes further, though I was honestly hoping we'd just go over the fiscal cliff and trigger the sequester so we could actually pay down the debt and cut spending. I'm sort of an anomaly in that regard, I suppose.
I guess what I'd ideally want to see would be something like the following:
--Keep tax rates where they are for the time being OR cut rates but also eliminate loopholes (keep revenue neutral for the time being)
--Cut the shit out of DHS and cut the DoD's budget (there is obvious waste there and no reason for us to have this bloated of a budget, we aren't fighting the Cold War anymore, our focus needs to be on cyber security, drones, and refurbishment, not bloated F-35 programs)
--If there is $300 billion of waste, then find it and eliminate it! I'm more than ok with that.
What I don't want to see is a gutting of medicaid / medicare / healthcare reform for the sake of cutting so-called entitlement programs. Given the structural issues with our economy, including things that will legitimately not change going forward, I think we should take a role in making sure our people are healthy.
To your point, if we have $300 billion in waste we can cut, you argue that we don't need to raise taxes. I'd argue that we also have no need to cut medicare / medicaid. I think the logic works both ways.
But, generally, I want a balanced approach so we can cut the deficit and debt without crushing one group or another.
O'Reilly is a windbag. Obama has proposed cuts to Medicare and Medicaid. Both of which are specific programs. We've also already cut spending more than we've raised in taxes via the sequester and the Budget Control Act of 2011.
Eh, end of the day, I posted what I'd really like to see above. I don't really want to get into the histrionics of what each side wants to do or purports to want to do.
Since you asked reasonably, and since I'm a Democrat, here is my rational for generally supporting the Democrat's fiscal policies over those proposed by Republicans.
First off, why do I favor increasing marginal tax rates on higher incomes (despite being in those tax brackets myself? Over 100 years of data fail to find any correlation between lower marginal tax rates on upper incomes or lower capital gains rates and higher economic growth. In fact, a slight negative correlation (not statistically significant) has been observed between lower capital gains rates and high economic growth. What has been found to be highly correlated with lower marginal tax rates & capital gains rates is rising economic inequality. Evidence is also mounting (there is quite a bit at this point) that higher levels of inequality are correlated with lower economic growth. For example, if your read Unequal Democracy by Princeton's Larry Bartels, you'll see that he found higher levels of PRETAX income growth for people at all income levels under Democratic administrations while more re-distributive tax and transfer payment regimes were in place. (Cliff notes: http://www.businessinsider.com/study-tax-cuts-dont-lead-to-growth-2012-9)
Why not tackle waste first? I'm all for tackling waste, but I've also worked in enough large organizations (all private) to know that $200-300B in waste from a $3.5T budget is actually pretty efficient for a bureaucracy the size of the US government. I currently work for a organization with a ~$500M per year capital budget and just helped closed down an initiative that invested $17M over the last 3 months with a negative ROIC. Those who think the government is this inefficient black hole have never been in an executive role at a large private company. Is it less efficient than a private company? Yes. However the governments mandate is not efficiency, it is the protection of its citizens rights and freedoms even when it would be more efficient to risk leaving some people unprotected.
Finally, why am I not a deficit hawk who wants immediate spending cuts? Because I realize in the long run only two things really matter when it comes to the deficit: 1) SS, and 2) Medicare. Welfare, food stamps, Section 8? Trivial compared to those two programs. Fixing SS can be done in a number of ways that don't reduce benefits. Easiest fix is to simply raise the income cap on payroll taxes to something like $200K. This will get the program over the demographic hump that is the baby boomers and into the black for the foreseeable future. Fixing Medicare will be hard (and is really the most important thing for long run fiscal solvency), but I still think there is a better way than through benefit reductions. Curbing obesity among the young is probably the best approach to keeping costs down in the long run, but we'll have to be realistic about what needs to be done. Removing subsidies to grow corn for high fructose corn syrup, improving our urban planning to reduce sprawl and encourage walking and the use of public transit, expanding the role of phys ed in public education, etc. These are the things we should be doing to ensure our long term bodily and fiscal health. Not letting sick poor people die because their "premium support" voucher doesn't cover the cost of their antibiotics.
