"We've come to take our government back" Rand Paul

[joepistole]

joe, if I am a troll then why do you end up respond to everything I post?

I don't respond to everything you post.

Now joe, read read your own post, it is part and parcel of everything you try to hammer me on, that You are smarter and have the final wisdom as to the knowledge of the universe, or as it maybe the Constitution, or Federal Law, if you didn't think that way, you would never continue to troll my post in the manner you do.

Show me where I ever made any of the claims you are accusing me of making. Bottom line, I never made claims of being smarter, maybe that is you projecting some insecurity. I am just trying to keep you and others with your point of view honest...nothing more and nothing less.

So I can't cherry pick but you can, typical liberal hubris ,joe, I did not take three words out of context, the context of the whole article supports the fact that Kagan in writing a MEMORIAM for Justice Marshall selected those things She most admired about Marshall, and what She had absorbed from Her education as a law clerk under the tutalage of the Chief Justice, again, you made the claim of things being out of context, and you didn't even have the whole article available to you to ascertain the context.

But then as a liberal, I doubt you have the intellectual honesty to admit that.

Where did I cherry pick? I have not. I have been and continue to remind you that you need to look at the big picture...especially when making broad generalizations.

I am still waiting for you to look up the definition of endorsement and contrast that to the definition of memoriam. Something you have refused to do. Probably because you won't like the answer.

With respect to Kagan, it is what it is. I am not going to repeat myself ad nauseum...just to have you ignore the truth. But I do think your response to the Kagan article points out something very important about your point of view. You are not willing to let little things like facts get in the way of your point of view...wither it is with respect to Kagan's article and your taking three words out of context and then claiming not to) or politics or anything else. And that is further borne out by your membership in the birther clan...those refusing to acknowledge the natural born citizenship of President Obama despite certified copies of the certificate by the state of Hawaii and public pronouncements of the highest Hawaii state officials. Bottom line, you believe what you want to believe, facts be damned.

You are not being rational or even honest Mr. Buffalo Roam. If you want to lie to yourself, that is one thing. But if want to lie to others that is entirely a different matter as others are free to call you on those lies/misrepresentations.

And as for liberal, let's remind people what your definition of liberal is. anyone who disagrees with you. I would suggest to you that there is a whole world out there if you will allow yourself to see it.

 

[Omega133]

There is never a time when irrational behavior is good for a nation.

Since when is doing what no other party will, irrational? While Republicans and Democrats argue and get nothing done, the Tea Party gains support. It's irrational to sit in office and do nothing but disagree. Either the people in the Capital need to sit down and compromise, or we need a party that will listen to the people and function as a system.

 

[pjdude1219]

Since when is doing what no other party will, irrational? While Republicans and Democrats argue and get nothing done, the Tea Party gains support. It's irrational to sit in office and do nothing but disagree. Either the people in the Capital need to sit down and compromise, or we need a party that will listen to the people and function as a system.

the tea party isn't listening to the people it ignores them more than most. it just listens to the hyper rabid right wing

 

[Omega133]

the tea party isn't listening to the people it ignores them more than most.

Then please exlain to me how it's gaining support?

it just listens to the hyper rabid right wing

Do you have any proof to base that allogation? Because they've shot down the Right on more than one occasion.

 

[786]

Instead, you'll have multiple departments sucking up even more money, in perpetuity.

How do you get more department by having 1 department do more work?

There is no middle man now: the DoE makes weapons and reactors, and gives them to the military. That's one supplier, and one consumer - no middle man.

The Military can make the weapons themselves... that means there is no supplier, makes it simpler?

There is no "broker" in the middle. There's a producer, and a consumer. And anyway those considerations only matter if the entities are for-profit: introducing a middle man doesn't really drive up costs if it's a non-profit arm of the government (beyond whatever redundant bureaocracy you introduce that is).

But you introduce a unnecessary bureaucracy which takes money to run.

? non sequitur.

You highlighted the importance of keeping nukes under civilian control... Why is this a point when the States are not private.

I don't see how, unless you imagine that each state will somehow produce its own nuclear fuel and reactors, and host its own in-state waste treatment and disposal facilities. Which is absurd.

'regulation of' interstate commerce is only to the point of taxation.

Secondly yes, states can produce their own nuclear fuel, and reactors, and have in-state waste treatment and disposal. If not, they can work with other states to accomplish their local goals. Having the whole nation taxed is not a solution.

Obviously this isn't possible due to the Federal Laws in place.

? Pharmaceutical companies produce huge, predicatable revenue streams. The drug development component is risky and long-term, which is why we let them charge so much for the drugs. But basic research is even more risky and more long term - drug development is not basic research but product development.

If they had more money to keep and less to spend on keeping up with government regulations, they just might want to conduct the basic research.

Suppose government isn't there. How will they do product development without having basic research. They would have to conduct basic research if they want to continue being a drug company.

But gold has no intrinsic value, so that statement is meaningless.

It has marginal value. And it can't be printed out in a press. There can be only enough gold that is produced which is in direct correlation with how much work is put into the production process. Running a printing press on the other hand says nothing about production.

Not a wise question to be asking for somebody who goes around accusing others of not understanding economics:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAIRU

A theory based on a system of a central bank is supposedly a counter to my anti-central bank proposal? Get the model right before you post crap... But this theory shows why a central bank is dependent on creating inflation which is not a hidden fact.

Bunch of nonsense - we had plenty of wars and welfare under the gold standard, and I see no lack of meaning in my present retirement savings.

The question is 'limitless'... Under the gold standard there would be a time where you just can't afford it. Under a paper currency you can print, print and print.

As for retirement savings... Why should you save when you know that you're losing value? Seniors can feel the rising cost of living.

See the link above. But the short story is that the restrictions on the money supply that are required for absolute price stability reduce investment in new businesses and, so, jobs.

Read the model before you post because it is not based on a non-central bank.

? Not sure where you're coming from with this. Illegal immigrants don't generally get paid under minimum wage - you do that, you'll get busted for violating minimum wage laws. And if you can be shown to have knowingly employed illegal immigrants, you will get in trouble for that as well.

