Is it time to break-up the Federal government?

[Inyourfaceistan]

1) Oh, I must have misread your post. I thought you litteraly meant like a national breakup.
My bad...

2) But on that note I do strongly oppose the idea of "states rights" (mainly because of New York and California). Weakening Federal power is conpletely different than letting local political factions rule almost unopposed. I'm all for deregulation and spending cuts, but you lost me if your advocating transferral of Federal powers to regional governments.

I only advocate transferring management of economic activities to the states or civil society of responsibiilities that are leading the federal government down the road to insolvency and financial collapse -- Greek style (sorry, no pun intended).

The feds would still have all the guns and gavels.

I guess that's reasonable to some extent.

I still disagree, to a point. But I see where you're coming from.

[Obamacult]

What, you think that 1865-1930 wasn't filled with anti-black violence? Because if you do, then your assertion is wrong, if you don't, then your view of history is wrong, if you avoid the accusation but maintain your claim, then you're implying black people are less than human.

I find it interesting that he got defensive enough to believe that I was calling him racist when I was in fact not. If you ask me, that actually hurt his claim that he isn't racist (not that I'm saying he is).

Note how the invective and vitriol work -- if they accuse you of racism and you defend yourself -- you are probably racist.

If they accuse you of racism and you don't defend yourself -- you are probably racist.

All objective, rational and independent thinking contributors to NationStates should take note on how to identify this reprehensible practice and which ideologues use it.

When all else fails, they call you a racist, then debate is futile.

The nazi label is used liberally also and generally interchangable with the racist label -- the bottom line is that this is the last refuge of the boob, bigot and brigand.

[Choronzon]

I find it interesting that he got defensive enough to believe that I was calling him racist when I was in fact not. If you ask me, that actually hurt his claim that he isn't racist (not that I'm saying he is).

Note how the invective and vitriol work -- if they accuse you of racism and you defend yourself -- you are probably racist.

If they accuse you of racism and you don't defend yourself -- you are probably racist.

All objective, rational and independent thinking contributors to NationStates should take note on how to identify this reprehensible practice and which ideologues use it.

When all else fails, they call you a racist, then debate is futile.

The nazi label is used liberally also and generally interchangable with the racist label -- the bottom line is that this is the last refuge of the boob, bigot and brigand.

To those of us on the sidelines, Mav's observation seems spot on.

[Obamacult]

I only advocate transferring management of economic activities to the states or civil society of responsibiilities that are leading the federal government down the road to insolvency and financial collapse -- Greek style (sorry, no pun intended).

The feds would still have all the guns and gavels.

I guess that's reasonable to some extent.

I still disagree, to a point. But I see where you're coming from.

Cool bro, at least we can agree to disagree, agreeably.

Its better than be called a racist for advocating limited decentralized and balanced government.

[Mavorpen]

Note how the invective and vitriol work -- if they accuse you of racism and you defend yourself -- you are probably racist.


If they accuse you of racism and you don't defend yourself -- you are probably racist.

How cute! You're getting all defensive over something no one said. It's so adorable. A little pathetic, but pretty amusing.

All objective, rational and independent thinking contributors to NationStates should take note on how to identify this reprehensible practice and which ideologues use it.

What reprehensible practice? Ignoring your opponent's argument to attack something they didn't say?

In sum, when cornered by facts, logic and empirical evidence, your getting down right offensive and sick with this reprehensible assertion that I am a racist.

Oh no, I didn't say you were racist. Your claim that there was no factional violence is just plain stupid considering there in fact was, most notably centered around minorities.

This bullshit needs to stop. I will not tolerate this sickening ad hominem -- you have stooped to a new level of intellectual vitriol with this latest post.

It wasn't an ad hominem. Learn what that word means please.

I'm waiting for you to actually get back to the discussion instead of complaining like a 5 year old that the school bully pushed them down from the swing.

[Obamacult]

Note how the invective and vitriol work -- if they accuse you of racism and you defend yourself -- you are probably racist.

If they accuse you of racism and you don't defend yourself -- you are probably racist.

All objective, rational and independent thinking contributors to NationStates should take note on how to identify this reprehensible practice and which ideologues use it.

When all else fails, they call you a racist, then debate is futile.

The nazi label is used liberally also and generally interchangable with the racist label -- the bottom line is that this is the last refuge of the boob, bigot and brigand.

To those of us on the sidelines, Mav's observation seems spot on.

That sentiment is expected In a leftwing echo chamber among like-minded ideologues.

And amusingly I am called intolerant and bigoted when I am one of the few conservatives-libertarians on this thread.

[Obamacult]

Note how the invective and vitriol work -- if they accuse you of racism and you defend yourself -- you are probably racist.