Sorry for the novel, but its not a quick explanation. Hope that sheds some light.
How do you remain to be patriotic when our country isn't bounded by commonalities? We have different cultures, ways of life, races, religions, etc and not everyone is paying their fair share. It's actually upper middle class people from the suburbs who are paying, through their tax dollars, for low income peoples food stamps, pell grants, medicaid, etc and all of this is produces over entitled, under achieving people who rely on government for everything (including employment). I'm not trying to be offensive here, but a lot of these union workers, government workers are thugs who rode the government gravy train, getting benefits + pay way above what the private sector pays. In return, they produce little in value and typically provide services that are less efficient/effective than the private sector (to help low income people). The 47%, the "takers" just want free stuff from government, whether it's free college, free housing, or free health care. Why should someone like me have to pay for all of this? It's suddenly the faults of the "oppressive people" who actually worked hard in their life, that lazy people failed...
1) You have a fundamental, God given right to what you earn.
2) Government should be limited and highly controlled.
3) Freedom and liberty should be maximized and protected at all costs.
I 100% support Democrats paying more taxes and supporting program that help whomever they want. What I do not support is a group of people having an opinion and then using the government as their tool to rob you.
Taxes are at all time highs. We spend over $1.5T through the IRS. We have government agencies that need to be totally shut down. We have waste in the ones that exist. Talking about raising taxes is a non-starter.
Republicans compromised and allowed taxes to increase. Now Dem's want more. If a Democrat stubbed their toe the solution would be to raise taxes. Taxes could be at 100% and Democrats would promote raising it more. I find it repulsive that a party would essentially have robbery and theft as their main platform.
Tax rates are high now to make up for the mess Bush caused for 8 years. He cut tax rates in a time of economic prosperity, and now Obama and the democrats are stuck cleaning up his mess and getting blamed for the deficit that Bush caused.
LOL
http://www.skymachines.com/US-National-Debt-Per-Capita-Percent-of-GDP-a…
Small breakdown of US national debt per year. As you can see, The US has been running on a deficit for a very long time and even Clinton added around 1.4 trillion, but somehow he gets the benefit of a tech bubble and 1 year of a BUDGET (aka not debt) surplus of 250 billion and is a miracle worker. I am not attacking Clinton, he actually wasn't a bad President, but he was no Saint and "All This Shit" didn't magically start with Bush.
at the end of the day, both sides don't have the peoples interests at heart.
FYI - I don't care is fucking God came to earth and said that absolute logic says higher taxes = more efficient country. There is zero moral reasoning to take from someone simply because they have too much. Everyone always talks about evidence, reasoning, whatever. It doesn't matter. You have a RIGHT to keep what is yours.
I am so happy Republicans walked out on Obama and sequestration went through. I'd love to see the entire Dept of Education shut down, along with the Dept of Energy and Dept of Homeland Security. Start selling off DC real estate. Defund the drone program in the US.
"Well, we don't have to worry about that." - Godless liberal who worships at the alter of Big Government!
What this country needs is a leader like Romney or Clinton (bill) that can make deals and get shit done, instead of this stupid sniping back and forth.
You got that right.
I just SB'd you. Romney is a great man. America doesn't deserve him as a President.
I read this in Anne Romney's voice.
Both sides simply ignore the Constitution and trample on our most basic rights as Americans simply for political gain.
Rand Paul 2016
The phrase 'God given right' used in a political argument always kills me. You think God sat down and decided that the capitalists were good people and he would do everything in his power to enforce fair trade? I have a feeling that we do not, in fact, have a 'God given right' to what you earn. Maybe a government-given right? Maybe a logic-given right? But definitely not God given.
IMO, if you believe in God you believe that some things are beyond mans law. Same thing with human rights. If you believe in a divine figure you believe that certain laws are untouchable. So the US could pass a law which takes property or takes life, but it would be in violation of a more superior law.