Exactly, knowing that illegals can't work, you think if I charge them below minimum wage that they are going to report to the police?

If you're willing to hire illegals, then I'm sure you are willing to take the risk of hiring them for less than minimum wage.

And if they can make a living, however 'low quality' it may be, this means that Americans can do the same.. So all the people who can work for lower pay can't get a job because employers aren't willing to pay as much for some jobs this contributes to higher unemployment because businesses can't hire you by law even though you're willing to work for less.

When dealing with overt racism it tends to be an appropriate response.

I think majorities are subject to more racism than minorities.

Huh?

If I'm unemployed and I get find a job but someone would hire me for lower than minimum wage. That means I could potentially find a low paying job (which the illegals get and can survive with)... But I can't because the government won't allow me to work for less than the minimum wage.

I.E I can live like a illegal Mexican getting paid low income but I'm forced not to because the government won't allow me to work for less than minimum wage.

The alternative is worse - they'll live in much worse conditions, their parents will die, their children won't get educated, etc. Even at the US minimum wage, they can send home enough money to keep their parents eating, and if they're industrious enough to bring their family here their children can be citizens and get educated.

I'm not against immigration. We have a better opportunity than Mexico, I agree. But that doesn't mean they can live here without other facilities, and by them being illegal and utilizing those facilities they become a burden on a system and that incites people- which you call racism.

Define "survive."

They have a place to live and they can eat.

I don't think that's the issue - but, again, you view us as over-regulated, so that would be a strike in favor of Mexico's health system anyway, no?

Didn't you say they have have universal healthcare since a while ago?

Sure, if you want to be pedantic about it instead of getting the point that it'd be much cheaper to insure these people than let them rely on emergency medicine. And that the reason we don't insure them is that they're illegals - legalize them all tomorrow and put them on medicaid, and you will dramatically reduce the costs of caring for their health by "bringing them into the system."

But why should they be put in the system anyways? They're illegals.. So you're admitting that they are a cost to the system but we can lower the cost by having them legalized- but that still doesn't change the fact that they are an added cost.

That wouldn't make much difference to this stuff. It's basic macroeconomics - the supply of labor and the supply of capital - that determines the shape of the outcomes, not government intervention in wages.

You are right its a supply of labor and capital. But if you have capital that you can use for labor but that labor has a minimum cost for a work you want to pay less for- that means it is capital that could have been used for labor but was not. That is where minimum wage laws come in. If I want to pay $5 for someone scrapping gum off my restaurant tables I can't hire this guy even though I have capital because I don't put value on this job of more than $5.

Not just (or even, primarily) the government: family and social support is at least as important in determining the incentives of US workers.

Weren't we talking about Americans accepting lower living conditions in order to get a job... Inciting social and family support has nothing to do with it.

Those unemployed can get jobs but not high paying ones, or not minimum wage jobs... But there is a backstop by the government.. You 'must' have this level of living. Illegals can live off of less, and so can Americans if it weren't for the government. And then you have welfare programs that pay you to stay unemployed.

You should give all this producerist rhetoric a rest - you aren't fooling anyone.

No ones fooling anyone.. except both political parties.

Peace be unto you

 

[iceaura]

Of course not. That's how they talk, not act. And it's how you talk, completely ignoring the central role of the cross-border industrialists and agribusiness interests - the same unreality and bs, in the same language.
”
So protecting the border is also corporate favoritism?

No. Giving the corporate interests who set this situation up a complete pass, when listing the people to blame, is corporate favoritism. That's how you talk - Republican Party rhetoric, right down the line, no reality or "observation" involved. That's a coincidence?

Well if you run the fed you must be sane, because only then can you scam people right? GS is doing just that.

Your claim that this crisis was caused by banks getting drunk at the FED is in error. You said something that was not so.

Well SS was a fix and its not working. Creating a central bank was a fix and its not working... I think I observed this

SS is working fine. The central problem with the central bank was that it was and is private, not regulated or managed by the government. Places in the US with government controlled central banks - like North Dakota - are in much less trouble right now.

I hate Fox by the way, I hope you aren't implying that I'm being newsfed by them.

You are parroting their "news" feed claims. It doesn't make much difference where you picked them up - the Republican media operation (that is, the media operation of the interests who have taken over the Republican Party) is pretty widely spread and entrenched.

Why don't you tell us why doctors and so many others aren't being paid the minimum wage but an extravagant amount? You know this rips up your whole bs argument of working for nothing slavery scare tactic.

? What are you talking about?

Interesting.. So you derive profit margin of service from equity?

I regard net income on equity as a reasonable measure of the return to capital. Profit margin is almost meaningless without more info - a one percent profit margin on a daily exchange will triple your money in a few months; on the other hand, high end luxuries like jewelry and yachts need 50% profit margins and more just to stay in business.

A five second Google will tell you that Merck netted 13 billion in income on equity of 60 billion in 2009 - over 20% return on equity. Again, that's not including the executive compensation that is such a central factor in how and why these businesses are run.
”
I would like your help in accounting.. Please show us how you determine profit margin of product and the complex accounting procedure you used. Because the contention is that Healthcare companies charge a lot for their insurance, so its the cost of 'insurance' (i.e service) and the margin associated with this that is at contention here...

You implied that Merck, a drug company, was not making money. I linked you to a Wiki page showing that Merck netted tens of billions of dollars of income last year - with the whole economy in deep recession.

Suppose government isn't there. How will they do product development without having basic research. They would have to conduct basic research if they want to continue being a drug company.

No, they wouldn't. Basic research does not pay, in private corporations, because its results cannot be predicted - it is almost as likely to destroy your company, by making all your production obsolete and supporting your enemies, as fuel it. The most likely result is irrelevant (as far as your company is concerned) expense.

Meanwhile, the entire economy is denied access to that research - losing the largest and most common economic benefit of it, which is the unexpected discovery of the newly valuable and its synergistic combination with the formerly unrelated or distant.

I disagree with the Tea Party. BUT AT LEAST THEY ARE DOING SOMETHING!

