Is it time to break-up the Federal government?

[Death Metal]

One drink everytime Obamacult prefaces a post with "Bullshit"?

Might as well say we should drink every time we drink.

[Obamacult]

Dude, we could make a drinking game out of your posts.

I live in Ohio. My legislature sucks. Many of the Congressmen do not even have college degrees.
Those that aren't in the pocket of this or that anonymous corporation are backwoods nuts who only hold their positions because of how effectively the GOP has gerrymandered everything to Hades.
Recently, they passed a law compelling bars to permit guns on the facilities, all while proclaiming from the mountaintops about freedom and free markets.

That, mon ami, is state government. It's the JV, except that under their lack of accountability they can do real damage to the world we live in.

One drink everytime Obamacult prefaces a post with "Bullshit"?

That will come in handy when the net effects of your beloved government entitlement regimes come due.

And I will have a drink whenever a statist makes a post devoid of a shred of objective and substantive fact, logic or empirically supported arguments.

Or when a statist makes an inane retort, ad hominem or some other insult or slight devoid of any substantive contribution to the discussion.

Guess who will be drunk first?


The sad fact is that those that most virulently support this fantasy of an effective nanny state will be the ones who suffer the most when the nation and its currency become insolvent economically along the lines of Greece, Argentina, etc.

[Frisivisia]

Dude, we could make a drinking game out of your posts.

I live in Ohio. My legislature sucks. Many of the Congressmen do not even have college degrees.
Those that aren't in the pocket of this or that anonymous corporation are backwoods nuts who only hold their positions because of how effectively the GOP has gerrymandered everything to Hades.
Recently, they passed a law compelling bars to permit guns on the facilities, all while proclaiming from the mountaintops about freedom and free markets.

That, mon ami, is state government. It's the JV, except that under their lack of accountability they can do real damage to the world we live in.

One drink everytime Obamacult prefaces a post with "Bullshit"?

Allow me to present the average Obamacult post:

Bullshit strawman.

Wall of text.
meaningless source.
More bricktext.
Here's two graphs with no sources which have an axis unlabeled!

In sum, your posts are not worth the bandwidth which brings them from me to you. Quit your Statist bullshit, then face me.
Actually, fuck it, more bricktext.

[Frisivisia]

One drink everytime Obamacult prefaces a post with "Bullshit"?

That will come in handy when the net effects of your beloved government entitlement regimes come due.

The sad fact is that those that most virulently support this fantasy of an effective nanny state will be the ones who suffer the most when the nation and its currency become insolvent economically along the lines of Greece, Argentina, etc.

This post is full of wut.

[Trotskylvania]

One drink everytime Obamacult prefaces a post with "Bullshit"?

That will come in handy when the net effects of your beloved government entitlement regimes come due.

The sad fact is that those that most virulently support this fantasy of an effective nanny state will be the ones who suffer the most when the nation and its currency become insolvent economically along the lines of Greece, Argentina, etc.

You really don't know anything about me, or what I find beloved. I'd go so far as to say that you know about as much about my personal beliefs and life as you do about political science and economics. Which is to say dick.

But by all means, continue with your little tirades. This little fantasy world you live in is something else. And boy, it makes great entertainment when I'm bored.

[Obamacult]

One drink everytime Obamacult prefaces a post with "Bullshit"?

Allow me to present the average Obamacult post:

Bullshit strawman.

Wall of text.
meaningless source.
More bricktext.
Here's two graphs with no sources which have an axis unlabeled!

In sum, your posts are not worth the bandwidth which brings them from me to you. Quit your Statist bullshit, then face me.
Actually, fuck it, more bricktext.

Bullshit.

Here is my last rebuttal to one of your fallacious posts devoid of any shred of factual, logical or empirically supported evidence.

Indeed, I have cited peer reviewed empirical research showing the negative effects of debt on growth.

viewtopic.php?p=12873024#p12873024

And predictably, you respond with inane crap and not much else:

IN sum, amusingly I am criticized for presenting peer reviewed empirical research and you have nothing other than personal opinion with a few insults thrown in for good measure.

oh, and have a drink on me,

your going to need it trying to find a shred of substantive and objective factual and empirically supported evidence that matches the quantity and quality of research that I can produce debunking your absurd notion that the debt doesn't mean anything.

[Frisivisia]

Allow me to present the average Obamacult post:

Bullshit strawman.

Wall of text.
meaningless source.
More bricktext.
Here's two graphs with no sources which have an axis unlabeled!

In sum, your posts are not worth the bandwidth which brings them from me to you. Quit your Statist bullshit, then face me.
Actually, fuck it, more bricktext.

Bullshit.

Here is my last rebuttal to one of your fallacious posts devoid of any shred of factual, logical or empirically supported evidence.

Indeed, I have cited peer reviewed empirical research showing the negative effects of debt on growth.

viewtopic.php?p=12873024#p12873024

And predictably, you respond with inane crap and not much else:

IN sum, amusingly I am criticized for presenting peer reviewed empirical research and you have nothing other than personal opinion with a few insults thrown in for good measure.

