*this is why i want to eliminate 99 percent of all federal taxes. if you give politicians an inch they will take a mile!*

http://www.lp.org/article_154.shtml

A hundred and seven years ago, in 1898, the federal government began levying a temporary 3 percent excise tax on telephones, ostensibly to fund the Spanish-American War.

Flash forward to 2005 -- and every American with a telephone is still paying this "temporary" tax. The war was over after just a few months, but the tax has been in effect for over a century. On top of that, the tax does not go for any specific purpose. Rather, the funds are simply added to the general fund.

Congress attempted to repeal the tax in 2000. Both the House and the Senate passed legislation to eliminate the tax -- it was a 420-2 vote in the House -- but then-President Bill Clinton vetoed the bill when it reached his desk.

Once again, the House has been presented with a bill -- H.R. 1898 -- that would repeal the tax on telephone and other communications services. The bill was introduced in late April by Rep. Gary G. Miller of California, and has been cosponsored by 39 other congressmen. It currently sits in the House Committee on Ways and Means.

The outrage?

This tax should have been repealed more than a century ago, but some members of Congress still support the tax -- and some even want to expand it. Congress' Joint Committee on Taxation issued an opinion in January, saying that the tax could be expanded to apply to wireless Internet and data connections.

If you're tired of paying to support a war that ended 107 years ago, click here to join the Libertarian Party, which is working with other friends of the American taxpayer to eliminate this type of governmental lunacy.

a strong enough hook to hang libertarianism on.

Laws such as this one can be repealed within our current system without signficant reform.

Plus I'm pretty sure that to eliminate the tax would be in violation of the CFR that all legislation be revenue neutral - meaning the government cannot enact legislation that would lead to lower tax revenues.

Oh and um, nobody cares.

________________________________________
Smackin' ponks in the mouf for 2005

Listening To

~ Bah Samba "Four"
~ The Rurals "Rural Living"
~ Rewind 4
~ Silhouette Brown - Silhouette Brown
~ Mark De Clive Lowe - Tide's Arising
~ Common - Be
~ Raheem Devaug

so...you are saying that the govt can create a tax to fund a war and they can never repeal it?

They can repeal the law, but they have to find a way to maintain the tax revenue it created.

Revenue neutrality. Shitty ain't it?

It is, but it's a product of the Cold War. We needed all the money we could get our hands on to defeat communism.

Don't blame us, blame the paranoid warmongers in congress.
________________________________________
Smackin' ponks in the mouf for 2005

Listening To

~ Bah Samba "Four"
~ The Rurals "Rural Living"
~ Rewind 4
~ Silhouette Brown - Silhouette Brown
~ Mark De Clive Lowe - Tide's Arising
~ Common - Be
~ Raheem Devaug

the United States would not be today's king of the mountain.

Think about it before you open your piehole.

...

http://28.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lir67kLdx51qbbpaoo1_400.gif

its not about the spanish-american war...its about the tax not being repealed AFTER the war...dumbass...

what should the federal government spend money on? Tbe military and nothing else?

------------------------------

For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us. Romans 8:18

the salary of the executive/legislative/judicial branches. let the states handle everything else, including raising an army.

Do you actually believe state-level politicians are *less* corrupt than federal ones?!

well i wouldnt say they are less corrupt, they just happen to have less power which makes them less likely to screw me, you and everyone else over.

Well, I've been "screwed" more by local and state governments than I have been by the federal government. Even so, let's look at your argument:

>well i wouldnt say they are less corrupt, they just happen to
>have less power which makes them less likely to screw me, you
>and everyone else over.

So you're saying local governments are less dangerous because they "happen to" have less power. You're also proposing that we give essentially all the power to local governments.

think of it this way, the less people you govern the less power you have. i live in a borough of 10,000 people tops. we can easily track all local activity because the council is small and efficient. a paper gets published with all the minutes and the monthly budget and so forth. if people suspect foul play we have a meeting and kick some ass until we fire someone lol!