What they should be doing is covering themselves with sackcloth and ashes, begging the country's forgiveness for the consequences of what they did from 1978 until 2008, and promising to let sensible and informed adults make the next decade's crucial political decisions.

I don't want them doing anything, and if they had any honor or decency - not to mention the brains God gave a grasshopper - they wouldn't do anything. They are a blight and menace, and they have proved that beyond a shadow of a doubt over the past ten years of their ascension to power in this country.

 

[quadraphonics]

How do you get more department by having 1 department do more work?

That's not what you suggested. You suggested breaking one department apart into many different ones - a new military nuclear weapons department, a new naval nuclear reactor department, and 50 different new state nuclear power departments.

The Military can make the weapons themselves... that means there is no supplier, makes it simpler?

Not really - it's still the same amount of work that has to be done, and you aren't bypassing any profit-taking stages since these are all non-profit government agencies to begin with.

And, again, civilian control of nuclear weapons is important regardless. The military should not be put in charge of the whole thing.

But you introduce a unnecessary bureaucracy which takes money to run.

Where? Generally you get less bureaocracy by consolodating functions - which is why your suggestion of deconsolodating the DoE into dozens of different agencies is so inherently inefficient.

You highlighted the importance of keeping nukes under civilian control... Why is this a point when the States are not private.

You aren't making sense. The states have nothing to do with it - nuclear weapons will remain under Federal control. And civilian control is not the same thing as "private."

'regulation of' interstate commerce is only to the point of taxation.

Still not making sense.

Secondly yes, states can produce their own nuclear fuel,

Oh? Where are they going to get the uranium?

and reactors, and have in-state waste treatment and disposal.

Even if they could, that's remarkably inefficient. Forcing each state to have its own closed nuclear fuel cycle would entail duplicating dozens of functions is a huge waste, and so only a handful of states would be able to utilize nuclear power.

If not, they can work with other states to accomplish their local goals.

That's what they do now, and that requires Federal regulation - it's interstate commerce of hazardous materials, machinery and expertise with national security implications.

Having the whole nation taxed is not a solution.

The same nation has to pay for the same functions to occur in either case - the only difference is how it's accounted (and the fact that your suggestions would be markedly less efficient and practical, and so both more expensive overall and less effective).

If they had more money to keep and less to spend on keeping up with government regulations, they just might want to conduct the basic research.

No amount of reduced taxes is going to make companies want to do things they can't turn a profit on.

Suppose government isn't there. How will they do product development without having basic research.

They won't. That's why we need the government to support basic research.

They would have to conduct basic research if they want to continue being a drug company.

No, that's only if they want to come up with new, ground-breaking drugs. Absent the government support, they won't be able to make a profit doing that, and so they won't do it. Instead, they'll do what drug companies in other places without access to such subsidized basic research infrastructure do: they'll manufacture and sell drugs that they already know how to make, and maybe occasionally produce some incremental advances in how they're delivered, or work out a useful variation on existing drugs.

It has marginal value. And it can't be printed out in a press.

It can be dug out of the ground.

There can be only enough gold that is produced which is in direct correlation with how much work is put into the production process.

That would be the gold production process, which has no real correlation to the amount of useful production going on in the economy.

You really want the value of the currency to be heavily dependent on gold prospecting, or changes in dental practices?

A theory based on a system of a central bank is supposedly a counter to my anti-central bank proposal? Get the model right before you post crap...

You aren't opposed to a central bank, you're just opposed to the specific monetary policy it employs. You can't have money, let alone a monetary policy, without a central bank.

As for retirement savings... Why should you save when you know that you're losing value?

Because I want to retire - and as to the value, that's why I invest my savings instead of stuffing them under a mattress.

Read the model before you post because it is not based on a non-central bank.

There is no such thing as a national currency without a central bank, nor a monetary policy. You have no idea what you're talking about.

Exactly, knowing that illegals can't work, you think if I charge them below minimum wage that they are going to report to the police?

You clearly don't understand how employment laws in the US are enforced. It isn't the local cops that enforce federal minimum wage laws - it's the federal government. And they don't depend on reports from workers who are being underpaid - all employers have to file paperwork with the IRS for each employee, and pay various taxes. If you turn in paperwork showing that you're paying less than minimum wage, they cite you.

Illegals can, however, be overworked and otherwise abused. But you really can't get away with systematically paying them a statutory rate below minimum wage. The only exception might be undeclared day labor, but, again, I've never heard of pay rates that low. Typically people pay something like double minimum wage for that stuff.

If you're willing to hire illegals, then I'm sure you are willing to take the risk of hiring them for less than minimum wage.

No, the risk of hiring them is drastically smaller than the risk of paying them below minimum wage. For the former, all you need is for them to present you some fake documents, and you can tell any authorities that question you that you didn't know they were illegal. But you file tax paperwork showing violations of minimum wage, and you are guaranteed to get caught.

You'd know all of this if you had even a basic understanding of how employment works in the US.

And if they can make a living, however 'low quality' it may be, this means that Americans can do the same..

Sure. But why would they want to do that? Why would we want them to do that? A society of plebs who labor on the edge of subsistence is not the sort of society I'd like to live in.

So all the people who can work for lower pay can't get a job because employers aren't willing to pay as much for some jobs this contributes to higher unemployment because businesses can't hire you by law even though you're willing to work for less.

Yes, minimum wage laws result in a small increase in unemployment. In the first place, this effect is rather small in the United States, since we have a pretty low minimum wage compared to the average income. And in the second place, low unemployment absent some minimal standard of recompense is not desirable, or even meaningful - it's already been pointed out to you that the Southern slave plantations exhibited full employment.

I think majorities are subject to more racism than minorities.

That's one of the stupidest things you've said yet. Which is saying something, given your track record.

If I'm unemployed and I get find a job but someone would hire me for lower than minimum wage. That means I could potentially find a low paying job (which the illegals get and can survive with)... But I can't because the government won't allow me to work for less than the minimum wage.

Illegals don't work for below minimum wage - you have produced no evidence that they do, and your suppositions to the contrary are ridiculous.