The best part is when you used my format perfectly. Needs more graphs.

[Death Metal]

[quote="Obamacult";p="12873740"]
And I will have a drink whenever a statist makes a post devoid of a shred of objective and substantive fact, logic or empirically supported arguments.

Or when a statist makes an inane retort, ad hominem or some other insult or slight devoid of any substantive contribution to the discussion.

Guess who will be drunk first?
{/quote]

We will, because you will be sober.

[Obamacult]

That will come in handy when the net effects of your beloved government entitlement regimes come due.

The sad fact is that those that most virulently support this fantasy of an effective nanny state will be the ones who suffer the most when the nation and its currency become insolvent economically along the lines of Greece, Argentina, etc.

You really don't know anything about me, or what I find beloved. I'd go so far as to say that you know about as much about my personal beliefs and life as you do about political science and economics. Which is to say dick.

But by all means, continue with your little tirades. This little fantasy world you live in is something else. And boy, it makes great entertainment when I'm bored.

It has been fun for me too, if not a little disappointing that you have not shown the wherewithal to counter any of my challenges.

viewtopic.php?p=12866589#p12866589

Nonetheless, when I have time I will debunk the balance of your lengthy tirade issued earlier in this thread.

If bullshit is the drinking word, then it will be fun indeed for those on the Left because there is no dearth of bullshit on this thread and I will expose it.

[New Embossia]

So you want to hand power from the retards who run the government, to the people who elected them?

[Obamacult]

What is noteworthy is that I have largely met a bevy of leftwing adherents on this thread and the arguments I have made in the OP stand even more sturdy now than previously.

Moreover, I will add one more to the list:

Fallacy #1 -- empowering the individual states to manage health care, education, retirement, transportation, etc. is a return to the Articles of Confederation

This is a typical strawman argument from the peanut gallery because Washington would still be responsible for national defense and insuring unrestricted commerce between the individual states. Hence, the Bill of Rights would remain intact and life, liberty, private property and contracts would still be protected by the Federal government. The only difference is that governance of most economic issues would return to the states or the individual as was the case for over 100 years after the Constitution was ratified in the late 1780's.

Fallacy #2 -- The Federal government is doing just fine managing health care and retirement.

The United States government paid over $400,000,000,000 per year on the average to service a debt of over $16,000,000,000,000 over the last four years. Moreover, the average interest payment for the last ten years is over $350,000,000,000 and growing!

If this doesn't expose the peanut gallery argument that 'the debt doesn't matter' as pure deluded and destructive bullshit, then nothing will. To illustrate the opportunity costs of this expenditure (in 2008 dollars), it would pay the salaries of 4,000,000 teachers, 25,000 junior highs, 8000 hospitals (4-8 stories), 100,000 nursing homes, etc.

Fallacy #3 -- It is incredibly bad to have a short-lived private sector monopoly within a single industry, but the Mother of All Monopolies represented by a leviathan government that lords over virtually all commerce with unchallenged monopolistic tax and regulatory policy is hunky dory?!!

This pretty much exposes the ridiculous house of cards ideological foundation upon which statism rests. For example, they become apoplectic when faced with a single monopoly within a single industry that can easily be overcome with competition, boycotts, substitution goods, etc. In contrast, statists fawn over the monopoly in Washington that is protected from competition, boycotts, and substitution goods by threat of violence. If you examine the way Washington does business and how it deals with the citizenry -- it is a textbook example of an unyielding, coercive and destructive monopoly that no private sector monopoly has ever or will ever approach in the size and scope of coercion.

Fallacy #4 -- Profit is bad.

Profit informs a free society where capital and labor must be allocated to provide the most benefits based on the preferences of free people and NOT some politician or bureaucrat acting in his own interest. Indeed, firms that make the most profit best satisfy consumer preferences in a free society through voluntary exchanges that always benefit everyone involved in the exchange or the transaction would never have occurred.

Without profit, society has no idea of where to allocate scarce resources. Government cannot efficiently or rationally manage societal resources due to the economic calculation problem outlined below:

Economic Calculation Problem of Command Economies

Fallacy #5 -- Statists say we should downsize banks so they are not too big to fail, but a huge monopolistic government in Washington that borrows 40 cents on every dollar and is paying interest on debt of over 100% of GDP and growing is fine the way it is??!!

Indeed, my view is that government in Washington is too big to fail and by breaking up this inefficient and oppressive monopoly control over economic issues. Washington still maintains its role protecting life, liberty, private property and enforcing contracts by control of the armed forces, federal law enforcement and legal arbiter of last resort. Moreover if a state went bankrupt, the Feds would treat this the same as any large scale private bankruptcy and assume temporary ownership and restructuring responsibility until the state could get back on its feet.

Fallacy #6 -- The debt doesn't matter because who owe it to ourselves or it won't effect us ?!!

