Who took our country away from us?

[fmccap]

First, the correct grammar is "I saw.....", not "I seen..."

 

Secondly, who exactly is that Big Bad State? I thought it was We The People. Don't be made at the state, be made at those who are running the State. Big difference.

Second, the correct spelling is mad, not made at the state.

[Furious1Auto]

Second, the correct spelling is mad, not made at the state.

Leave him to believe he is a real genious Cap. He may continue making posts that don't make sense!

[mrballsonya]

As silly as it might sound, the pen is mightier than the sword.

 

Words can incite millions.

 

The sword is absolute, but it does have its flaws, it's usually a temporary solution to an ongoing problem.

 

Force is not always the answer.

[methos]

Second, the correct spelling is mad, not made at the state.

 

I think he meant it as a joke

[mountaineerwv]

Second, the correct spelling is mad, not made at the state.

 

Yep, you're correct. I did make a typo error, different than a grammatical error. Misusing the word "seen" is a very common error amongst the general population.

 

Every election cycle We The People exercise our power, but recently We The People have "made" very bad decisions based on manipulative political people like Karl Rove/GWB and opinion people like Limbaugh/O'Reilly et al.

 

Ron Paul? Give me a break. What a loon.

[mountaineerwv]

Leave him to believe he is a real genious Cap. He may continue making posts that don't make sense!

 

What did not make sense? Did you not understand the difference between the incompetence of those running the programs and the program itself? Do you not remember "Great job, Brownie?" At one time FEMA was a well run organization before the Bushites took over. Oh, those good ole days when competent people ran those important government agencies like FEMA. Remember James Lee Witt? Even the VA system was well run until someone took over that agency too.

[mountaineerwv]

The obvious answer to who took it away is....

 

When was it ours????

 

When did the leading business/church/intellectuals/monied interests ever let us have the country.

 

Church? Intellectuals? Who might they be?

 

Yep, you're right. The poor stupid Americans are so easily manipulated by those interests, right? So, whose fault is that?

[Trimdingman]

Church? Intellectuals? Who might they be?

 

Yep, you're right. The poor stupid Americans are so easily manipulated by those interests, right? So, whose fault is that?

 

We need less government, less collectivism, and more individuallity. People need to think more and listen less. Following another's agenda is invariably going to benefit him and cost you.

[mountaineerwv]

We need less government, less collectivism, and more individuallity. People need to think more and listen less. Following another's agenda is invariably going to benefit him and cost you.

 

Less government? Like less government oversight of the sub-prime mortgage mess or of our food supply or products from China or airplanes flying in our skies or fewer security checks at our ports? Yep, I sure trust those corporations to do what is in the best interests of the public.

 

Like less government assistance during hurricanes? Like more individuality by getting rid of SS/Medicare/Medicaid? Can individuals build their own roads and bridges? Can individuals build a school? Can individuals provide their own police/fire protection?

 

Sounds good on a bumper sticker or as a rant of some radio talk show, but can you be a little more specific?

[hendew_15]

Maybe this will help

[fmccap]

Less government? Like less government oversight of the sub-prime mortgage mess or of our food supply or products from China or airplanes flying in our skies or fewer security checks at our ports? Yep, I sure trust those corporations to do what is in the best interests of the public.

 

Like less government assistance during hurricanes? Like more individuality by getting rid of SS/Medicare/Medicaid? Can individuals build their own roads and bridges? Can individuals build a school? Can individuals provide their own police/fire protection?

 

Sounds good on a bumper sticker or as a rant of some radio talk show, but can you be a little more specific?

Don't be afraid of real freedom. I'm beginning to realize that a lot of people are and the real reason why is it brings personal responsibility about. You people are to dependant on the government.

 

1. Did the government do a good job on the hurricanes?

 

2. Where is SS/Medicare/Medicaid headed?

 

3. Are you talking about the crumbling infastructure in this country?

 

4. The great public school system we have?

 

5. States and locals are cutting back on police/fire protection because they don't have enough money after complying with costly Federal Government regulations that are forced upon them.

[mountaineerwv]

Don't be afraid of real freedom. I'm beginning to realize that a lot of people are and the real reason why is it brings personal responsibility about. You people are to dependant on the government.