I'm not against immigration. We have a better opportunity than Mexico, I agree. But that doesn't mean they can live here without other facilities, and by them being illegal and utilizing those facilities they become a burden on a system and that incites people- which you call racism.

It's racist because it ignores the benefits to the system and focusses only on immigrants of a particular ethnicity.

I'll ask you again: would you accept a 10% reduction in emergency care costs if it meant that the prices of food and construction would double?

Didn't you say they have have universal healthcare since a while ago?

Yes. That's not the same thing as onerous regulations of healthcare providers. Are you really this confused, or just a really lazy debater?

But why should they be put in the system anyways?

We have a surplus of capital and Mexico has a surplus of labor. This means that the system, as a whole, is more efficient and productive if the two are combined.

They're illegals.. So you're admitting that they are a cost to the system but we can lower the cost by having them legalized- but that still doesn't change the fact that they are an added cost.

That's the healthcare system, note, not the entire economy - and comparable American citizens (i.e., high-school drop-outs) present a similar burden to the system. So where are your calls to get rid of them? They're a much bigger burden, after all.

Meanwhile, the systemic benefits to the economy of importing Mexico's labor surplus are considerable, and more than offset any additional burdens they place on the emergency medical system. And, again, said burdens could themselves be greatly reduced just by legalizing the immigrants. So I'll ask you again: would you take a 10% cut in healthcare costs if it came with a doubling of the price of food and construction?

Weren't we talking about Americans accepting lower living conditions in order to get a job... Inciting social and family support has nothing to do with it.

Family and social support have everything to do with what standard of living Americans (and everyone else, for that matter) will accept.

And, anyway, what about reducing the standard of living in the US seems like a good suggestion to you? That unemployment would go down? People want jobs to advance their standard of living, not for some abstract joy of working. And so suggesting that they can get jobs by reducing their standard of living is asinine.

Illegals can live off of less,

Perhaps, but they don't. Illegals are paid minimum wage or higher, with very few exceptions.

 

[786]

No. Giving the corporate interests who set this situation up a complete pass, when listing the people to blame, is corporate favoritism. That's how you talk - Republican Party rhetoric, right down the line, no reality or "observation" involved. That's a coincidence?

People are not crossing the border illegally?

Your claim that this crisis was caused by banks getting drunk at the FED is in error. You said something that was not so.

It is not possible to finance your drunkenness without having the FED to lend you the money to do it. By the way, it starts with Fredie and Fannie and the housing market, and travels into all the other domains of banking.

SS is working fine. The central problem with the central bank was that it was and is private, not regulated or managed by the government.

SS costs are not 'working fine'. The problem with the bank is that there is no sensible way to run a central bank. A bank controlled by the government would infact give the government a printing press to finance their extravaganza.

Places in the US with government controlled central banks - like North Dakota - are in much less trouble right now.

Because they can just print money... how can they ever be short anything?

? What are you talking about?

You said without minimum wage laws people would be working as slaves implying that they would be getting paid the least amount possible. Why are Doctors being paid more than minimum wage.. I'm only asking for justification of your comment, go read what you said.

I regard net income on equity as a reasonable measure of the return to capital. Profit margin is almost meaningless without more info - a one percent profit margin on a daily exchange will triple your money in a few months; on the other hand, high end luxuries like jewelry and yachts need 50% profit margins and more just to stay in business.

Put you can't say that they are 'charging you too much'- it just means that something has high volume.

You implied that Merck, a drug company, was not making money. I linked you to a Wiki page showing that Merck netted tens of billions of dollars of income last year - with the whole economy in deep recession.

Did the average pay of Doctors go down? Did the need for medicines go down? The 'rest of the economy' you are talking about is the financial bullshit that it is... All the commodities were going up and they were posting record profits. You have to look at industry.

No, they wouldn't. Basic research does not pay, in private corporations, because its results cannot be predicted - it is almost as likely to destroy your company, by making all your production obsolete and supporting your enemies, as fuel it. The most likely result is irrelevant (as far as your company is concerned) expense.

I don't think you know how much uncertainty and unpredictable Pharmaceutical business is then... your whole point is based on a fallacy.

Peace be unto you

 

[joepistole]

Since when is doing what no other party will, irrational? While Republicans and Democrats argue and get nothing done, the Tea Party gains support. It's irrational to sit in office and do nothing but disagree. Either the people in the Capital need to sit down and compromise, or we need a party that will listen to the people and function as a system.

Well the fact is that the Tea Partiers are not getting things done either. For all of the rhetoric they don't even have a plan of action if and when they should get power. They have a long list of things they are against (very general and broad), but not much about what they would do if they gained power. I have repeatedly asked Tea Partiers what would they specifically do to restore fiscal responsiblility. To date, not one of them has given an answer...or even tried.

Yes there is grid lock in Washington as Republicans stall and drag everything out (e.g. healthcare reform, finance reform, etc). But still a lot is getting done. I will grant you it has taken too much time, but things are getting done in Washington. It is not like the old days when both parties cooperated with each other to work towards common goals.

 

[Omega133]

Well the fact is that the Tea Partiers are not getting things done either. For all of the rhetoric they don't even have a plan of action if and when they should get power. They have a long list of things they are against (very general and broad), but not much about what they would do if they gained power. I have repeatedly asked Tea Partiers what would they specifically do to restore fiscal responsiblility. To date, not one of them has given an answer...or even tried.

They may not be getting things done yet, but at least they have an excuse. They are after all a forming party. As far as I know they don't have a leader. Would you expect a leaderless party to be thinking about their issues?

And it may just be that you are asking the wron people.

Yes there is grid lock in Washington as Republicans stall and drag everything out (e.g. healthcare reform, finance reform, etc).

I wouldn't place the blame on Republicans. They're only half of the problem. I'm sure Democrats did the same thing during the Bush administration. It does take two to Tango.

But still a lot is getting done. I will grant you it has taken too much time, but things are getting done in Washington.

Well there is no doubt that some things are getting done. However the important things are not getting any closer to resolution.

It is not like the old days when both parties cooperated with each other to work towards common goals.