The debt must be addressed and there is only a few ways this can happen:

1) higher taxes that will cause capital and talent to offshore thereby further eroding the tax base. Indeed, there are some drones who say this isn't a problem despite the fact that Obama mentioned numerous times during the recent campaign that it is A PROBLEM.

2) print money that will debase the currency causing interest rates to rise, inflation that is the cruelest tax of all on the poor, debt payments to rise, loss of confidence in the US government and ultimate capitulation.

3) more borrowing that will cause America's credit worthiness to decline, interest rates to rise, debt to increase, further leading to a series of debilitating economic decision that will ultimately be thrust on the lap of Main Street in significantly reduced growth, decreases in discretionary income and declining living standards.

4) eliminate or reduce promised benefits in social security and health care leading to lower standards of living. Indeed, this is generational theft since young people paying into the system today will never get anything close to what they contribute into the system.

Fallacy #7 -- Smaller populations and smaller states have less efficient governments ???!!

Absurd, the geopolitic has myriad examples of governments smaller than most US states that function very well within societies of small populations. Indeed, the ten least corrupt states (Finland, Sweden, Iceland, Singapore, Canada, etc.) all have populations less then many US states. Moreover, many small nations have strong records of economic growth, civil and political rights (Switzerland, Luxembourg, Singapore, Hong Kong, Norway, etc.)

Fallacy #8 -- Government that governs closest to the people is NOT the best governance ??!!

How anyone can logically conclude that a one-size fits all solution emanating from bureaucrats and politicians in Washington is more accountable and responsive than government from a state capital far closer to the people and more intimate with each states unique problems?

Unfortunately, it is true that many leftwing ideologues think that a bureaucrat or politician thousands of miles removed from society in Washington is better able to decide what a citizen needs or wants than that citizen himself.

This is the very definition of arrogance and tyranny. Nonetheless, I am sure that these leftists can find a state that suits their needs and be comforted in the fact that their state of choice will provide the highest standards of living. Yet we all know that they won't accept this bargain because deep down they fear competition and free choice because it will expose the absurdity and bankruptcy of their ideology.

In contrast, Jefferson was RIGHT that government that governs closest to the people governs best. It is obvious, these politicians will be serving their constituents with money from their district for their district. They know best how to fund and where to fund and what projects to fund. Indeed, every state and community has its own unique problems and strengths that require local experts to address, not some clueless bureaucrat thousands of miles removed from the problem.

Fallacy #9 -- Choice and competition are not beneficial??!!

This is the typical sentiment of tyrants and their dupes. They reject competition because they know their coercive and destructive schemes would fall like a house of cards if faced with freedom of choice by the citizenry. Indeed, it would be extremely beneficial to have a United States in which the economic services currently mismanaged by the coercive monopoly in Washington was suddenly downsized and broken-up into 50 disparate and competing state enterprises.

We have seen that smaller states can function and manage public goods as efficiently as any large state and in many cases far more efficiently and with less corruption and more accountability. Moreover, the United States would have a supreme advantage over these smaller states in Europe, Latin American and the Asian Pacific Rim in that our competing states would still share the same language, legal system, national defense, and all of its citizens and commerce could travel unrestricted from state to state.

Indeed, the only change would be to transfer economic management of responsibilities to the individual states that all rational, objective and independent thinking citizens recognized that our large and unresponsive Federal government has failed to deliver with any measure of financial responsibility.

Moreover, if a citizen does not trust or appreciate the level of government services provided, it is far easier to move across state lines than to move to another nation. Indeed, the Federal government would insure that commerce and labor could travel unrestricted across state lines (commerce clause).

In sum, it is manifestly absurd and delusional to think that 50 states competing for the favors of the citizenry would be less responsive and accountable than a single massive coercive central government monopoly in Washington.

Fallacy #10 -- Obamacult is a intolerant and rigid ideologue.

This is laughable and hypocritical coming from a forum that is universally dominated by leftwing dogma while I am generally the only conservative-libertarian arguing for a particular point of view.

In sum, I am the lone conservative voice within a leftwing echo chamber, and yet amusingly, I am called intolerant?!!

Fallacy # 11 -- My vote during Federal elections matters.

This is really an indictment on the absurdity of voting in Presidential elections when your vote is worth 1/120,000,000 and to make matters worse, it is for the lesser of two evils.

Indeed, if power was transferred to the states, your vote would be demonstrably more valuable since it would be among far less competitors. Moreover, it is far easier for a third party candidate or party to make inroads within a targeted state then in a national election. Hence, a transfer of economic power to the states would lend itself to a more responsive and dynamic political competition that would make it easier for third party candidates to leverage an advantage in a couple states with electorates favorable to their policies. Moreover, your vote, while still hardly a determining factor, would still account for more weight than national elections where it is virtually useless, particularly in the 80% of the states that represent non-battleground states.

Fallacy #12 -- I benefit more when the federal government spends my taxes.