 

1. Did the government do a good job on the hurricanes?

 

No, it did not and it was because of the incompetent people that the Bush administration put into those positions. FEMA worked great under Clinton's head, James Lee Witt. "Good job, Brownie."

 

 

2. Where is SS/Medicare/Medicaid headed?

 

It is being raided by the government to pay for other debts. SS is in much better shape than Medicare/Medicaid, but if we as a nation make the tough choices like we did in 1983 with Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihans' commission then it too can be placed on sound footings.

 

n

3. Are you talking about the crumbling infastructure in this country?

 

Yes, I am talking about the crumbling highways/bridges/tunnels/sewer systems in this country. I guess those things are less important than giving tax cuts to the very wealthy.

 

4. The great public school system we have?

 

You want to throw out the baby with the bath water? President Harry Truman was a big believer in the public school system as he believed that it was the way out of poverty for many. Fix it, do not destroy it.

 

5. States and locals are cutting back on police/fire protection because they don't have enough money after complying with costly Federal Government regulations that are forced upon them.

 

Hmmm......., gets back to my original point about those who hate government prove how bad it is by appointing incompetent people.

[Trimdingman]

No, it did not and it was because of the incompetent people that the Bush administration put into those positions. FEMA worked great under Clinton's head, James Lee Witt. "Good job, Brownie."

 

How many refused to leave because they wanted to stay and loot?

 

 

It is being raided by the government to pay for other debts. SS is in much better shape than Medicare/Medicaid, but if we as a nation make the tough choices like we did in 1983 with Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihans' commission then it too can be placed on sound footings.

 

n Collective medicine is a recipe for financial disaster, whether it be health insurance or government health care.

 

Yes, I am talking about the crumbling highways/bridges/tunnels/sewer systems in this country. I guess those things are less important than giving tax cuts to the very wealthy.

 

Socialists hate people who own their own cars. That is too much individual freedom for their liking. They will put money into mass public transit. They like to see people in herds like sheep.

 

You want to throw out the baby with the bath water? President Harry Truman was a big believer in the public school system as he believed that it was the way out of poverty for many. Fix it, do not destroy it.

 

Public education in the wrong hands leads to socialist brainwashing. People need to have choice in education.

 

Hmmm......., gets back to my original point about those who hate government prove how bad it is by appointing incompetent people.

 

Appointing? Was that a Freudian slip. I hope that you meant "electing". [The bold type is the quote. My replys are underneath. Something screwed up.]

Edited March 11, 2008 by Trimdingman

[Imawhosure]

No, it did not and it was because of the incompetent people that the Bush administration put into those positions. FEMA worked great under Clinton's head, James Lee Witt. "Good job, Brownie."

 

 

 

 

It is being raided by the government to pay for other debts. SS is in much better shape than Medicare/Medicaid, but if we as a nation make the tough choices like we did in 1983 with Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihans' commission then it too can be placed on sound footings.

 

n

 

Yes, I am talking about the crumbling highways/bridges/tunnels/sewer systems in this country. I guess those things are less important than giving tax cuts to the very wealthy.

 

 

 

You want to throw out the baby with the bath water? President Harry Truman was a big believer in the public school system as he believed that it was the way out of poverty for many. Fix it, do not destroy it.

 

 

 

Hmmm......., gets back to my original point about those who hate government prove how bad it is by appointing incompetent people.

 

 

I think it is time we come to a truce on the tax issue. Don't each of you think so?

 

So how about this------------------>Anyone who works must pay taxes. They can get most of the money back, but the end result is they must pay something for the betterment of society. NOBODY can get back more than they paid in. Not one person. If they only pay a buck after everything is calculated at the end of the year, so be it.

 

That sounds fair to me as it means there is no transfer of wealth then. Everyone pays a FAIRSHARE according to their income. The government no longer subsidizes nor glamorizes you for being poor, and you are making a contribution to your country, no matter how large or small.

[Trimdingman]

I think it is time we come to a truce on the tax issue. Don't each of you think so?

 

So how about this------------------>Anyone who works must pay taxes. They can get most of the money back, but the end result is they must pay something for the betterment of society. NOBODY can get back more than they paid in. Not one person. If they only pay a buck after everything is calculated at the end of the year, so be it.

 

That sounds fair to me as it means there is no transfer of wealth then. Everyone pays a FAIRSHARE according to their income. The government no longer subsidizes nor glamorizes you for being poor, and you are making a contribution to your country, no matter how large or small.