Absent of God then there are no "human rights" only rights given by nation states.
A mans labor is his and his first. The government should grovel to the citizen, begging them for a donation. Once this donation is received it should be revered and honored. Spending money given by the citizens should be a sacred honor and every penny not needed should be returned to the person who gave it.
Instead we have this perverse system where citizens some how "owe" the government and should be happy to hand it over, while it is wasted at every stop and the government continually looks for more ways to fleece its citizens.
Someone's belief in a deity does not give any credence to the idea that we have "god given rights." For one, there is no proof of any god of any sort, let alone the god of the bible. Second off, whose god gives us what rights? Going down that path does us no good.
Rights are nothing more than social constructs that have developed and been molded over time. This doesn't mean that government should be able to trample our rights, but we need to understand that rights have evolved over centuries of critical thinking, reason, and a combination of trial and error.
While property rights are important in the Judeo-Christian tradition, taxation in some form or another has also been the standard M.O. for millennia. You won't see any talk of the government "groveling to the citizen" in the Bible.
Taxation is how citizens pay for public goods. If the government is taking more than it's fair share, there is a good chance the institutional setting needs some tinkering. And that's clearly the case today. One solution I keep suggesting is campaign finance reform. From the guy furthest to the left to the guy furthest to the right, nearly every congressmen of the past few decades has had the interests of his large donors at heart over that of the American people as a whole. Making public financing mandatory could probably do a great deal of good.
BH, I think you may need a history lesson. God actually gave Moses 11 commandments, the 11th being: "Thoust government shall not taketh from what thou earnest through thy profession."
The commandment stood until 1188 A.D. when Henry II and the Church removed it from history in order to pass the Saladin tithe to fund the Third Crusade. It was a 10% tithe on revenues and movable properties which ended up raising around 100,000 silver marks.
As legend goes, Henry II and the Church believed that God would understand the need for the tax since they were fighting a holy war, but God showed his wrath and Henry II died in late 1189. Many believe that this was divine punishment for such a harsh tithe.
Anyway, the commandment was never rightfully returned and as the commandment remains lost, it has now become commonplace for governments of the world to ignore the God given right to what you earn. I hear that in some countries with obscene income tax rates, the name Henry has actually become a highly offensive obscenity reserved for one who betrays someone else, e.g. "I cannot believe you slept with my boyfriend! You are such a henry!" "Esos malditos henrys tomó todos nuestros trabajos!" "それらヘンリー鶏と牛は私たちの国を爆撃した" "Die Henrys stal al mijn klompen!" The list goes on and on.
I hope you now understand how our God given rights have been trampled on through modern income tax. That is all.
You're trolling, right?
"Thou shalt not steal" Bible
:)
I don't see how the removal of God given rights would eliminate the concept or belief in altruism. I'm not sure if I'm understanding your logic ANT, but the belief in a God and the messages that are taught are hardly synonymous with one another in my thinking. There is a lot of content written by atheist philosophers that delve into the concept of universal ethics. Unless you are a nihilist?
If one assumes there is not "higher power" then the only rights and laws that exist are ones create by government and countries. If this is the case then there are no innate human rights, simply rights given by government. Those rights can be taken away.
So Germany in WWII would have been lawful in doing what they did as they were a legal government that passed laws.
The entire concept of human rights violations is based on the fact that humans have inalienable rights. When the forefathers said this they didn't mean any one god, simply that certain rights are given to man from a higher authority.
Exactly (to a point); people initially erect governments in order to protect what are seen as inalienable rights by giving up some of their "natural" rights. E.g. I will give up the right to kill others at will so that a governing body will prohibit me from doing so, and those others killing me in the same. While this seems obvious, it is something that has to be considered for all instances of legislation.
You are creating a separation from the government and its people, when in essence, governments are the sum of its parts (aka the people that constitute it). While in terms of international law, it is much harder to draw the line. Governments are then treated as individuals to an extent, as they are the beings that constitute the global body of countries. While it may be easy to draw a line with Germany, even though most people initially did not even know that death camps were being employed. A clear violation of human rights does not motivate intervention in all cases, E.g.s: Darfur and Rwanda come to mind, as well as Cambodia.