>think of it this way, the less people you govern the less
>power you have.

No, the less people you govern the fewer people you have direct power over. But if all the decisions are turned over to local governments, then they'd have just as much power over each individual as the federal government has now.

>i live in a borough of 10,000 people tops. we
>can easily track all local activity because the council is
>small and efficient. a paper gets published with all the
>minutes and the monthly budget and so forth. if people suspect
>foul play we have a meeting and kick some ass until we fire
>someone lol!

Congratulations, but none of the big decisions are being made at the level of your borough. It's simply impossible for even an unethical politician, at that level, to do much harm in that position. At least, there is no impetus for such hijinks. This would change if all decisions were turned over to local governments. I mean, minutes are also kept at the federal level. Budgets are also published at the federal level. We could kick the same ass at the federal level, but when people enter the business of corruption, they learn to become difficult targets.

>>think of it this way, the less people you govern the less
>>power you have.
>
>No, the less people you govern the fewer people you have
>direct power over. But if all the decisions are turned over
>to local governments, then they'd have just as much power over
>each individual as the federal government has now.

not true because they would be governing less people. and the people they would be governing owuld live down the street from them, not in a huge white house protected by gates and attack dogs.

>
>>i live in a borough of 10,000 people tops. we
>>can easily track all local activity because the council is
>>small and efficient. a paper gets published with all the
>>minutes and the monthly budget and so forth. if people
>suspect
>>foul play we have a meeting and kick some ass until we fire
>>someone lol!
>
>Congratulations, but none of the big decisions are being made
>at the level of your borough. It's simply impossible for even
>an unethical politician, at that level, to do much harm in
>that position. At least, there is no impetus for such
>hijinks. This would change if all decisions were turned over
>to local governments. I mean, minutes are also kept at the
>federal level. Budgets are also published at the federal
>level. We could kick the same ass at the federal level, but
>when people enter the business of corruption, they learn to
>become difficult targets.

you missed the point. these people that govern are visible membors of the community. even if thy are given more responsilibity they are still neighbors with the community. you see them at church, at the park, walking their dog. they are a part of the community.
>

>>>think of it this way, the less people you govern the less
>>>power you have.
>>
>>No, the less people you govern the fewer people you have
>>direct power over. But if all the decisions are turned over
>>to local governments, then they'd have just as much power
>over
>>each individual as the federal government has now.
>
>not true because they would be governing less people.

I agree that they would be governing fewer people, but that's irrelevant. They would have just as much effect on the situation of each individual constituent as the centralized government does now.

>and the
>people they would be governing owuld live down the street from
>them, not in a huge white house protected by gates and attack
>dogs.

So, your problem is that you aren't able to walk down the street and talk personally to the president when you disagree with a decision? That may be the only valid issue you've raised. On the other hand individuals at the local level can be seen to parallel "interest groups" at the national level. If you're so special that only your personal voice will work, then you should be able to start your own movement at the federal level. Otherwise, join a union, fund one of those groups which represents your interests.

>>>i live in a borough of 10,000 people tops. we
>>>can easily track all local activity because the council is
>>>small and efficient. a paper gets published with all the
>>>minutes and the monthly budget and so forth. if people
>>suspect
>>>foul play we have a meeting and kick some ass until we fire
>>>someone lol!
>>
>>Congratulations, but none of the big decisions are being
>made
>>at the level of your borough. It's simply impossible for
>even
>>an unethical politician, at that level, to do much harm in
>>that position. At least, there is no impetus for such
>>hijinks. This would change if all decisions were turned
>over
>>to local governments. I mean, minutes are also kept at the
>>federal level. Budgets are also published at the federal
>>level. We could kick the same ass at the federal level, but
>>when people enter the business of corruption, they learn to
>>become difficult targets.
>
>you missed the point. these people that govern are visible
>membors of the community.

Are you saying the President, Senators and Representatives are "invisible"?