Wrong, when taxes go to the federal government the benefits are dispersed among 310 million citizens among a land mass that is demonstrably larger than any single state. In contrast, taxpayers at the state level are far more likely to directly benefit from tax expenditures for obvious reasons.

[Obamacult]

So you want to hand power from the retards who run the government, to the people who elected them?

Don't presume anything, see above.

And good night.

[Grave_n_idle]

Doesn't do much for your credibility that you'll grab any quote that matches your opinion without at least trying to verify it.

I leave the minutia and editing to you.

Minutia like... accuracy, quotes being genuine and true. That kind of thing?

It's interesting that those are values you consider irrelevant, and below your concern.

[Death Metal]

I leave the minutia and editing to you.

Minutia like... accuracy, quotes being genuine and true. That kind of thing?

It's interesting that those are values you consider irrelevant, and below your concern.

Everything is irrelevant to him, including relevance.

[Angermanland]

..the USA is too big to be run as anything other than an imperial beaurocracy, no matter what fancy trappings it's dressed up in. And beaurocracy has No interest in protecting individuals on any level, save perhaps the elites who controll it.

'Course, if you just devolve that power to corrupt state level elements of the same system it won't solve a damn thing except reducing your ability to export the stupid and force it on the rest of us.

[Farnhamia]

Dude, we could make a drinking game out of your posts.

I live in Ohio. My legislature sucks. Many of the Congressmen do not even have college degrees.
Those that aren't in the pocket of this or that anonymous corporation are backwoods nuts who only hold their positions because of how effectively the GOP has gerrymandered everything to Hades.
Recently, they passed a law compelling bars to permit guns on the facilities, all while proclaiming from the mountaintops about freedom and free markets.

That, mon ami, is state government. It's the JV, except that under their lack of accountability they can do real damage to the world we live in.

One drink everytime Obamacult prefaces a post with "Bullshit"?

It seemed a good idea but my liver vetoed it.

[Hebalobia]

The Federal Government is not corrupt. If you have evidence to the contrary, you need to present it. Note that the Federal Government is NOT the politicians in Washington. It is the thousands of professionals and civil service agents that do the day to day tasks.

It certainly could be more efficient but I know of no evidence that it's any less efficient than state and local governments.

It also performs functions, defense is the obvious one, that the individual states can't provide without a central authority.

The bottom line is you're wrong.

[Death Metal]

The Federal Government is not corrupt. If you have evidence to the contrary, you need to present it. Note that the Federal Government is NOT the politicians in Washington. It is the thousands of professionals and civil service agents that do the day to day tasks

Because in Obamacult's anti-logic, there's other countries with less corruption, therefore despite the fact that there are well over 100 countries that are more corrupt, the US is still a corrupt hellhole.

And the countries that are listed as more corrupt aren't really corrupt either, but don't construe that as the US not being corrupt.



In other words, there are four lights, but Obamacult is insisting that you say there are five.

[Farnhamia]

The Federal Government is not corrupt. If you have evidence to the contrary, you need to present it. Note that the Federal Government is NOT the politicians in Washington. It is the thousands of professionals and civil service agents that do the day to day tasks

Because in Obamacult's anti-logic, there's other countries with less corruption, therefore despite the fact that there are well over 100 countries that are more corrupt, the US is still a corrupt hellhole.

And the countries that are listed as more corrupt aren't really corrupt either, but don't construe that as the US not being corrupt.



In other words, there are four lights, but Obamacult is insisting that you say there are five.

If we drink enough, there will be many more than five.

[Mavorpen]

Now the bad news (it is trifling). I have fact checked a few of your assertions and I have found a few lacking:

For example, this one from Jefferson that you disengeniously called 'spam' with the letter and date it appeared:

"I, however, place economy among the first and most important republican virtues, and public debt as the greatest of the dangers to be feared." - Letter to William Plumer, July 21, 1816

Except that wasn't the one that I called spam. I called the following quote "spam" and it is in fact, wrong. Please read.

To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful & tyrannical. - Thomas Jefferson

Are you kidding me? You already posted this one, and I already gave you the actual quote.

To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical. "

I can tell you aren't even trying at this point. Your spam is downright insufferable.

I will add these authenticated quotes from Jefferson that I didn't include in the early list that better exemplify his views than the apparently bogus quotes that you have so graciously identified for me:

"To take from one, because it is thought that his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, —the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry, & the fruits acquired by it-- Thomas Jefferson

"A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circlue of our felicities." -- Thomas Jefferson

Okay, I'm sick of this. Please explain this fetish for Thomas Jefferson? Please explain how you aren't using outdated and silly Anti-Federalist beliefs, when you're quoting someone who was a notable Anti-Federalist? Why are you supposedly for the Constitution when you're using Anti-Federalist arguments?