If they accuse you of racism and you don't defend yourself -- you are probably racist.

How cute! You're getting all defensive over something no one said. It's so adorable. A little pathetic, but pretty amusing.

All objective, rational and independent thinking contributors to NationStates should take note on how to identify this reprehensible practice and which ideologues use it.

What reprehensible practice? Ignoring your opponent's argument to attack something they didn't say?

Oh no, I didn't say you were racist. Your claim that there was no factional violence is just plain stupid considering there in fact was, most notably centered around minorities.

It wasn't an ad hominem. Learn what that word means please.

I'm waiting for you to actually get back to the discussion instead of complaining like a 5 year old that the school bully pushed them down from the swing.

you havent responded to my 4th challenge regarding the problem of economic calculation.

You havent responded to my challenge regarding the naivete and absurdity of citing the society of civil engineers to support your argument that the USA needs to spend more on infrastructure.

For example, do you serious think that a professional organization that makes its living building and maintaining infrastructure is an objective source on infrastructure spending ??!!!

Not surprising you play the racist card.

[Mavorpen]

you havent responded to my 4th challenge regarding the problem of economic calculation.

I don't respond to straw men.

You havent responded to my challenge regarding the naivete and absurdity of citing the society of civil engineers to support your argument that the USA needs to spend more on infrastructure.

Yes I did.

For example, do you serious think that a professional organization that makes its living building and maintaining infrastructure is an objective source on infrastructure spending ??!!!

Yes, I do.

Not surprising you play the racist card.

Not surprisingly you cannot argue, so you repeat this even though it's not true whatsoever.

Still waiting.

In sum, when cornered by facts, logic and empirical evidence, your getting down right offensive and sick with this reprehensible assertion that I am a racist.

Oh no, I didn't say you were racist. Your claim that there was no factional violence is just plain stupid considering there in fact was, most notably centered around minorities.

[Conserative Morality]

That sentiment is expected In a leftwing echo chamber among like-minded ideologues.

And amusingly I am called intolerant and bigoted when I am one of the few conservatives-libertarians on this thread.

Like-minded ideologues?

Look, you put the three of us in a room together, and tell us we have to write up a constitution that we all agree on, two of us aren't getting out there alive.

[Inyourfaceistan]

I guess that's reasonable to some extent.

I still disagree, to a point. But I see where you're coming from.

Cool bro, at least we can agree to disagree, agreeably.

Its better than be called a racist for advocating limited decentralized and balanced government.

Well I totally get where your coming from, and I totally agree with the outcome your trying for. I guess I'm just disagreeing with the equation, that's all.

I think the key to weakening Federal power isn't to take the power and distribute it evenly among the states, rather to keep the states subordinate to the Feds, and just weaken the Feds where they stand.

A monster with one big head is a less complex target than one with many heads, sometimes trying to kill each other.

[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.

[Mavorpen]

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. [/color]

Congratulations on missing the purpose of the federal government. When you pay taxes, 310 million citizens gets those benefits. Not only 10 million. Not only 5 million. That's good. If you don't think you benefit, that's your own problem.
Oh hello spam. Nice to meet you. Here you go:

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?

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.

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?"

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.

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."

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.

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.

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]

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.

[Obamacult]

you havent responded to my 4th challenge regarding the problem of economic calculation.

I don't respond to straw men.

You havent responded to my challenge regarding the naivete and absurdity of citing the society of civil engineers to support your argument that the USA needs to spend more on infrastructure.

Yes I did.

For example, do you serious think that a professional organization that makes its living building and maintaining infrastructure is an objective source on infrastructure spending ??!!!

Yes, I do.

Not surprising you play the racist card.

Not surprisingly you cannot argue, so you repeat this even though it's not true whatsoever.

Still waiting.

Oh no, I didn't say you were racist. Your claim that there was no factional violence is just plain stupid considering there in fact was, most notably centered around minorities.

Bullshit

Where is your objective and substantive source regarding the level of factional violence during the period from 1865 to 1933?

Moreover, to put your bullshit in perspective, I assert that more blacks were victims of violence in democrat party urban hell holes in the last 50 years then died during 'factional' violence from 1865 to 1933.

http://globalgrind.com/news/7000-black- ... ks-details

Hence, liberal policies practiced by negligent self-serving liberal politicians in these urban hell holes has resulted in more violent deaths than the so-called factional violence that you lament.

You, your racist accusations and your bullshit assertions stand corrected, yet again.

[Mavorpen]

Where is your objective and substantive source regarding the level of factional violence during the period from 1865 to 1933?