>even if thy are given more
>responsilibity they are still neighbors with the community.
>you see them at church, at the park, walking their dog. they
>are a part of the community.

Why does it matter if we see them walking their dog? The only relevance I can see of this situation is that at the local level, one is more often dealing with friends, local cliques. This is an invitation to corruption.

>>>>think of it this way, the less people you govern the less
>>>>power you have.
>>>
>>>No, the less people you govern the fewer people you have
>>>direct power over. But if all the decisions are turned
>over
>>>to local governments, then they'd have just as much power
>>over
>>>each individual as the federal government has now.
>>
>>not true because they would be governing less people.
>
>I agree that they would be governing fewer people, but that's
>irrelevant. They would have just as much effect on the
>situation of each individual constituent as the centralized
>government does now.
>

you dont think it is easier to hold a local govt accountable rather than the federal govt?

>>and the
>>people they would be governing owuld live down the street
>from
>>them, not in a huge white house protected by gates and
>attack
>>dogs.
>
>So, your problem is that you aren't able to walk down the
>street and talk personally to the president when you disagree
>with a decision? That may be the only valid issue you've
>raised. On the other hand individuals at the local level can
>be seen to parallel "interest groups" at the national level.
>If you're so special that only your personal voice will work,
>then you should be able to start your own movement at the
>federal level. Otherwise, join a union, fund one of those
>groups which represents your interests.
>
>>>>i live in a borough of 10,000 people tops. we
>>>>can easily track all local activity because the council is
>>>>small and efficient. a paper gets published with all the
>>>>minutes and the monthly budget and so forth. if people
>>>suspect
>>>>foul play we have a meeting and kick some ass until we
>fire
>>>>someone lol!
>>>
>>>Congratulations, but none of the big decisions are being
>>made
>>>at the level of your borough. It's simply impossible for
>>even
>>>an unethical politician, at that level, to do much harm in
>>>that position. At least, there is no impetus for such
>>>hijinks. This would change if all decisions were turned
>>over
>>>to local governments. I mean, minutes are also kept at the
>>>federal level. Budgets are also published at the federal
>>>level. We could kick the same ass at the federal level,
>but
>>>when people enter the business of corruption, they learn to
>>>become difficult targets.
>>
>>you missed the point. these people that govern are visible
>>membors of the community.
>
>Are you saying the President, Senators and Representatives are
>"invisible"?
>
>>even if thy are given more
>>responsilibity they are still neighbors with the community.
>>you see them at church, at the park, walking their dog. they
>>are a part of the community.
>
>Why does it matter if we see them walking their dog? The only
>relevance I can see of this situation is that at the local
>level, one is more often dealing with friends, local cliques.
>This is an invitation to corruption.

it matters a lot. have yo uever participated in local govt?

>

And why are you okay with state taxes while you so vehemently oppose federal taxes? It's essentially the same money either way.

well, id actually like to keep state tax low and have a decent local tax. if youve paid your taxes you see how little actually comes outta local tax and how much goes to the federal govt. to me this is a waste of everyones resources. the federal govt gets all the money and then throws it into a giant pool, adds it up and then comes up with a budget. most of that money goes to special interests and the small local communities get screwed! i think it should be the other way around. let the city/state govts handle the budgets that way your tax money goes to things that benefit you. like roads and healthcare. sure some people may argue that the poorer communities get left out and the fed govt is there to distribute the wealth so that the poor communities are not left behind. personally i think that the poorer communities will realize they can do quite well with an increased local/state tax and a vastly decreased federal tax. the state can help out these poorer communities when needed and states can aide one another if they agree on exchanging services. the federal govt will exist only to ensure that each state adheres to the consitution.