Furthermore, why are you even considering Thomas Jefferson a real Founding Father in a practical sense? He wrote the Declaration of Independence, a document that holds no real legal weight whatsoever. However, during the entire debate over whether to adopt the Constitution, the guy wasn't even in America! His opinions hold absolutely zero weight when it comes to "original intent" behind the Constitution and thus our government.

Keep in mind this is also the man who was a complete and utter hypocrite. He expanded the executive power massively under during his service as the President, even going so far as to admitting that the Louisiana Purchase was unconstitutional, yet going along with it anyway. That sounds strangely like something a monarch would do, no? He also refused to sign the commissions of officers who received appointments at the end of Adam's term.

Jefferson was also an individual who, for his own convenience, stated that each branch could individually interpret the Constitution, and that if the Court deems something unconstitutional, the Executive branch has no obligation to comply with this, because the Executive branch has the power to interpret and deem laws passed unconstitutional or not on their own!

Furthermore, to emphasize the fact that Jefferson is a hypocrite, he committed an act that has become an important reason behind the expansion of the powers of the Executive Branch: he went to war without a Congressional declaration of war. Granted, Congress rather quickly gave him the funds to do so, he attacked in Tripoli before any formal declaration of war was made. The argument was that he needed to protect the commercial interests of the United States. This argument isn't made today, the argument for why the President's power has currently expanded is different.

And this post that you falsely claimed was a fake was first printed in the federalist papers:

In the main it will be found that a power over a man’s support (salary) is a power over his will. - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist paper 73

Only problem being, I didn't claim it was false. I said I would assume until otherwise that it was fake, because I hadn't heard of it.

In sum, I will remove the offending quotes and add the two from Jefferson that more accurately represent his views on 'wise and frugal government'.

His views are as irrelevant and worthless as George Clinton, James Monroe, George Mason, and Robert Yates. Just because he wrote the Declaration of Independence and later became a President doesn't mean he matters the slightest in a discussion about original intent behind the Constitution.

Nonetheless, it cannot be denied that the bulk of the standing quotes confirm by any objective measure that these men were unabashed supporters of limited government and individual rights.

Which no one disagrees with. The only problem being, you have no idea what the hell "limited government" actually means. They wanted limited government in their application of powers. This why it is said they wanted a strong but limited central government. This is why the Constitution is fairly broad, and is nowhere near as specific as many State Constitutions, because it allows for an expansion of powers as they are deemed necessary.

They believed that the government should have many powers, but that it shouldn't have too many, and that it shouldn't be efficient in its functioning. Indeed, Madison in the Federalist Paper No. 10, Madison argued that factions were a large problem in the Country, that people of competing interests were driving the country to the ground with a federal government to weak to stop them. Instead of simply taking away their freedoms, he decided to use this against them.

Madison believed that several components of the Constitution were enough to keep the government from being too functional due to factions. Among these were separation of powers, checks and balances, and federalism. Madison knew that the government would need to be able to expand its power, thus he created these systems to turn factions into a weapon of limiting government. Through competing factions and splitting the power among branches, the activity of the government would be limited, despite the fact that it theoretically held a good deal of power.

Moreover, the fact that the central government did not engage in significant regulation, management and taxation of housing, health care, retirement, education, etc. from the founding until 150 years later is indicative of a Constitutional Federal Republic that was founded on the principle of limited government and state sovereignty.

No, it really isn't. It's indicative of the fact that the country was nowhere nearly as large as it is today, the technology was nowhere near as advanced today, and demographics was nothing like it is today. The fact is, the power of the federal government has expanded gradually ever since day one. There's a reason though, why it increased exceptionally at certain times: these times were usually after new technology and/or wars or major conflicts.

You've also put yourself into a hilarious trap here. Are you going to argue that our economy is worse today than it was 150 years ago? Last time I checked, ever since the government has played a larger role in regulation and investing, the economy has grown a significant amount.

[West Angola]

bullshit.

The north had the overwhelming advantage in manufacturing output and population. Despite that fact, the south very nearly won, if not for the stand by the 20th Maine in July of 1863.

A victory at Gettygsburg in no way guarantees a southern victory. Vicksburg still falls out west, Grant comes east and takes command of the northern army, Sherman marches across Georgia, and boom. Virginia is protected, but Texas still tries to secede from the south, as does Georgia, and eventually the deep south gets sick of the Virginia focus by the government, and the Confederacy breaks up. Davis had to coordinate with 11 state governments, all of whom had competing demands, and it severely curtailed the efficiency of the Southern military machine.

[New Bierstaat]

It's time to transfer more power from the Feds to the states.

1. It will allow people to choose the economic system in which they'd like to live. Don't like socialism? Move to Texas and you won't have to pay for other people's crap. Hate capitalism? Move to California. It's basically a socialist state already.

2. It will allow people to choose their state based on its stance on social issues as well. Let gay marriage be legalized in the blue states and illegal in the red states. And abortion, capital punishment, and so on. People that want gay marriage can have it. People that don't want it can not have it. It works for both groups.