Are you backtracking now? You're asking for the levels instead of for me to just show you that it existed, when you claimed there was no factional violence. I mean, this is basic history.

Moreover, to put your bullshit in perspective, I assert that more blacks were victims of violence in democrat party urban hell holes in the last 50 years then died during 'factional' violence from 1865 to 1933.

"BLACK PEOPLE WEREN'T SLAVES!"

"...Huh? How do you know?"

"CUZ THEY AREN'T NOW! LOLOLOLOLOLOL!"

It's hilarious how you honestly think that citing something current means that historical events never happened.

Hence, liberal policies practiced by negligent self-serving liberal politicians in these urban hell holes has resulted in more violent deaths than the so-called factional violence that you lament.

Which means that factional violence existed and you were wrong and I was right. Glad you admit so.

You, your racist accusations and your bullshit assertions stand corrected, yet again.

I'm confused. When did you correct me? Want to show me where I argued that black people aren't dying in urban areas?

[Obamacult]

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. [/color]

Congratulations on missing the purpose of the federal government. When you pay taxes, 310 million citizens gets those benefits. Not only 10 million. Not only 5 million. That's good. If you don't think you benefit, that's your own problem.
Oh hello spam. Nice to meet you. Here you go:

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?

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.

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?"

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.

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

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.

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.

Aaand I've refuted this at least 4 times.



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

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.

...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.

Suuuure. You live in your fantasy land.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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


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.

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

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.

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.

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.

Your rejection of a clearly self-evident and established a priori that taxes collected and spent locally provide more substantive and direct benefits to the taxpayer when compared to taxes collected and spent at the federal level is noted and telling.

Nothing more I can offer can condemn or expose the bankruptcy of your ideological foundation more than what you have offered in your post above.

And you clearly, don't recognize your deficiency -- that is noteworthy as well.

Indeed, what state do you live in ?

[Mavorpen]

Your rejection of a clearly self-evident and established a priori that taxes collected and spent locally provide more substantive and direct benefits to the taxpayer when compared to taxes collected and spent at the federal level is noted and telling.

Quote me saying this? No, rather I stated that it's better for 310 million to get benefits than only 10 million or even 100 million.

Nothing more I can offer can condemn or expose the bankruptcy of your ideological foundation more than what you have offered in your post above.

Allow me to translate your post: "I don't understand why I can't formulate an argument! Oh, I know! I'll just say he's wrong and argue against something he didn't say! That'll show him!"

Indeed, what state do you live in ?

And here we have you confirm you haven't read a single one of my posts in depth.

[Grand Europa]

I agree we should break up the federal government. A Monarchy would be so much more lovely.

[Obamacult]

Where is your objective and substantive source regarding the level of factional violence during the period from 1865 to 1933?

Are you backtracking now? You're asking for the levels instead of for me to just show you that it existed, when you claimed there was no factional violence. I mean, this is basic history.

Moreover, to put your bullshit in perspective, I assert that more blacks were victims of violence in democrat party urban hell holes in the last 50 years then died during 'factional' violence from 1865 to 1933.

"BLACK PEOPLE WEREN'T SLAVES!"

"...Huh? How do you know?"

"CUZ THEY AREN'T NOW! LOLOLOLOLOLOL!"

It's hilarious how you honestly think that citing something current means that historical events never happened.

Hence, liberal policies practiced by negligent self-serving liberal politicians in these urban hell holes has resulted in more violent deaths than the so-called factional violence that you lament.

Which means that factional violence existed and you were wrong and I was right. Glad you admit so.

You, your racist accusations and your bullshit assertions stand corrected, yet again.

I'm confused. When did you correct me? Want to show me where I argued that black people aren't dying in urban areas?

Your assertion of factional violence is overstated. Note that your house of cards argument rests on minutia, namely the intellectually deficient citation of relatively insignificant data and statistics to support theory.

For example, more blacks are murdered in a single year primarily in democrat run urban hellholes, then died in the entire period from 1865 to 1933 from 'factional' violence.

hence, your argument proves nothing except your propensity to engage in hyperbole and cite minutia to defend broken assertions.

It is telling that you can't recognize this or that you can't recognize the absurdity of citing the opinion of civil engineers on the need for greater infrastructure spending or your belief that federal tax money provides more direct benefits to the taxpayer than taxes paid locally.

All in all, your ideological framework is a illogical house of cards.

[Mavorpen]

Your assertion of factional violence is overstated. Note that your house of cards argument rests on minutia, namely the intellectually deficient citation of relatively insignificant data and statistics to support theory.

So you ARE backtracking. Got it. Another win for me.

[Obamacult]

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."

This is the last ridiculous post of yours that I will respond to tonight.