Your theory sounds good but unfortunatley it will not work due to the fact that so many politicians are in the back pockets of special intreset groups and simply pander to a particular group to get their own needs met. What you are saying is sound but it would require a cut back in the number of politiciains a socially/politically aware society and not the current society we have that are in love with our current rock star politicans who are media whores for special interest groups (and yes I mean both parties). On a state level you got to think about the fact that states like Alabama with one of the most jacked up governments in the entire union could not pull this off without clearing house and they won't be clearing house because those guys have powerful ties with old southern money. But hey I guess anythings possible Will smith is still rapping

>well, id actually like to keep state tax low and have a
>decent local tax. if youve paid your taxes you see how little
>actually comes outta local tax and how much goes to the
>federal govt. to me this is a waste of everyones resources.
>the federal govt gets all the money and then throws it into a
>giant pool, adds it up and then comes up with a budget. most
>of that money goes to special interests and the small local
>communities get screwed!

Well, "special interests" are in the eye of the beholder. Out here in Cali, our juiced-up governor has taken to referring to nurses and teachers as "special interests." The strategy has not worked well for him.

>i think it should be the other way
>around. let the city/state govts handle the budgets that way
>your tax money goes to things that benefit you. like roads and
>healthcare.

...and crack if you live in DC.

>sure some people may argue that the poorer
>communities get left out and the fed govt is there to
>distribute the wealth so that the poor communities are not
>left behind. personally i think that the poorer communities
>will realize they can do quite well with an increased
>local/state tax and a vastly decreased federal tax.

If we want the same services, the government will have to pay the same money. The only question is how much money is inadvertantly lost or stolen, a question of efficiency. At least from a statistical point of view, it seems most likely that money can be handled most efficiently when it's centralized.

>the state
>can help out these poorer communities when needed and states
>can aide one another if they agree on exchanging services.

That requires that the states have something to exchange. Most rural states nowadays contribute very little to the national economy. Should we be willing to leave them behind if they can't figure out some bargaining chips?

>the federal govt will exist only to ensure that each state
>adheres to the consitution.

So it would be, for the US, essentially what the UN is for the world. A body purportedly meant to oversee the legality of its members' affairs, but with no independent powers to enforce its decisions.

Considering how effective the UN has been lately, I don't know if we want an unfunded federal government in charge of "ensuring" anything.

>>well, id actually like to keep state tax low and have a
>>decent local tax. if youve paid your taxes you see how
>little
>>actually comes outta local tax and how much goes to the
>>federal govt. to me this is a waste of everyones resources.
>>the federal govt gets all the money and then throws it into
>a
>>giant pool, adds it up and then comes up with a budget. most
>>of that money goes to special interests and the small local
>>communities get screwed!
>
>Well, "special interests" are in the eye of the beholder. Out
>here in Cali, our juiced-up governor has taken to referring to
>nurses and teachers as "special interests." The strategy has
>not worked well for him.

you know exactly what i mean. politicians bending over backwards for a small group of people while completing ignoring their civic duty to help the entire community.

>
>>i think it should be the other way
>>around. let the city/state govts handle the budgets that way
>>your tax money goes to things that benefit you. like roads
>and
>>healthcare.
>
>...and crack if you live in DC.

so you point to one instance and that is supposed to be a rebuttal?

>
>>sure some people may argue that the poorer
>>communities get left out and the fed govt is there to
>>distribute the wealth so that the poor communities are not
>>left behind. personally i think that the poorer communities
>>will realize they can do quite well with an increased
>>local/state tax and a vastly decreased federal tax.
>
>If we want the same services, the government will have to pay
>the same money. The only question is how much money is
>inadvertantly lost or stolen, a question of efficiency. At
>least from a statistical point of view, it seems most likely
>that money can be handled most efficiently when it's
>centralized.

its centralized now and its certainly not effecient. put money back into the hands of the people that earn it and give them more power to decide on how to help their community.
>
>>the state
>>can help out these poorer communities when needed and states
>>can aide one another if they agree on exchanging services.
>
>That requires that the states have something to exchange.
>Most rural states nowadays contribute very little to the
>national economy. Should we be willing to leave them behind
>if they can't figure out some bargaining chips?

they contribute very little because the federal govt gives them everything. states have always been able to produce goods needed by other states, until of course our good benevolent friends in the federal govt grew so large.