 

 

Why should tax be based on income? I believe that everybody should be taxed equally. If everybody paid $5,000 a year, that should be enough. Just imagine; no more complicated forms to fill out. Just write a check for $5,000. Another idea would be to cap taxes at $15,000, with the poor paying less. You would pay 50% on your first $30,000 of income. No more H&R Block.

 

My property taxes pay for fire, police, garbage, municipal infrastructure. I pay directly for my utilities. Gas tax pays for highways. I have named over 90% of what I get from government. Another $5,000 should cover the rest, easy.

Edited March 12, 2008 by Trimdingman

[mrballsonya]

As the common saying goes "Misery loves company", and in my case it's true. I'm glad to hear, that I'm not the only one that seems to be extremely dissatisfied with the current direction of our Country.

 

I can only hope that there are many others like us, and soon we will unite and empower each other. I know that I sound very idealistic, but man, am I pissed.

 

This Is Our Country!

[Furious1Auto]

Why should tax be based on income? I believe that everybody should be taxed equally. If everybody paid $5,000 a year, that should be enough. Just imagine; no more complicated forms to fill out. Just write a check for $5,000. Another idea would be to cap taxes at $15,000, with the poor paying less. You would pay 50% on your first $30,000 of income. No more H&R Block.

 

My property taxes pay for fire, police, garbage, municipal infrastructure. I pay directly for my utilities. Gas tax pays for highways. I have named over 90% of what I get from government. Another $5,000 should cover the rest, easy.

Why not cut government spending and eliminate the IRS and income tax all together, neither of these existed before 1913 and we still had a military!

[Trimdingman]

Why not cut government spending and eliminate the IRS and income tax all together, neither of these existed before 1913 and we still had a military!

 

 

I agree.

[fmccap]

No, it did not and it was because of the incompetent people that the Bush administration put into those positions. FEMA worked great under Clinton's head, James Lee Witt. "Good job, Brownie."

 

 

 

 

It is being raided by the government to pay for other debts. SS is in much better shape than Medicare/Medicaid, but if we as a nation make the tough choices like we did in 1983 with Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihans' commission then it too can be placed on sound footings.

 

n

 

Yes, I am talking about the crumbling highways/bridges/tunnels/sewer systems in this country. I guess those things are less important than giving tax cuts to the very wealthy.

 

 

 

You want to throw out the baby with the bath water? President Harry Truman was a big believer in the public school system as he believed that it was the way out of poverty for many. Fix it, do not destroy it.

 

 

 

Hmmm......., gets back to my original point about those who hate government prove how bad it is by appointing incompetent people.

 

How about you enlighten me as to what the government does for us, We the People not Some of the people, and if there are any that they do efficiently.

[mountaineerwv]

Appointing? Was that a Freudian slip. I hope that you meant "electing". [The bold type is the quote. My replys are underneath. Something screwed up.]

 

No, that was not a slip. Do you really think that the heads of the government agencies are elected? Gets back to my point that this is why it is so easy to dupe the American public, they do not know how their government really works.

[mountaineerwv]

Why should tax be based on income? I believe that everybody should be taxed equally. If everybody paid $5,000 a year, that should be enough. Just imagine; no more complicated forms to fill out. Just write a check for $5,000. Another idea would be to cap taxes at $15,000, with the poor paying less. You would pay 50% on your first $30,000 of income. No more H&R Block.

 

...

 

Income is the indicator of one's ability to pay taxes. It is how we try to institute a progressive tax system.

 

And, capping taxes as you suggest is the opposite of progressive, it is regressive.

[mountaineerwv]

How about you enlighten me as to what the government does for us, We the People not Some of the people, and if there are any that they do efficiently.

 

by William Weld (Former Governor of Massachusetts - ®)

June 25, 2000

 

THE PROMISE OF GOVERNMENT

 

The Protection, And Pursuit, Of Property

You hear it said that if men were angels we would not need government. But of course we do. We have to restrain the bad tendencies of human beings, and that includes keeping people from injuring each other economically.

 

Homo economus-economic man-is a very avaricious individual, a real allosaurus. If he could have it all, he would, and that would be at the expense of others. So government acts as a safeguard of our property.