You even qualified this one by stating that losses are only 3% per year.

This further exposes the house of cards upon which your ideological foundation rests, namely your notion that taxpayer contributions to social security will only result in a 3% loss per year ??!!!

Free market participants see your sentiment as naive and fallacious as it is shocking since any private sector enterprise that 'only lost 3% per year in perpetuity' would immediately be labeled insolvent and subject to all manner of financial sanctions.

In contrast, investing this money into something as conservative as the Dow stock market index would always earn positive returns irrespective of the year in which the beneficiary started contributing to the system within the last 100 years. Moreover, with states managing retirement policy, we would see the efficacy of 50 disparate and competing regimes and learn which of these was most effective.

Hence, you pick any year from 1900 to present and the contributor would have seen a significant increase in growth. In contrast, with a government managed social security system that is essentially broken and drawing from the general fund --- you are fawning over a loss !!

Indeed, government has already spent your contribution and it is evident that whatever benefits you expected to get today will not be forthcoming when you began retirement. Indeed, it is certain that social security will be means tested (broken promise) that the adjustments to inflation will continue to lag (broken promise) that social security benefits will be postponed until later in life (broken promise) that social security benefits will be paid with debased currency (broken promise).

You don't just stand correct, your position is blown out of the water as insolvent and irreconcilable.

[Obamacult]

Your assertion of factional violence is overstated. Note that your house of cards argument rests on minutia, namely the intellectually deficient citation of relatively insignificant data and statistics to support theory.

So you ARE backtracking. Got it. Another win for me.

No It is further solidified by another example of your typical bullshit use of hyperbole, overstatement and minutia.

For example, how can you reconcile that more blacks were murdered last year in democrat run urban hellhole than were murdered in the entire period from 1865 to 1933 in which you stated that factional violence existed ???!!

This parallels your ridiculous argument that a voter in a federal election matters when it represents 1/120,000,000 of the votes.

You are operating from a scientifically illogical framework that provides equal footing to statistically insignificant trace data and statistically significant data. In social science we have a name for this error, it is called bullshit.

Drinks on me !!!



good night and the boys in engineering thank you for the merriment.

[Mavorpen]

This is the last ridiculous post of yours that I will respond to tonight.

You even qualified this one by stating that losses are only 3% per year.

This further exposes the house of cards upon which your ideological foundation rests, namely your notion that taxpayer contributions to social security will only result in a 3% loss per year ??!!!

Let this be a lesson to you kiddies: don't quit school, or else you'll end up reading things that aren't there and fail to manage basic arithmetic.

I'm not sure where you get 3% from, but according to the source I provided, the benefits will decrease by about 1.8% each year from 2023 to 2036. It will then decrease even slower over a period of over almost 50 years.

Free market participants see your sentiment as naive and fallacious as it is shocking since any private sector enterprise that 'only lost 3% per year in perpetuity' would immediately be labeled insolvent and subject to all manner of financial sanctions.

It's a good thing nothing's losing 3% per year.

Moreover, with states managing retirement policy, we would see the efficacy of 50 disparate and competing regimes and learn which of these was most effective.

While several states would become hellholes for retirees, people who would find it EXTREMELY difficult to just "up and move" out of their respective state.

Hence, you pick any year from 1900 to present and the contributor would have seen a significant increase in growth. In contrast, with a government managed social security system that is essentially broken and drawing from the general fund --- you are fawning over a loss !!

I'm not fawning over anything. I'm just explaining to you that your skills in arithmetic need work, and that your claim that 50% or 0% equals 77% is laughably silly.

You don't just stand correct, your position is blown out of the water as insolvent and irreconcilable.

Says the guy who couldn't perform basic arithmetic.

[Mavorpen]

For example, how can you reconcile that more blacks were murdered last year in democrat run urban hellhole than were murdered in the entire period from 1865 to 1933 in which you stated that factional violence existed ???!!

Easy, by being intellectually honest enough to know that the fact that violence exists today doesn't magically erase everything else that has happened in history.

This parallels your ridiculous argument that a voter in a federal election matters when it represents 1/120,000,000 of the votes.

Does 1/120,000,000 equal 0? No? Then it matters.

You are operating from a scientifically illogical framework that provides equal footing to statistically insignificant trace data and statistically significant data. In social science we have a name for this error, it is called bullshit.

Oh no, I haven't stated anything is on equal footing with anything. That 's a straw man you've constructed. If I have said this, feel free to quote me saying that.

[The Willing]

Building off the importance of voting in a federal election. You don't live in a bubble. We influence everyone we meet to a certain extent so you as one person could influence the vote of some of your friends or they yours.

[Gigaverse]

No.

Not this.