>>the federal govt will exist only to ensure that each state
>>adheres to the consitution.
>
>So it would be, for the US, essentially what the UN is for the
>world. A body purportedly meant to oversee the legality of
>its members' affairs, but with no independent powers to
>enforce its decisions.

youve confused me here. that is exactly what the federal govt is under the guidelines of the constitution so im not sure what point you are trying to make. other than that independent powers sentence which im not sure exactly where you pulled that outta.

>>>well, id actually like to keep state tax low and have a
>>>decent local tax. if youve paid your taxes you see how
>>little
>>>actually comes outta local tax and how much goes to the
>>>federal govt. to me this is a waste of everyones resources.
>>>the federal govt gets all the money and then throws it into
>>a
>>>giant pool, adds it up and then comes up with a budget.
>most
>>>of that money goes to special interests and the small local
>>>communities get screwed!
>>
>>Well, "special interests" are in the eye of the beholder.
>Out
>>here in Cali, our juiced-up governor has taken to referring
>to
>>nurses and teachers as "special interests." The strategy
>has
>>not worked well for him.
>
>you know exactly what i mean.

Indeed I do: you don't mean anything, you're just spouting buzzwords.

>politicians bending over
>backwards for a small group of people while completing
>ignoring their civic duty to help the entire community.

The teachers and the nurses are hardly large groups. The point is that even small groups are sometimes very important. Sometimes it's in the entire community's long-term best interests if someone supports minority views even against the will of the majority.

But our real argument here is local vs. federal governance. Do you really contend that local governments, if given all the authority, would be less likely to bend over backwards for their local "special interests"?

>>>i think it should be the other way
>>>around. let the city/state govts handle the budgets that
>way
>>>your tax money goes to things that benefit you. like roads
>>and
>>>healthcare.
>>
>>...and crack if you live in DC.
>
>so you point to one instance and that is supposed to be a
>rebuttal?

No, it's supposed to be a clever line. But beyond that it wasn't directly relevant. Marion Barry (and don't pretend this is the only example one could raise of corrupt local government) didn't have the authority you would like to have given him. My main contention is that he would have done more harm in that situation, and that more other mayors would have done similarly.

>>>sure some people may argue that the poorer
>>>communities get left out and the fed govt is there to
>>>distribute the wealth so that the poor communities are not
>>>left behind. personally i think that the poorer communities
>>>will realize they can do quite well with an increased
>>>local/state tax and a vastly decreased federal tax.
>>
>>If we want the same services, the government will have to
>pay
>>the same money. The only question is how much money is
>>inadvertantly lost or stolen, a question of efficiency. At
>>least from a statistical point of view, it seems most likely
>>that money can be handled most efficiently when it's
>>centralized.
>
>its centralized now and its certainly not effecient.

Well, we haven't defined a measure for efficiency. But the issue isn't how efficient it is, it's whether it would become more or less efficient if it was taken over by local fatcats who went to highschool with other local fatcats.

>put money
>back into the hands of the people that earn it and give them
>more power to decide on how to help their community.

I want some crack! --(c)Tyrone Biggums

>>>the state
>>>can help out these poorer communities when needed and
>states
>>>can aide one another if they agree on exchanging services.
>>
>>That requires that the states have something to exchange.
>>Most rural states nowadays contribute very little to the
>>national economy. Should we be willing to leave them behind
>>if they can't figure out some bargaining chips?
>
>they contribute very little because the federal govt gives
>them everything. states have always been able to produce goods
>needed by other states, until of course our good benevolent
>friends in the federal govt grew so large.

So you're saying that mere competition will even the playing field. Then why aren't all the nations in the world on roughly equal economic par?