That is a sad but true statement.

 

[786]

That's not what you suggested. You suggested breaking one department apart into many different ones - a new military nuclear weapons department, a new naval nuclear reactor department, and 50 different new state nuclear power departments.

Excuse me but they are not federal deparments they are state departments. No one is asking the rest of the 49 states to finance this 1 state. Not all states run Nuclear energy.

Not really - it's still the same amount of work that has to be done, and you aren't bypassing any profit-taking stages since these are all non-profit government agencies to begin with.

Irrespective of non-profit, a hierarchy creates a waste built in. Each department will ask for their 'share' try to spend as much as possible while a single department will have a limited amount of resources and will have to be frugal because they have to do more with less.

And, again, civilian control of nuclear weapons is important regardless. The military should not be put in charge of the whole thing.

Are States private? What is civilian control? That you have a nuke in your house?

Where? Generally you get less bureaocracy by consolodating functions - which is why your suggestion of deconsolodating the DoE into dozens of different agencies is so inherently inefficient.

It would be if it was creating dozens of Federal departments, a local deparment will only speicialize and make the system more efficient as the rest of the states don't have to pay for the nuclear fuel generated for my state.

You aren't making sense. The states have nothing to do with it - nuclear weapons will remain under Federal control. And civilian control is not the same thing as "private."

Nuclear weapons would be under the Military, which is under Federal control. I was talking about transferring your other things to State level, which can be handled by them.

And you were talking about 'building' of weapons and stuff... If you just want to keep an 'eye out' for the military we already have other departments that can perform this function.

Still not making sense.

Then go read our previous discussion on the Constitution.

Oh? Where are they going to get the uranium?

Colorado has uranium mines and can run a nuclear program, so can wyoming, so can Utah, so can New Mexico.

Uranium can also be bought at the open market. The Federal government can tax the trade but it doesn't mean it has to 'run the business'.

Even if they could, that's remarkably inefficient. Forcing each state to have its own closed nuclear fuel cycle would entail duplicating dozens of functions is a huge waste, and so only a handful of states would be able to utilize nuclear power.

Not each state. But each state that is involved in such activities. Secondly States have the right to cooperate if they can find a more 'efficient' way of doing it. The Federal Government taxing everyone for industries specific to specific states doesn't help everyone and doesn't make it efficient.

[Qutoe]That's what they do now, and that requires Federal regulation - it's interstate commerce of hazardous materials, machinery and expertise with national security implications.[/Quote]

Misuse of commerce clause..

The same nation has to pay for the same functions to occur in either case - the only difference is how it's accounted (and the fact that your suggestions would be markedly less efficient and practical, and so both more expensive overall and less effective).

No its called each State pays for what it wants out of its own pocket rule- so that other States can spend money on their needs.

Its the 'same nation' but the beneficiaries are different people.

No amount of reduced taxes is going to make companies want to do things they can't turn a profit on.

But can turn a profit on it because they need this research to turn out products...

They won't. That's why we need the government to support basic research.

They would. That's why we need the government out of basic research.

No, that's only if they want to come up with new, ground-breaking drugs. Absent the government support, they won't be able to make a profit doing that, and so they won't do it. Instead, they'll do what drug companies in other places without access to such subsidized basic research infrastructure do: they'll manufacture and sell drugs that they already know how to make, and maybe occasionally produce some incremental advances in how they're delivered, or work out a useful variation on existing drugs.

And of course no company wants to 'come up with new, ground-breaking drugs'.

It can be dug out of the ground.

You need people to dig more, not a printer with ink.

That would be the gold production process, which has no real correlation to the amount of useful production going on in the economy.

But it correlates to real jobs that are producing that gold, not a printer.

You aren't opposed to a central bank, you're just opposed to the specific monetary policy it employs. You can't have money, let alone a monetary policy, without a central bank.

The author of that theory is a Keynesian who applies the Keynesian economic theory which dependents on a central bank much like what we have today.

Because I want to retire - and as to the value, that's why I invest my savings instead of stuffing them under a mattress.

So you will invest the money in what? Treasury bonds? It won't give you much if you took inflation into account. Most people aren't smart investors if they don't have any investing knowledge.

You clearly don't understand how employment laws in the US are enforced. It isn't the local cops that enforce federal minimum wage laws - it's the federal government. And they don't depend on reports from workers who are being underpaid - all employers have to file paperwork with the IRS for each employee, and pay various taxes. If you turn in paperwork showing that you're paying less than minimum wage, they cite you.

I'm surprised at the idiocracy of this... So you believe employers will report ILLEGALS and the related details?

Illegals can, however, be overworked and otherwise abused. But you really can't get away with systematically paying them a statutory rate below minimum wage. The only exception might be undeclared day labor, but, again, I've never heard of pay rates that low. Typically people pay something like double minimum wage for that stuff.

Then you haven't been in the illegal world...

No, the risk of hiring them is drastically smaller than the risk of paying them below minimum wage. For the former, all you need is for them to present you some fake documents, and you can tell any authorities that question you that you didn't know they were illegal. But you file tax paperwork showing violations of minimum wage, and you are guaranteed to get caught.

Why in the world would you report this anyway on 'tax paperwork'.. I'm confused.. Who in their right minds reports illegal activity to the government.. If they do then they are dumbasses.

You'd know all of this if you had even a basic understanding of how employment works in the US.

You would know that illegal = breaking the law, and to assume that all this gets reported legally is surprising.

Sure. But why would they want to do that? Why would we want them to do that? A society of plebs who labor on the edge of subsistence is not the sort of society I'd like to live in.

So you're happy unemployed... I know the government will take care of you if you are it definitely is better.

Yes, minimum wage laws result in a small increase in unemployment. In the first place, this effect is rather small in the United States, since we have a pretty low minimum wage compared to the average income. And in the second place, low unemployment absent some minimal standard of recompense is not desirable, or even meaningful - it's already been pointed out to you that the Southern slave plantations exhibited full employment.

Just remove the minimum wage laws... And as it has been pointed out to you Slavery was abolished.