 

But we also want government to help us better our lot, to act as an economic catalyst. When I was the governor of Massachusetts, we used taxpayers' money to stimulate growth in biotech and telecommunications, two high-end industries that were tailor-made for the state because of all the universities. I was roundly criticized from the right for violating Republican dogma by trying to pick winners and losers. My retort was there was not a sufficient supply of capital in the market in those days, so government had a legitimate role in stepping in to address what I saw as a market failure.

 

Economic Justice

Government has a role as well in what is referred to as redistributive justice. This is as old as the Greeks. Redivision and redistribution of land was the rallying cry of peasants and the disenfranchised in ancient Greece, and it came to be not just land but property in the form of currency as the centuries went on. One context in which it came up in Massachusetts, as it has in New Jersey and Texas, and probably most states, is our system of financing public education.

 

The system that had grown up in most states is that wealthy districts with an affluent population can afford to spend a lot more on their public school systems than the poorer districts. I always thought that the huge disparities in local funding violated state constitutions, which guarantee citizens a quality education no matter where they live in the state. The New Jersey Supreme Court thought the same thing, as eventually the Massachusetts Supreme Court did too. But this was after we had already put in a statutory scheme of spreading the wealth around with a redistributive formula for financing education that went as far as was politically feasible: You have to get the votes in the Legislature. My Secretary of Education at the time was a woman, a native Cuban, who had been in the hills of Cuba with Fidel and Che in 1958. The joke around the statehouse was that this was the most Communist piece of legislation sponsored by a Republican administration in a long time.

 

Life, Liberty And The Pursuit Of Happiness

One of the functions of government is to act as a safeguard not just of property but of our liberties. Government is never so noble as when it is addressing wrongs. In the nineteenth century, slavery was the greatest wrong, and government never stood so tall as when it was redressing that wrong. Second-class citizenship for women was the scandal of the twentieth century, and our government, our society, is chipping away at that major imbalance in our society.

 

The courts are truly the least dangerous of the three branches of our government. It's hard to believe that sometimes when you read some Supreme Court cases; Justice Scalia's opinions read as though he took them straight down from the burning bush, and that just makes me nervous. But over the decades and over the centuries, the court's function has been essentially corrective, and in that sense I think that they are the least dangerous branch.

 

I think government has a major role to play in helping us with the pursuit of happiness. There are several such issues where I have departed radically from the Republican orthodoxy. One is the environment, or conservation, which is fundamental to human happiness. Natural resources are so vast that no single individual or business is going to protect them; they don't have an incentive to.

 

The creation of a Water Resources Authority to clean up the Boston harbor happened partly because of a suit I filed when I was US Attorney in 1983 against the State of Mass, saying this harbor is too damn dirty. That's one of the things I'm proudest of in my tenure as US Attorney. One of the things I'm least proud about is that I chickened out and never filed the suit against Ohio for public nuisance on account of the air blowing Northeast on the prevailing winds to Massachusetts. It is unlikely to have been approved in Washington, but it would have been interesting to try.

 

There's an alliance in the environmental area, and an appropriate one, between the government and the little guy. We absolutely have to restrain concentrations of wealth in industry from spoiling the situation for everybody. The legal constraint on this is the Takings Clause in the Fifth Amendment of the US Constitution. There are a million cases on what constitutes the taking of private property. It's a matter of degree. In the Western part of this country, the property rights advocates think the government is riding roughshod over them. By and large I come down on the side of government assertiveness in that area.

 

Another area in which I depart from Republican orthodoxy is on workforce issues. I thought it was madness for the Republicans during the first Bush administration to be opposed to the Family Leave Act. This was just government enacting support for the way the workforce has changed.

 

Bringing Out The Angels, Bringing Us Together

I think of Lincoln's phrase about appealing to the better angels of our nature. It's healthy for government to be a kind of moral catalyst, using the bully pulpit of high office. I am not talking about organized religion or being preachy. I mean moral suasion. This is necessary these days Oliver Wendell Holmes once said that the desire to exclude other people from your circle and surround yourself with people just like yourself is a perfectly natural human phenomenon. In my book, that's why it has to be guarded against and restrained, because it is so natural. Government can contribute to a shared sense of purpose on the part of the citizenry; that's its highest and best application.