>>>the federal govt will exist only to ensure that each state
>>>adheres to the consitution.
>>
>>So it would be, for the US, essentially what the UN is for
>the
>>world. A body purportedly meant to oversee the legality of
>>its members' affairs, but with no independent powers to
>>enforce its decisions.
>
>youve confused me here. that is exactly what the federal govt
>is under the guidelines of the constitution so im not sure
>what point you are trying to make.

Maybe the constitution was wrong on that point, as it was on so many others.

>other than that independent
>powers sentence which im not sure exactly where you pulled
>that outta.

The point is simple. How would the federal government enforce the constitution if it can't raise its own army?

>>>>well, id actually like to keep state tax low and have a
>>>>decent local tax. if youve paid your taxes you see how
>>>little
>>>>actually comes outta local tax and how much goes to the
>>>>federal govt. to me this is a waste of everyones
>resources.
>>>>the federal govt gets all the money and then throws it
>into
>>>a
>>>>giant pool, adds it up and then comes up with a budget.
>>most
>>>>of that money goes to special interests and the small
>local
>>>>communities get screwed!
>>>
>>>Well, "special interests" are in the eye of the beholder.
>>Out
>>>here in Cali, our juiced-up governor has taken to referring
>>to
>>>nurses and teachers as "special interests." The strategy
>>has
>>>not worked well for him.
>>
>>you know exactly what i mean.
>
>Indeed I do: you don't mean anything, you're just spouting
>buzzwords.

you just refuse to understand

>
>>politicians bending over
>>backwards for a small group of people while completing
>>ignoring their civic duty to help the entire community.
>
>The teachers and the nurses are hardly large groups. The
>point is that even small groups are sometimes very important.
>Sometimes it's in the entire community's long-term best
>interests if someone supports minority views even against the
>will of the majority.

like george bush in the war on terror? who gets to decide what is in the best interest?
>
>But our real argument here is local vs. federal governance.
>Do you really contend that local governments, if given all the
>authority, would be less likely to bend over backwards for
>their local "special interests"?

yes.
>
>>>>i think it should be the other way
>>>>around. let the city/state govts handle the budgets that
>>way
>>>>your tax money goes to things that benefit you. like roads
>>>and
>>>>healthcare.
>>>
>>>...and crack if you live in DC.
>>
>>so you point to one instance and that is supposed to be a
>>rebuttal?
>
>No, it's supposed to be a clever line. But beyond that it
>wasn't directly relevant. Marion Barry (and don't pretend
>this is the only example one could raise of corrupt local
>government) didn't have the authority you would like to have
>given him. My main contention is that he would have done more
>harm in that situation, and that more other mayors would have
>done similarly.

i highly doubt it.
>
>>>>sure some people may argue that the poorer
>>>>communities get left out and the fed govt is there to
>>>>distribute the wealth so that the poor communities are not
>>>>left behind. personally i think that the poorer
>communities
>>>>will realize they can do quite well with an increased
>>>>local/state tax and a vastly decreased federal tax.
>>>
>>>If we want the same services, the government will have to
>>pay
>>>the same money. The only question is how much money is
>>>inadvertantly lost or stolen, a question of efficiency. At
>>>least from a statistical point of view, it seems most
>likely
>>>that money can be handled most efficiently when it's
>>>centralized.
>>
>>its centralized now and its certainly not effecient.
>
>Well, we haven't defined a measure for efficiency. But the
>issue isn't how efficient it is, it's whether it would become
>more or less efficient if it was taken over by local fatcats
>who went to highschool with other local fatcats.

if you dont think that small govt = less corruption then maybe you should spend some time in local govt...
>
>>put money
>>back into the hands of the people that earn it and give them
>>more power to decide on how to help their community.
>
>I want some crack! --(c)Tyrone Biggums
>
>>>>the state
>>>>can help out these poorer communities when needed and
>>states
>>>>can aide one another if they agree on exchanging services.
>
>>>
>>>That requires that the states have something to exchange.
>>>Most rural states nowadays contribute very little to the
>>>national economy. Should we be willing to leave them
>behind
>>>if they can't figure out some bargaining chips?
>>
>>they contribute very little because the federal govt gives
>>them everything. states have always been able to produce
>goods
>>needed by other states, until of course our good benevolent
>>friends in the federal govt grew so large.
>
>So you're saying that mere competition will even the playing
>field. Then why aren't all the nations in the world on
>roughly equal economic par?