That's one of the stupidest things you've said yet. Which is saying something, given your track record.

It sounds stupid because its counter intuitive. Government over protection of minorities is actually discrimination against majority in many cases.

Illegals don't work for below minimum wage - you have produced no evidence that they do, and your suppositions to the contrary are ridiculous.

I know a few? Or is there going to be a government report on illegal compensation?

It's racist because it ignores the benefits to the system and focusses only on immigrants of a particular ethnicity.

Arab illegals, Pakistani illegals. I don't really care about ethnicity. If people are crossing the border illegally that is reason enough to secure the border.

I'll ask you again: would you accept a 10% reduction in emergency care costs if it meant that the prices of food and construction would double?

If you removed minimum wage laws, and under the conditions we are in there probably wouldn't be a 'double effect'- I'm not saying to 'kick them out'- I understand the importance of the labor of Mexicans. But refusing them services shouldn't effect this right because according to you there here for the jobs not services.

Yes. That's not the same thing as onerous regulations of healthcare providers. Are you really this confused, or just a really lazy debater?

But it plays a similar role- you burden a system that can not produce enough you end up with lousy facilities.

We have a surplus of capital and Mexico has a surplus of labor. This means that the system, as a whole, is more efficient and productive if the two are combined.

Really, and we're in debt?

That's the healthcare system, note, not the entire economy - and comparable American citizens (i.e., high-school drop-outs) present a similar burden to the system. So where are your calls to get rid of them? They're a much bigger burden, after all.

Who said anything about getting rid of them.. Keep them from getting free services is the only thing I have argued so far.

Family and social support have everything to do with what standard of living Americans (and everyone else, for that matter) will accept.

So by removing minimum wage laws the family support disappears...?

And, anyway, what about reducing the standard of living in the US seems like a good suggestion to you? That unemployment would go down? People want jobs to advance their standard of living, not for some abstract joy of working. And so suggesting that they can get jobs by reducing their standard of living is asinine.

No, but as the economy has real growth standard of living goes up.. The only reason the standard of living goes down is because of the current economic condition. To suggest that if you're $100 K in debt that the best practice is to keep getting a new car every year (your normal s-o-l) is ludicrous. People have to cut back in tough times, and that is the reality. And this lower standard of living would be only for those who get paid a low amount which won't be everyone.

Perhaps, but they don't. Illegals are paid minimum wage or higher, with very few exceptions.

Then Americans are quite dumb indeed.

Peace be unto you

 

[quadraphonics]

Excuse me but they are not federal deparments they are state departments. No one is asking the rest of the 49 states to finance this 1 state. Not all states run Nuclear energy.

Almost none of the states exists in an energy market that is independent of the other states - nuclear energy produced in one state is routinely sold to other states, and even when it is not its availability on the market reduces the prices that other states pay for their sources of energy. The states are not, generally speaking, islands.

Irrespective of non-profit, a hierarchy creates a waste built in.

So why are you proposing replacing 1 department with dozens?

Each department will ask for their 'share' try to spend as much as possible while a single department will have a limited amount of resources and will have to be frugal because they have to do more with less.

So you agree that as many functions as possible should be consolodated into the DoE, rather than dispersed into many different agencies.

Are States private? What is civilian control? That you have a nuke in your house?

What the fuck are you going on about?

It would be if it was creating dozens of Federal departments, a local deparment will only speicialize and make the system more efficient as the rest of the states don't have to pay for the nuclear fuel generated for my state.

Nuclear fuel is payed for by the people who purchase it. That the DoE oversees its production doesn't mean the product is provided free of charge to whoever wants it.

Nuclear weapons would be under the Military, which is under Federal control.

And that's still a bad idea. Nuclear weapons production should be under civilian control.

I was talking about transferring your other things to State level, which can be handled by them.

The things you propose transferring cannot be handled as efficiently by the states, if at all. Many are inherently inter-state enterprises, or beyond the scale of any one state to support. Most have national security implications that require they be handled at the Federal level. And, again, you are proposing massive duplication of bureaocracy.

Then go read our previous discussion on the Constitution.

You've never presented an argument about the Constitution that I've found persuasive, in this or any other thread.

Colorado has uranium mines and can run a nuclear program, so can wyoming, so can Utah, so can New Mexico.

None of those states except maybe CO could afford anything like that. They would, at most, mine and sell non-enriched uranium to other states - and so fall under the commerce clause, not to mention various national security and international treaty issues requiring Federal control.

The Federal Government taxing everyone for industries specific to specific states doesn't help everyone

That isn't what's being done here.

Now, if you were talking about corn....

Its the 'same nation' but the beneficiaries are different people.

Basic research, nuclear weapons, naval power systems, and a safe, well-regulated system for nuclear fuel production, distribution, treatment, and disposal benefits everyone.

But can turn a profit on it because they need this research to turn out products...

Not if the cost of the research exceeds the profits they'd make. They don't do basic research now, and have never indicated any plans to do so.

And of course no company wants to 'come up with new, ground-breaking drugs'.

They only want to do so if they can turn a profit on them. And they can't, reliably, if they have to fund all the basic research required - the cost is huge, it takes a long time to even find out if you're going to learn anything relevant, and the result is just as likely to undermine your business as advance it.

Private companies would already be doing basic research if it were profitable to do so. The fact that none do indicates that it is not.

You need people to dig more, not a printer with ink.

No more people than you need to produce the paper, oils, inks and printing machines for paper currency. Which is to say, an insignificant amount, relative to the actual economy.

But it correlates to real jobs that are producing that gold, not a printer.

So what? That amount of production is a drop in the ocean compared to the entire economy. It doesn't correlate with anything useful - the market for gold is driven as much by dental practices and speculation as anything with macroeconomic meaning.

The author of that theory is a Keynesian who applies the Keynesian economic theory which dependents on a central bank much like what we have today.

Without a central bank, or comparable monetary authority, there is no currency and so no monetary policy to worry about. You can't model the effects of monetary policy unless you assume that there is actual money and an actual body that makes policy for it.

So you will invest the money in what? Treasury bonds?