3. Let me move to Texas or some other Red state before any of this takes effect.

Also, can we do something about all the corrupt government officials? Jesse Jackson Jr pleaded guilty today and my home state of Illinois is looking as corrupt as ever...

[Mavorpen]

Fallacy #2 -- The Federal government is doing just fine managing health care and retirement.

The United States government paid over $400,000,000,000 per year on the average to service a debt of over $16,000,000,000,000 over the last four years. Moreover, the average interest payment for the last ten years is over $350,000,000,000 and growing!

If this doesn't expose the peanut gallery argument that 'the debt doesn't matter' as pure deluded and destructive bullshit, then nothing will. To illustrate the opportunity costs of this expenditure (in 2008 dollars), it would pay the salaries of 4,000,000 teachers, 25,000 junior highs, 8000 hospitals (4-8 stories), 100,000 nursing homes, etc.

So let me translate this:

"TEH DEBT WILL EAT UR CHILDREEEN AND KEEL US ALL BECAUSE IT EXISTS!"

Fantastic circular logic. Your argument is essentially that the debt is a big problem...because debt is bad. Care to show us how it's destroying our economy?

Fallacy #3 -- It is incredibly bad to have a short-lived private sector monopoly within a single industry, but the Mother of All Monopolies represented by a leviathan government that lords over virtually all commerce with unchallenged monopolistic tax and regulatory policy is hunky dory?!!

This pretty much exposes the ridiculous house of cards ideological foundation upon which statism rests. For example, they become apoplectic when faced with a single monopoly within a single industry that can easily be overcome with competition, boycotts, substitution goods, etc. In contrast, statists fawn over the monopoly in Washington that is protected from competition, boycotts, and substitution goods by threat of violence. If you examine the way Washington does business and how it deals with the citizenry -- it is a textbook example of an unyielding, coercive and destructive monopoly that no private sector monopoly has ever or will ever approach in the size and scope of coercion.

I love how you continue to use the word statist while having no knowledge of what it actually means. You do know that by supporting any form of the state, that makes you a statist, right? Furthermore, you've never given an example of a private monopoly "easily" being overridden by competitition and boycotts in any system where there is a small government that cannot effectively regulate the market.

Of course the government is coercive. That's its job. That's how you solve collective action problems. Seriously, you really need a civics class so that you can understand the foundations by which a government is founded upon.

Fallacy #4 -- Profit is bad.

Profit informs a free society where capital and labor must be allocated to provide the most benefits based on the preferences of free people and NOT some politician or bureaucrat acting in his own interest. Indeed, firms that make the most profit best satisfy consumer preferences in a free society through voluntary exchanges that always benefit everyone involved in the exchange or the transaction would never have occurred.

Without profit, society has no idea of where to allocate scarce resources. Government cannot efficiently or rationally manage societal resources due to the economic calculation problem outlined below:

Economic Calculation Problem of Command Economies

This is a hilarious straw man. Please tell me who has argued this and why they represent the entirety of those who are "left wing?"

Fallacy #5 -- Statists say we should downsize banks so they are not too big to fail, but a huge monopolistic government in Washington that borrows 40 cents on every dollar and is paying interest on debt of over 100% of GDP and growing is fine the way it is??!!

Indeed, my view is that government in Washington is too big to fail and by breaking up this inefficient and oppressive monopoly control over economic issues. Washington still maintains its role protecting life, liberty, private property and enforcing contracts by control of the armed forces, federal law enforcement and legal arbiter of last resort. Moreover if a state went bankrupt, the Feds would treat this the same as any large scale private bankruptcy and assume temporary ownership and restructuring responsibility until the state could get back on its feet.

Well yes, downsizing the banks would be a good thing. I'm not sure why comparing it to the government negated that fact. This is what's called a Red Herring, which is ironically, you guessed it, a logical fallacy! The fact the banks should be downsized has nothing to do with the government itself.

Also, with respect to:

"Indeed, my view is that government in Washington is too big to fail and by breaking up this inefficient and oppressive monopoly control over economic issues."

...I have this to say:

Your personal opinion devoid of a shred of objective and substantive facts, logic, and empirically supported evidence is noted, appreciated and telling.

Fallacy #6 -- The debt doesn't matter because who owe it to ourselves or it won't effect us ?!!

The debt must be addressed and there is only a few ways this can happen:

No shit it does. But why now when we have economic problems that we need to address?

1) higher taxes that will cause capital and talent to offshore thereby further eroding the tax base. Indeed, there are some drones who say this isn't a problem despite the fact that Obama mentioned numerous times during the recent campaign that it is A PROBLEM.

No it won't. The reason that we are losing capital and talent is due to our horrendous infrastructure. It has jack shit to do with taxes. I'm also going to need this suppose quote by Obama as well as why it supports your claim.

We do have a problem with offshore tax abuses, but that's a different discussion.