Also, I think it is a very slippery slope in treating the Constitution as a given right which is forever undeniable. While I'm sure I will get slammed for saying such a despicable heresy, it is a rational method which is seldom exercised in today's nationalist, testosterone fueled government debate. I'm not saying that you shouldn't have the rights to bear arms, but answer me why you do. Why, in today's day in age, do you maintain the right to own guns? Because the Constitution says you should and that is what our country was founded on? Why did the Constitution say so? Was it out of some divine, incontrovertible right? I believe one of the initial interests of the rights to bear arms was the maintenance of a militia (I am shorthanding this statement very much from the full debate of the time).
My point being, as you are saying that governments are the only ones that restrict rights, yet they are also the institutions that uphold them. In the end, people are the ones who decide their own rights; not God, not governments (as you described them), or nature. The highest being for divining rights IMO is historical jurisprudence and conscience(which is an ill defined concept in itself, I know).
Please, of course, take my rationale with a grain of salt. I don't expect to change your way of thinking, and actually enjoy your more conservative rebuttals as well as anyone else's.
What one man considers altruistic another considers tyranny. I was reading recently about the argument that American southerners in the 19th century made on behalf of slavery. They believed it was in the best interests of those they were enslaving.
In practice, government does give and take away rights. But the principle behind "God given rights" has less to do with belief in a god or gods and more to do with a belief that mankind is entitled to certain rights because of right and wrong. Right and wrong is difficult to establish without a sovereign authority given the many differing opinions.
Haha, I feel like I just echoed many of your points. But your point of Southern 19th century altruism is bias in the fact that it excludes a vital party (those being enslaved). And I think that right and wrong are (in most cases), a universal and objective truth. While hard to prove and there are many contradicting circumstances, I think that a lot of right and wrong are ingrained in our being. I guess it will always be hard to establish these as "truths" though, as I don't think that there's ever been a time in civilization when there wasn't a ruling/governing body.
But more to the point, when I was referring to God given rights; does making claim to your earnings make it a God given right because of right and wrong? What about earnings that were wrong-ly gotten? Idk, to me, it is hard to claim that what you make is a God given right of yours.
Hopefully my statement wasn't too convoluted, as I believe the former one I made was.
Everyone tends to attack "socialism" as the root of the E.U problem when in reality the problem with the E.U was the single currency, Germany and France have weathered the Euro Crisis pretty well. When the PIIGS joined the E.U they were quite unstable to begin with, Greece overestimated their GDP, Spain was under a dictatorship until the 70s?
The whole financial crisis and E.U Crisis was brought upon by a capitalist system that is flawed, not by democrats or republicans but a system that needs to change.
Wasn't Cyprus' bailout twice its GDP? I don't know the specifics, but there was a lot of overspending. That's not necessarily socialism, but Greece, Spain, Cyprus, Portugal, etc. have been weighed down by ther nations' over reliance on government jobs and pensions. These nations need a more market oriented economy.
1) The right to bear arms is a Constitutional Right. As long as the US stands it shall be an untouchable right. Once it is gone, so is the USA and everything it stands for. Same goes for the other 9 Rights.
2) "God Given" rights can be violated by government, but that doesn't mean they do not exist. Without the concept of a higher being there are no human rights, only rights given by government.
3) Giving people the right to decide rights is a pretty dangerous thing. Hence why we are not a true Democracy. The majority do not have the right to infringe on certain "inalienable" rights, at least in the USA. Mob rule is what brought about Nazism and Fascism.
I understand that it is a Constitutional right, as is the rest of the Bill of Rights. I am simply asking "why"? What is the method of their justification? If the right to bear arms was not originally on the Constitution, would the USA of today still have a large portion of it's population that believes it should be?