A combination of stocks, bonds and real estate, just like essentially everyone else. Maybe some commodities futures or foreign currencies if I'm feeling frisky.

It won't give you much if you took inflation into account.

Good thing that I do take inflation into account, then.

By the way, have you noticed that there is currently near-zero inflation in the United States despite the massive injections of money into the system?

Most people aren't smart investors if they don't have any investing knowledge.

That's what mutual funds are for. Maybe you've heard of them?

I'm surprised at the idiocracy of this... So you believe employers will report ILLEGALS and the related details?

They do so routinely - in fact the main method the feds use to find employers to raid is by tracking which ones don't respond to the fake SSNs that they discover on the tax paperwork.

Then you haven't been in the illegal world...

If you knew me, you'd know that I've lived my entire life in border states, and currently reside within sight of the Mexican border. I encounter illegals pretty much every single day, and long have.

Why in the world would you report this anyway on 'tax paperwork'.. I'm confused.. Who in their right minds reports illegal activity to the government..

You will get caught and punished very quickly if you're discovered to be employing people without filing the appropriate tax paperwork - your own business filings will be obviously fraudulent and this will invite an audit.

Instead, the illegals obtain fake SSNs and documents that they use to get hired, and the employer claims he didn't know they were fake. It's only a crime to employ illegals if you do so knowingly - and so all it takes is a simple pretense that you thought they were legit to avoid punishment. That's why all those illegals are working on the books, paying taxes (including payroll taxes for stuff like SS and Medicare, which they will never have any access to), and making minimum wage or higher.

Really, this stuff is common knowledge, and you embarass yourself with your ignorance of it. Try picking up a newspaper some time, or just spend a week working at your local McDonald's.

It sounds stupid because its counter intuitive. Government over protection of minorities is actually discrimination against majority in many cases.

Discrimination as such is not racism, and I see no issue of "over-protection" in the US (or much of anywhere else, for that matter).

You're a veritable jukebox of producerist canards, aren't you?

I know a few? Or is there going to be a government report on illegal compensation?

There are various academic studies of the illegal labor market, many of them sponsored by the government. You should try reading one or two of them.

If people are crossing the border illegally that is reason enough to secure the border.

Which is easily done by some combination of allowing greater legal migration and preventing employers from hiring illegals. But the producerists will never support that, since it requires accepting poor foreigners as desirable additions to our economy and making things more difficult for the employer class which is their primary political support.

Militarization of the border, on the other hand, will not substantially reduce the presence of illegal laborers. It will only make them more vulnerable and subject to exploitation. Which is, of course, what the right-wing business class desires.

But refusing them services shouldn't effect this right because according to you there here for the jobs not services.

That they're here for the jobs is no reason to oppress them (and their children).

But it plays a similar role- you burden a system that can not produce enough you end up with lousy facilities.

Their facilities aren't "lousy."

Really, and we're in debt?

Who's "we?" That the government is in debt doesn't mean that we don't produce more capital than we have labor to utilize.

Who said anything about getting rid of them.. Keep them from getting free services is the only thing I have argued so far.

And where are your arguments that comparable American citizens should not receive free services either? Or that the illegals should be legalized?

Calling for the maintenance of a permanently marginalized underclass for the rich to exploit is not a respectable position.

 

[iceaura]

No. Giving the corporate interests who set this situation up a complete pass, when listing the people to blame, is corporate favoritism. That's how you talk - Republican Party rhetoric, right down the line, no reality or "observation" involved. That's a coincidence?
”
People are not crossing the border illegally?

People are crossing the border illegally. You are parroting Republican Party rhetoric, in this case by omitting from all mention the major, controlling, dominant, and obvious factor in illegal immigration into the US from Mexico: US corporate creation of and demand for abusable, low wage labor from the gutted economy of Mexico.

It is not possible to finance your drunkenness without having the FED to lend you the money to do it.

Goldman did. AIG did.

By the way, it starts with Fredie and Fannie and the housing market,

No, it doesn't. That was a sideshow, less than a tenth the size of the main action. It started with the deregulation of the derivatives market, and the deregulation of the largest banks' participation in it.

The problem with the bank is that there is no sensible way to run a central bank. A bank controlled by the government would infact give the government a printing press to finance their extravaganza.

I hate to break it to you, but the government - any national government - has the money printing press and always will. The US central bank ran fine for fifty years. That is indeed how it works. No one has yet figured out how to be governed well without having a government governing well, is all. You have to elect reasonably competent people, or pay the price.

Places in the US with government controlled central banks - like North Dakota - are in much less trouble right now.
”
Because they can just print money... how can they ever be short anything?

North Dakota cannot print money. What they did was closely and carefully regulate their banks. That kept their banking system lower cost and more efficient.

Put you can't say that they are 'charging you too much'- it just means that something has high volume.

And you can't say that they aren't making lots of money, because they are. Boatloads. Tens of billions.

You implied that Merck, a drug company, was not making money. I linked you to a Wiki page showing that Merck netted tens of billions of dollars of income last year - with the whole economy in deep recession.
”
Did the average pay of Doctors go down? Did the need for medicines go down? The 'rest of the economy' you are talking about is the financial bullshit that it is... All the commodities were going up and they were posting record profits. You have to look at industry.

So we are agreed that the big drug and insurance companies are making lots and lots of money, and you are not going to say or imply that they aren't - right?

I don't think you know how much uncertainty and unpredictable Pharmaceutical business is then... your whole point is based on a fallacy.

My point was that private corporations won't do much basic research - it doesn't pay, for them. If the government doesn't do it, it won't get done.

 

[Cowboy]

I don't get it, what does property rights and affirmative action have to do with gun-ownership.

I think the comparison is that with regard to things like discrimination and public breast-feeding, the government has ruled that the supposed rights of potential customers trump the property owner's rights. I'm not sure why the government hasn't also ruled the same way with regard to people who legally carry firearms.