3) more borrowing that will cause America's credit worthiness to decline, interest rates to rise, debt to increase, further leading to a series of debilitating economic decision that will ultimately be thrust on the lap of Main Street in significantly reduced growth, decreases in discretionary income and declining living standards.

What? Borrowing doesn't cause a decrease in credit. What causes a decrease in credit is showing that the country has the political or economic incapability of paying that money back.

4) eliminate or reduce promised benefits in social security and health care leading to lower standards of living. Indeed, this is generational theft since young people paying into the system today will never get anything close to what they contribute into the system.

Aaand I've refuted this at least 4 times.

Annual cost exceeded non-interest income in 2010 and is projected to continue to be larger throughout the remainder of the 75-year valuation period. Nevertheless, from 2010 through 2022, total trust fund income, including interest income, is more than is necessary to cover costs, so trust fund assets will continue to grow during that time period. Beginning in 2023, trust fund assets will diminish until they become exhausted in 2036. Non-interest income is projected to be sufficient to support expenditures at a level of 77 percent of scheduled benefits after trust fund exhaustion in 2036, and then to decline to 74 percent of scheduled benefits in 2085

Last time I checked, 77% is not "nowhere close."

Fallacy #8 -- Government that governs closest to the people is NOT the best governance ??!!

How anyone can logically conclude that a one-size fits all solution emanating from bureaucrats and politicians in Washington is more accountable and responsive than government from a state capital far closer to the people and more intimate with each states unique problems?

Anyone that payed attention in government courses in High School and knows that the Anti-Federalists used this argument and lost horrendously due to the fact that they are just plain fucking wrong to state that the solution to this is to have an extremely decentralized federal government.

Unfortunately, it is true that many leftwing ideologues think that a bureaucrat or politician thousands of miles removed from society in Washington is better able to decide what a citizen needs or wants than that citizen himself.

...Nope. We already have a system where states have more influence over things such as education and healthcare. I mean really, I thought the concept of federalism was taught in schools.

This is the very definition of arrogance and tyranny. Nonetheless, I am sure that these leftists can find a state that suits their needs and be comforted in the fact that their state of choice will provide the highest standards of living. Yet we all know that they won't accept this bargain because deep down they fear competition and free choice because it will expose the absurdity and bankruptcy of their ideology.

Suuuure. You live in your fantasy land.

In contrast, Jefferson was RIGHT that government that governs closest to the people governs best. It is obvious, these politicians will be serving their constituents with money from their district for their district. They know best how to fund and where to fund and what projects to fund. Indeed, every state and community has its own unique problems and strengths that require local experts to address, not some clueless bureaucrat thousands of miles removed from the problem.

It's a good thing Jefferson never said this, and that his opinion is worth jack shit since he had virtually no say in the debate over the Constitution. But let's ignore that. You really have no idea how wrong this is, and you apparently don't understand the concept of federalism. We already do allow states to handle a myriad of issues such as education and healthcare.

The problem here is that you assume that state legislatures will represent everyone in the state. This is an extremely stupid assumption, and isn't based on reality in several states, including my own where the only constituents represented the most fervently are the rich and the wealthy.

Fallacy #9 -- Choice and competition are not beneficial??!!

This is the typical sentiment of tyrants and their dupes. They reject competition because they know their coercive and destructive schemes would fall like a house of cards if faced with freedom of choice by the citizenry. Indeed, it would be extremely beneficial to have a United States in which the economic services currently mismanaged by the coercive monopoly in Washington was suddenly downsized and broken-up into 50 disparate and competing state enterprises.

You've STILL never backed this silly claim that the states would manage things better. You have ONLY constantly whined and complained about the federal government. Your entire rant relies on the axiom that the states are inherently better at doing the job of the federal government, with no evidence to back it up, instead choosing to constantly complain about the federal government. It's like saying that cars are too polluting, therefore we should go back to horses

We have seen that smaller states can function and manage public goods as efficiently as any large state and in many cases far more efficiently and with less corruption and more accountability. Moreover, the United States would have a supreme advantage over these smaller states in Europe, Latin American and the Asian Pacific Rim in that our competing states would still share the same language, legal system, national defense, and all of its citizens and commerce could travel unrestricted from state to state.

No we haven't. We are talking about the United States, not the rest of the world. Why is it that you ignore the rest of the world when you want to show that governments are inherently inefficient, but in this case, you're praising the ability of other governments who just happen to fit in your narrative? Which is it? Are federal governments inherently wasteful or not? Make up your mind.

Indeed, the only change would be to transfer economic management of responsibilities to the individual states that all rational, objective and independent thinking citizens recognized that our large and unresponsive Federal government has failed to deliver with any measure of financial responsibility.

And yet you STILL haven't shown why your alternative is better.

Moreover, if a citizen does not trust or appreciate the level of government services provided, it is far easier to move across state lines than to move to another nation. Indeed, the Federal government would insure that commerce and labor could travel unrestricted across state lines (commerce clause).