uh..cause most nations ae ruled by dictatorships
>
>>>>the federal govt will exist only to ensure that each state
>
>>>>adheres to the consitution.
>>>
>>>So it would be, for the US, essentially what the UN is for
>>the
>>>world. A body purportedly meant to oversee the legality of
>>>its members' affairs, but with no independent powers to
>>>enforce its decisions.
>>
>>youve confused me here. that is exactly what the federal
>govt
>>is under the guidelines of the constitution so im not sure
>>what point you are trying to make.
>
>Maybe the constitution was wrong on that point, as it was on
>so many others.

oh boy
>
>>other than that independent
>>powers sentence which im not sure exactly where you pulled
>>that outta.
>
>The point is simple. How would the federal government enforce
>the constitution if it can't raise its own army?

the states combined = the federal govt. its been this way since the beginning

>>>you know exactly what i mean.
>>
>>Indeed I do: you don't mean anything, you're just spouting
>>buzzwords.
>
>you just refuse to understand

There's not much to understand, you're just repeating the usual simplistic libertarian rhetoric. It's all paper thin, but people are free to ignore that since they're so far from electability.

>>>politicians bending over
>>>backwards for a small group of people while completing
>>>ignoring their civic duty to help the entire community.
>>
>>The teachers and the nurses are hardly large groups. The
>>point is that even small groups are sometimes very important.
>
>>Sometimes it's in the entire community's long-term best
>>interests if someone supports minority views even against
>the
>>will of the majority.
>
>like george bush in the war on terror?

Hey I'm not saying that it works well, I'm only saying that local governance would make matters worse.

>who gets to decide what
>is in the best interest?

In the end, it's the majority, but inefficiencies are inserted into policymaking apparatus specifically to check the powers of the majority; to give the minority time to argue what might turn out to be a stronger case.

>>But our real argument here is local vs. federal governance.
>>Do you really contend that local governments, if given all
>the
>>authority, would be less likely to bend over backwards for
>>their local "special interests"?
>
>yes.

Naive.

>>>>>i think it should be the other way
>>>>>around. let the city/state govts handle the budgets that
>>>way
>>>>>your tax money goes to things that benefit you. like
>roads
>>>>and
>>>>>healthcare.
>>>>
>>>>...and crack if you live in DC.
>>>
>>>so you point to one instance and that is supposed to be a
>>>rebuttal?
>>
>>No, it's supposed to be a clever line. But beyond that it
>>wasn't directly relevant. Marion Barry (and don't pretend
>>this is the only example one could raise of corrupt local
>>government) didn't have the authority you would like to have
>>given him. My main contention is that he would have done
>more
>>harm in that situation, and that more other mayors would
>have
>>done similarly.
>
>i highly doubt it.

Naive again. It looks like you and I just have different views of human nature. We probably won't make any progress if we continue this discussion.

>>>>>sure some people may argue that the poorer
>>>>>communities get left out and the fed govt is there to
>>>>>distribute the wealth so that the poor communities are
>not
>>>>>left behind. personally i think that the poorer
>>communities
>>>>>will realize they can do quite well with an increased
>>>>>local/state tax and a vastly decreased federal tax.
>>>>
>>>>If we want the same services, the government will have to
>>>pay
>>>>the same money. The only question is how much money is
>>>>inadvertantly lost or stolen, a question of efficiency.
>At
>>>>least from a statistical point of view, it seems most
>>likely
>>>>that money can be handled most efficiently when it's
>>>>centralized.
>>>
>>>its centralized now and its certainly not effecient.
>>
>>Well, we haven't defined a measure for efficiency. But the
>>issue isn't how efficient it is, it's whether it would
>become
>>more or less efficient if it was taken over by local fatcats
>>who went to highschool with other local fatcats.
>
>if you dont think that small govt = less corruption then maybe
>you should spend some time in local govt...