 

This is especially true in the international arena. My great and good friend Jesse Helms is an enormously exclusionary man; he wants to surround himself with people just like himself. A high ranking United Nations official told me a couple of years ago that Senator Helms had said to him, that the U.N.'s purpose was to sap the national fiber and resolve of the United States. It was almost a line out of Dr. Strangelove, about sapping the precious bodily fluids of the United States. Unlike Senator Helms, I think a proper role for government-and a major achievement-would be to contribute to a sense of community internationally.

 

A shared sense of purpose was always my credo when I was a manager in government, and it is my credo now when I am a manager in the private sector. There is nothing better to meld an organization and melt away divisions. Some have been very good at establishing this, some have been very bad. Bill Clinton is very good at it. Richard Nixon, I thought, was very bad. Franklin Roosevelt was probably the best ever.

[mountaineerwv]

How about you enlighten me as to what the government does for us, We the People not Some of the people, and if there are any that they do efficiently.

 

by William Weld (Former Governor of Massachusetts)

June 25, 2000

 

THE PROMISE OF GOVERNMENT

 

The Protection, And Pursuit, Of Property

You hear it said that if men were angels we would not need government. But of course we do. We have to restrain the bad tendencies of human beings, and that includes keeping people from injuring each other economically.

 

Homo economus-economic man-is a very avaricious individual, a real allosaurus. If he could have it all, he would, and that would be at the expense of others. So government acts as a safeguard of our property.

 

But we also want government to help us better our lot, to act as an economic catalyst. When I was the governor of Massachusetts, we used taxpayers' money to stimulate growth in biotech and telecommunications, two high-end industries that were tailor-made for the state because of all the universities. I was roundly criticized from the right for violating Republican dogma by trying to pick winners and losers. My retort was there was not a sufficient supply of capital in the market in those days, so government had a legitimate role in stepping in to address what I saw as a market failure.

 

Economic Justice

Government has a role as well in what is referred to as redistributive justice. This is as old as the Greeks. Redivision and redistribution of land was the rallying cry of peasants and the disenfranchised in ancient Greece, and it came to be not just land but property in the form of currency as the centuries went on. One context in which it came up in Massachusetts, as it has in New Jersey and Texas, and probably most states, is our system of financing public education.

 

The system that had grown up in most states is that wealthy districts with an affluent population can afford to spend a lot more on their public school systems than the poorer districts. I always thought that the huge disparities in local funding violated state constitutions, which guarantee citizens a quality education no matter where they live in the state. The New Jersey Supreme Court thought the same thing, as eventually the Massachusetts Supreme Court did too. But this was after we had already put in a statutory scheme of spreading the wealth around with a redistributive formula for financing education that went as far as was politically feasible: You have to

[mountaineerwv]

..., and if there are any that they do efficiently.

 

 

Congressman Jim McGovern

 

This morning I gave a 1-minute speech on the House floor taking on the issue of "fraud and abuse" in the Food Stamp Program:

 

"Mr. Speaker, today is the third day of my week on the “Food Stamp Challenge.” The Challenge is an initiative where public officials live for one week on a food stamp budget in order to raise awareness about the Food Stamp Program. Three of my esteemed colleagues – Representatives Jo Ann Emerson from Missouri, Tim Ryan from Ohio, and Jan Schakowsky from Illinois – also are taking part.

 

"Although critics of the Food Stamp Program frequently speculate that it runs rampant with fraud, waste, and abuse, this is simply and utterly untrue. Don’t just take my word for it – go ask the Government Accountability Office. According to GAO, the Food Stamp Program currently operates at historically low error rates. Between 1999 and 2005, the national payment error rate declined 40 percent to an all-time low of 5.84 percent. In addition, there are incentives built into the program so that states are rewarded for low error rates and may be fined if they are underperforming.

 

"By any measure, the Food Stamp Program is an example of an efficiently-run government program."

 

Here's a link to the GAO study I mentioned in my speech:

 

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d07422t.pdf

[Furious1Auto]

mountaineerwv Why do you insist in creating entire pages of posts by yourself. If you are tring to convey a message your ineffective at it. All you do is chase interested parties from the threads you post on. I quit debating health care one the tread created for the topic, becuase of you and your ignorant methods! Instead I began injecting the idea in general conversation with other members when the oppertunity arouse so you would not hijack the threads I discussed it on! Your a moron, and If I were the one paying you to post I would fire you for being ineffective!