And I really fail to see how one cannot believe in natural rights without believing in a higher power that instilled them. Given the process of evolution, their must be another approach to our ability to divine right from wrong without their being a higher power to ingrain it upon us. However, if you are a creationist, than I cannot argue your statement.
And I agree with this concluding statement for the most part. Even the famed Greek philosophers largely believed in a technocracy. But judging by your statements, you are a vehment anarchist?
If the Bill of Rights didn't protect gun ownership we probably wouldn't have it. Taking away a citizens right to self defense is what all government seek to do, including this government.
You can believe in whatever you want, but without the concept of a higher power all you have is a belief. Belief =/= law.
I believe in maximized freedom and the inherent belief the not just absolute power corrupts, but growing power corrupts. The ends do not justify the means if it means freedom and rights are trounced. What makes American what it is is the belief in certain rights and privileges.
What you are proposing is anarchist state. The bill of rights was written over 200 years ago, the god dam constitution is a living document, it has been amended throughout this Nations history. You really want to by what the four fathers of this county wanted? Lets take away women right to vote lets bring back slavery as most of the four fathers were for slavery.
The constitution changes and and adapts to need of people. Ever heard of the Elastic Cause? It gives the Gov't the right to pass laws, as society changes. You really think the Four fathers thought they would be Airplanes? No, but it has to be regulated that's what the Elastic Cause does and thats why we have the FDA, FCC ,FAA.
The constitution shouldn't be held to face value its open to interpretations.
What the fuck does it mean to bear arms? Does it mean I can bear a nuke? Since a nuke is a arm, can I bear a grenade? No because shit needs to be regulated.
I'm not against the right to bear arms but seriously do we really need semi-auto weapons, snipers? Its nearly impossible to get a gun in NYC, but I could get a semi-auto from FL or Jersey and pop one out in Times Square.
Well once we agree that a mans labor is not truly his, but something allowed by government then the logical next step is to take whatever the government wants without answering to those who are being taken from. If the product of ones labor is governments first and foremost the need to justify taking it is unnecessary.
This is how Kings and Dictators operate. Now we must be prepared for the next step, which is once you tell people their labor isn't theirs they will simply stop working or work less. This is basically stealing what is rightfully the governments though and the government would be compelled to extract the natural amount of labor from a citizen if an artificially low level is being given.
IMO, what the Forefathers established is what is most natural to man. We want freedom, we want what is ours, we want to protect ourselves, to express ourselves. These are reflected in the 1st, 2nd, 4th, etc Amendments.
I mean think about the Bill of Rights. Freedom from unreasonable search and seizure. Prohibition of housing soldiers. Freedom of speech. Right to bear arms (protect oneself, being on parity with the government), right to a fair, orderly and speedy trial (prevent arbitrary justice), preventing cruel and unusual punishment, etc.
The entire idea of the Bill of Rights was to hamstring the government, to limit it, to prevent it from trouncing individual rights. Just look at what is going on today. Look at the police and how they try and prevent you from recording them, how they can be corrupt, violent. Look at the government and how it is no reading our emails, having drones fly on US soil, etc. We have people being held in Guantanamo Bay in a state of limbo. We went to war on false pretenses.
This is some scary shit. And don't think for one moment that the USA is any different than any other country. Only thing holding the monster at bay are the checks and balances put in place by the men who created this nation, who lived under a King who taxed them when he wanted, to made them second class citizens, who forced them to house troops and give up their property.
I just question the integrity of the statement that gun rights are to help protect the citizens from their government. I think that they have hardly (if ever) been used as a means of protection from the government. Strictly speaking in the history of the US.
And so you think that in a hypothetical population of athiests, there could never be law since there would be no divine power to instill a sense of right or wrong? Unless I am misunderstanding your meaning?
Gun rights are for self defense. As for fighting off the government who knows. Vietnam and Afghanistan, as well as our own revolutionary war seem to indicate that rebels, with small arms are remarkably capable of defeating a large, standing army. But that is besides the point.
We have the right because our Forefathers wanted us to and that is really all the justification one needs.