I support the right of private property owners to prohibit firearms on their property. I just don't understand the contradictory positions held by the government. :shrug:

 

[Cowboy]

Afirmative action is not relevant to the issue at hand. It has nothing to do with brining back "whites only" public insitutions. Additionally, Afirmative Action was intended only as a temporary fix, and is being phased out. Afirmative Action was a remedy to repair damages inflicted on certian citizens as the result of unfair discrimination.

I don't like any kind of racial or unfair discrimination...including Afirmative Action. But in my opinion it was needed, but not so much now. We have had almost a generation of Afirmative Action. And Afrimative Action enforcement is not what it was 30 years ago.

You're actually arguing that affirmative action - a form of discrimination that is not only allowed by the government, but practiced by it - isn't relevant to a discussion on whether or not discrimination should be allowed? Really?

And the "whites only" nonsense is just fear-mongering. I'm guessing that few or no businesses would actually try this...not to mention that there's also the possibility of "blacks only" or "hispanics only" businesses, too. Does anyone actually believe that restoring property rights to business owners will suddenly deprive various racial groups of places to buy goods and services?

As for commandeering private property, you are going to have to get more specific. Because I don't understand how you get there or what you are referring too in the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

I thought it was pretty obvious. The CRA stripped business owners of their right to choose their clientele in ways not approved by the government.

 

[joepistole]

You're actually arguing that affirmative action - a form of discrimination that is not only allowed by the government, but practiced by it - isn't relevant to a discussion on whether or not discrimination should be allowed? Really?

No, there is a difference betweeen Civil rights and denying individuals access to food, water and other bodliy needs based on skin color and Afirmative Action. Individuals regardless of skin color should be allowed access for facilities providing food and other services necessary for life. And no individual should be made to feel inferior based on skin color, period.

Afrimative Action on the other hand is centered on giving equal opportunities for minorities who have been historically discriminated against in employment and education. There is a very clear difference between the two issues.

And the "whites only" nonsense is just fear-mongering. I'm guessing that few or no businesses would actually try this...not to mention that there's also the possibility of "blacks only" or "hispanics only" businesses, too. Does anyone actually believe that restoring property rights to business owners will suddenly deprive various racial groups of places to buy goods and services?

We have history to show us that yes, it has happened in the past and there is no reason to believe that it will not happen in the future if we allow it too. And it matters little if it is "whites only" or "hispanics only" it is a detestable practice that should not be allowed. We are all Americans.

I thought it was pretty obvious. The CRA stripped business owners of their right to choose their clientele in ways not approved by the government.

The CRA did not strip business owners of their rights to choose clientele. All it said was you cannot use race to limit clientele. There is a big difference.

 

[Buffalo Roam]

Well the fact is that the Tea Partiers are not getting things done either.

If we are not gettiing anything done? then why is the Tea Party vote the difference in the election wins, if they are not getting anything done?

Replacing Democrats and RINOs, and putting people in office who are willing to carry out a Constitutional Government is the first requirement, and we are steadily moving towards that point.

We have the RNC learning that Rino are no more acceptable, than Liberals to the Tea Party, the Democrats just plain lying, and we continue to get people elected who are Constitutionally Conservative.

 

[joepistole]

If we are not gettiing anything done? then why is the Tea Party vote the difference in the election wins, if they are not getting anything done?

Replacing Democrats and RINOs, and putting people in office who are willing to carry out a Constitutional Government is the first requirement, and we are steadily moving towards that point.

We have the RNC learning that Rino are no more acceptable, than Liberals to the Tea Party, the Democrats just plain lying, and we continue to get people elected who are Constitutionally Conservative.

What person has the Tea Party put into office? Perhaps you can argue that the Tea Party was responsible for the election of Scott Brown to office. If one accepts that premise, Scott Brown is definately not voting the Tea Party line on anything. If fact, he has voted with the Democrats on a number of important issues including reregulation of the nations financial insitutions just yesterday.

Thus far all the Tea Party has only suceeded in radicalizing the Republican Party and narrowing its base. It has not driven out corruption. It has yet to even get a true Tea Partier elected to national public office. It has not been able to win any of the special elections held this year. We will see how effective the Tea Partiers are this fall when the congressional elections are held. Until then, keep beating on your little Tea Party chests and declaring yourself victors. But as I said, the true measure of success will come this fall, and I think you and yours will be sorely disappointed.

"Constitutionally conservative", now that is funny. I don't even want to know what that means.

 

[Omega133]

What they should be doing is covering themselves with sackcloth and ashes, begging the country's forgiveness for the consequences of what they did from 1978 until 2008, and promising to let sensible and informed adults make the next decade's crucial political decisions.

What? The Tea Party didn't start in 1978. And quite a bit of sensible and informed adults are joining the Tea Party. I fail to see how your statement is supposed to help your arguement.

I don't want them doing anything, and if they had any honor or decency - not to mention the brains God gave a grasshopper - they wouldn't do anything.

Shouldn't do anything? Oh, you mean like what the Republicans and Democrats are doing now. Look what that's done for us.

They are a blight and menace,

A menace to what, Tyranny?

and they have proved that beyond a shadow of a doubt over the past ten years of their ascension to power in this country.

Pas ten years? They just formed. Where do you get off saying they've been around that long?

 

[joepistole]

What? The Tea Party didn't start in 1978. And quite a bit of sensible and informed adults are joining the Tea Party. I fail to see how your statement is supposed to help your arguement.

Shouldn't do anything? Oh, you mean like what the Republicans and Democrats are doing now. Look what that's done for us.
A menace to what, Tyranny?
Pas ten years? They just formed. Where do you get off saying they've been around that long?

I know there are alot of good hearted people joining the ranks of the Tea Party. But I would not characterize them as well informed. They tend to be Fox News listeners, and are not well informed. They are well misinformed.

No doubt, they are also very passionate people...good Americans. But they have been led astray by some very well organized and well funded special interests who have a bunch of phd's telling them how to manipulate people. And these behind the scenes people leading the Tea Partiers are quite good at what they do...manipulating people. Unfortunately, the people pushing the Tea Party (organizing funding) are not for the interests of Americans...but rather the special interests that are pushing the movement....the same people that doubled the national debt and ran the country into the ground.