No. Fuck that. I'm not risking my state going to shit simply because of your fetish with Thomas Jefferson and your idiotic and unsupported belief that the states will do a better job.

In sum, it is manifestly absurd and delusional to think that 50 states competing for the favors of the citizenry would be less responsive and accountable than a single massive coercive central government monopoly in Washington.

Nope, it's not absurd because it's based in reality.

Fallacy #10 -- Obamacult is a intolerant and rigid ideologue.

This is laughable and hypocritical coming from a forum that is universally dominated by leftwing dogma while I am generally the only conservative-libertarian arguing for a particular point of view.

In sum, I am the lone conservative voice within a leftwing echo chamber, and yet amusingly, I am called intolerant?!!

Then there's reality, where there is a significant and very vocal minority of people who share your views. Keeping one's head up one's head will blind them not only to their opponents, but to their allies as well. You're not special.

[color=#BF0000]

Fallacy # 11 -- My vote during Federal elections matters.

This is really an indictment on the absurdity of voting in Presidential elections when your vote is worth 1/120,000,000 and to make matters worse, it is for the lesser of two evils.

By definition the vote matters. It has absolutely nothing to do with how many people are voting.

Indeed, if power was transferred to the states, your vote would be demonstrably more valuable since it would be among far less competitors.

Which is the COMPLETE OPPOSITE of what the Founding Fathers wanted and what the Federalists (y'know, the ones who actually supported the Constitution) argued against. Jesus, try reading the Federalist Papers.

Moreover, it is far easier for a third party candidate or party to make inroads within a targeted state then in a national election. Hence, a transfer of economic power to the states would lend itself to a more responsive and dynamic political competition that would make it easier for third party candidates to leverage an advantage in a couple states with electorates favorable to their policies.

And then there's reality, where states such as Texas, which has a growing poverty rate, yet has a growing economy and a legislature dominated by big business. Oh, and you're honestly arguing that more third parties will have chances, when in states such as Texas, they can't even have TWO competing parties? Get a clue.

Moreover, your vote, while still hardly a determining factor, would still account for more weight than national elections where it is virtually useless, particularly in the 80% of the states that represent non-battleground states.

So this serves no practical sense, and it's just so that you can jerk off to the idea that your vote holds more weight? No thank you.

[West Angola]

It's time to transfer more power from the Feds to the states.

1. It will allow people to choose the economic system in which they'd like to live. Don't like socialism? Move to Texas and you won't have to pay for other people's crap. Hate capitalism? Move to California. It's basically a socialist state already.

2. It will allow people to choose their state based on its stance on social issues as well. Let gay marriage be legalized in the blue states and illegal in the red states. And abortion, capital punishment, and so on. People that want gay marriage can have it. People that don't want it can not have it. It works for both groups.

3. Let me move to Texas or some other Red state before any of this takes effect.

Also, can we do something about all the corrupt government officials? Jesse Jackson Jr pleaded guilty today and my home state of Illinois is looking as corrupt as ever...

At that point we're basically 50 separate countries.

[Jenrak]

Snip

Re: Externalities: The negative big one is the environment. I cannot realistically conceive of any infrastructure that can be implemented between states where you'd have one state willing to bear more costs than others, when on state levels you have this unwillingness.

Re: Economies of Scale: But that inherently favours the 'have' states. As oversimplistic as this'll seem, but ultimately some states just aren't as good as other states at balance and production, and I question an individual state's ability to balance its budgeting. Are there cases that would show disintegration would lead to budgeting?

Re: Opportunity Cost: That would work, but you'd need to restructure the rating agencies that already exist. If we look at Indonesia in 1997, for example, declaring bankruptcy and then forcibly restructuring has the potential to do irrevocably irreversible damage. It can take years before it has sufficient credit ratings that investors would want to inject funds back into a specific state.

Re: Finance: I'm unsure how this can be rectified by state management. This sounds like great talking points, but the problem is that this is a structure that requires considerable decoupling, and states don't have that because they can't draw upon credit as efficiently as the federal government.

I can understand your argument that there has to be some sort of way to force balancing a state's budget, and it must require that the state has to be pressured somehow into legitimately caring to balance its budget. I get that.

But the Federal Government and its immense deficit provides the scaffolding upon which states can support key industries through cheaply available credit. Balancing a budget takes immense amounts of time, and if we end up having them declare bankruptcy, then they'll face a scenario not that different to Japan or Thailand. When you say that the Feds have to step in in a bad scenario is in fact happening right now - they are stepping in, and while it looks grim, we have to remember that it takes time for investments of this magnitude to have any considerable return.

American financial hegemony has depended on credit. That's how it's always functioned. The astronomical debt is a mix of the crisis and that dependency on credit. It's not something to do with mismanagement (that's a related, but albeit different subject). The states, additionally, depend on this credit. If you take them off this credit, it's a cutting a potential means of life support.

The numbers are big and scary, but debt =/= lost jobs, wages, or businesses.