Athiests could and do have law. I never said they could not. But if athiests were so inclined to pass eugenic law and force people to have abortions or to actively kill those who didn't meet whatever standards those actions would be lawful and correct. When there is no higher power there is only the law of man which can be used for good or evil.
It is really pretty simple. Some being, aliens, god, a marshmallow deity, whatever, says humans have a right to life, liberty, speech, etc. Man can pass laws against this, but those laws are always unlawful because they are superseded by a higher authority.
Just like when one court overrules another. Without a higher being or whatever you want to call it there is nothing higher than human law. Now human law can be just or it can be unjust.
I just don't understand why people have such an issue with guns. Fear of guns is illogical and unsupported by statistics and/or reality. Furthermore, anti-gun people are not advocating for government to disarm also, just free citizens. At least in the UK when citizens don't have guns neither do the police.
Personally, I think there needs to be rules limiting the weapons and protection law enforcement can have. There should be parity. Citizens formed this government and should be able to bring it to task if needed. This militarization of the policy force and Federal forces can only be used to subjugate citizens. We've never faced an armed, terrorist attack by ground forces that would need armored vehicles, drones and police with heavy weapons.
I understand your logic on the parity of officials and individuals bearing arms; and that in most cases it is unbalanced in favor of the official authorities. I'm not going to get into the whole gun regulation BS argument, but one instance that brings to mind the downfall of your parity rationale is Utoya, Norway.
I agree that the existence of guns caused gun deaths. But how do you quantify freedom? I mean how many people died fighting for these rights we now have. How do their deaths compare to others.
I'd support the right to bear arms if gun violence killed 100,000 people in a year. I simply believe in the value of this right, and others, to be preeminent.
Regardless, I will freely admit that Americans would wipe their ass with the Bill of Rights if offered free cable for a year. Rights and Freedoms are higher level needs and goods. Well above food, shelter, security. One could argue that this is why totalitarian regimes offer security and hand outs in exchange for rights and freedoms (ala Saudi Arabia and China). It probably also gave birth to the saying that those who would trade freedom for security deserve neither.
I'd suspect this is a reason why the Bill of Rights were made so firm if for no other reason than to prevent people from trading them in for some cheap and temporary benefit.
itt - republicans get their arguments from fox news
Conservatism pre-dates Fox News, which was founded I believe in 1998(?).
Most of these discussions tend to be more libertarian than anything else.
And this ladies and gentlemen is why this country is going to hell.
The Bill of Rights never took anyone's rights away. The Constitution was amended to preserve and include additional rights, not limit the original 10. Just because you don't understand the premise behind it, the difference between gun types, etc doesn't mean it should be taken away.
Snipe Rifles? You mean like hunting rifles with optics on it? The best "sniper" rifles were bolt action, single shots, not automatic weapons that usually have shorter barrels. Furthermore, automatic weapons make poor sniper rifles because of the nature of automatic fire and muzzle rise. But then again you would have to know what you are talking about, which you clearly do not.
Also, how is supporting the Bill of Rights giving birth to anarchy? It is simply asserting the preeminence of freedom and liberty. No where did I say there should be no government. I simply said government should be limited.
Bear a nuke? You are insane and your hyperbole takes away from any argument you might have. The founding fathers were clearly talking about self protection and being able to bear personal weapons for protection. This has been asserted countless times and is established fact. What NYC does is unconstitutional in my opinion, same as what Chicago did. Law abiding citizens have the right to own guns wherever they are.
You enjoy living under the illusion of safety, which is fine. Like most Americans, as I said earlier, would trade their freedom and liberty for free cable TV.
Also, I only use guns as an example. This argument has nothing to specifically do with guns. Why people seem to want to limit and do away with the 2nd amendment, but get all butt hurt when you try and limit the other 9 is beyond me. The are all important parts and are corner stones for this nation.
Sad day when Americans clamor to reduce any liberty. Meanwhile the Federal government, which was never intended to be large or powerful, has just racked up $16T and counting in debt. Wake up people.
Sounds like a lot of conspiracy, we should get rid of the fed as well as the founding fathers weren't too happy with the the idea of a central bank. Most economist today support having a federal bank, but fore fathers weren't too happy about that ideal.
Also the right too bear arms is open to interpretations, and that's why subsequent laws were passed to which guns can be owned by citizens. Does someone really need a semi-auto? Like I said before I could go down to F.L buy a semi-auto and kill at least half a dozen people in Times Square, and that did happened this pass summer, two people were killed in Mid-town.
I do agree we have way too many gov't agencies we really should get rid of the DEA. We spend way too much money on this "war on drugs" that Regan started.
Conspiracy? Sure. The government has far too much power, given in order to "protect" us thanks to 9/11.
And why not get rid of the Fed? The Fed has done what wonderful things for us exactly? Helped fuel the housing bubble. Didn't prevent Black Monday. The tech bubble. QE forever hasn't helped and it sure as hell will hurt in the future. How is a fiat currency working for us? I am sorry, but the Fed really isn't doing wonderful things in my book.
I don't know if someone needs a semi-automatic weapon (FYI - Semi means one trigger pull, one round fired). I don't know if someone needs two cares or to smoke weed, or to have 5 wives. I don't really concern myself with the utility someone gains from something else. They have the right to do so.
Oh, so now you agree that the DEA is bad. So you want people to have a freedom, but you also want to take a freedom away. See, I don't impose my opinions on someone. I support people being free to do drugs. I also support them owning guns. I think the DEA is bad. I think the Dept of Education is bad. I think the Dept of Energy is bad. I think the Dept of Homeland Security is bad. I think the post office should be 5 days a week and Amtrak should only run the east corridor.
Remember, the government runs on debt or taxes. Either way it is money taken or soon to be taken from us. Our taxes fund the DEA, they fund Gitmo, they fund Iraq and Afghanistan. It funds African dictators, it funds electric cars when the market wants efficient gas vehicles. It funds student loans which drive up the cost of education and layers on more debt for students.
Government caused Ruby Ridge, Fast N' Furious, it is funding drones on our soil, monitoring our emails, on and on.
Neque reprehenderit voluptates ea molestiae ut pariatur cupiditate. Eos molestias laboriosam exercitationem omnis. Pariatur alias earum optio et. Autem maxime impedit nisi eos. Est alias sit quam veniam ratione. Aliquid beatae aperiam incidunt recusandae. Harum aut sapiente necessitatibus laudantium.
Minima molestiae ex in error. Inventore quasi aut neque velit fugit ipsum. Ea rerum rerum veritatis. Explicabo id quaerat iste quae. Debitis labore ut magnam quae qui. Eos voluptas voluptates labore totam nostrum veniam et.
Ipsa sed aut incidunt odio quis. Ex magnam sit molestias nulla quas. Dolor excepturi animi natus voluptas. Eos quia aliquam fuga velit hic qui error. Dicta in exercitationem omnis dolor nam quam quasi.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...
Aut amet eum velit veritatis. Iusto doloremque ut tenetur odit sed. Ut voluptatem velit voluptas nostrum harum praesentium. Ullam commodi maxime id sed nesciunt minus ea. Dolorem repellendus animi iste illo autem dolor vel at.
Doloremque error id est eos velit. Ratione nostrum at hic aliquid dicta eveniet. Dicta aut inventore voluptatem eum quia reprehenderit blanditiis. Est minima minima at natus explicabo. Mollitia et voluptatem iste hic. Aut maxime aut reprehenderit. Autem dolor voluptates dolorem magni sit reprehenderit ut. Omnis quo optio excepturi aut.
Magni laudantium veniam aut officiis soluta iusto. Non quod numquam et qui. Nihil veniam voluptas pariatur mollitia deserunt sed libero. Ea eos illo sequi corrupti suscipit voluptatem.
Id tempore atque in quos at. Voluptatem optio totam quos quas. Quia explicabo ut perferendis modi cumque sit. Maxime velit deserunt repellat corrupti. Et eos dolorum tempore.