And maybe you should spend some time in federal government (just don't expect me to vote for you). But the issue isn't local government, as it exists, the issue is local government as you would make it. Even if you've spent time in a local government, you haven't spent a moment in a local government with a significant budget, or with real legislative or executive power.


>>>>>the state
>>>>>can help out these poorer communities when needed and
>>>states
>>>>>can aide one another if they agree on exchanging
>services.
>>
>>>>
>>>>That requires that the states have something to exchange.
>>>>Most rural states nowadays contribute very little to the
>>>>national economy. Should we be willing to leave them
>>behind
>>>>if they can't figure out some bargaining chips?
>>>
>>>they contribute very little because the federal govt gives
>>>them everything. states have always been able to produce
>>goods
>>>needed by other states, until of course our good benevolent
>>>friends in the federal govt grew so large.
>>
>>So you're saying that mere competition will even the playing
>>field. Then why aren't all the nations in the world on
>>roughly equal economic par?
>
>uh..cause most nations ae ruled by dictatorships

*salutes the flag ... single tear*

Dictatorships aren't handed down from God. They emerge from particular economic circumstances. A number of states would quickly become dictatorships if freed from federal oversight.

>>>>>the federal govt will exist only to ensure that each
>state
>>>>>adheres to the consitution.
>>>>
>>>>So it would be, for the US, essentially what the UN is for
>>>the
>>>>world. A body purportedly meant to oversee the legality
>of
>>>>its members' affairs, but with no independent powers to
>>>>enforce its decisions.
>>>
>>>youve confused me here. that is exactly what the federal
>>govt
>>>is under the guidelines of the constitution so im not sure
>>>what point you are trying to make.
>>
>>Maybe the constitution was wrong on that point, as it was on
>>so many others.
>
>oh boy

Do you disagree that the constitution has, on some issues, been dead wrong?

>>>other than that independent
>>>powers sentence which im not sure exactly where you pulled
>>>that outta.
>>
>>The point is simple. How would the federal government
>enforce
>>the constitution if it can't raise its own army?
>
>the states combined = the federal govt. its been this way
>since the beginning

Just like the nations combined = the united nations. A family of treaties, an impetus ro cooperate, is not gonna replace a centralized government.

>>>>you know exactly what i mean.
>>>
>>>Indeed I do: you don't mean anything, you're just spouting
>>>buzzwords.
>>
>>you just refuse to understand
>
>There's not much to understand, you're just repeating the
>usual simplistic libertarian rhetoric. It's all paper thin,
>but people are free to ignore that since they're so far from
>electability.

lame
>
>>>>politicians bending over
>>>>backwards for a small group of people while completing
>>>>ignoring their civic duty to help the entire community.
>>>
>>>The teachers and the nurses are hardly large groups. The
>>>point is that even small groups are sometimes very
>important.
>>
>>>Sometimes it's in the entire community's long-term best
>>>interests if someone supports minority views even against
>>the
>>>will of the majority.
>>
>>like george bush in the war on terror?
>
>Hey I'm not saying that it works well, I'm only saying that
>local governance would make matters worse.

you keep saying that but you havnt given me any real reason to believe it.
>
>>who gets to decide what
>>is in the best interest?
>
>In the end, it's the majority, but inefficiencies are inserted
>into policymaking apparatus specifically to check the powers
>of the majority; to give the minority time to argue what might
>turn out to be a stronger case.

ineffeciencies are not purposely added into govt. who told you that?

>
>>>But our real argument here is local vs. federal governance.
>
>>>Do you really contend that local governments, if given all
>>the
>>>authority, would be less likely to bend over backwards for
>>>their local "special interests"?
>>
>>yes.
>
>Naive.

lame
>
>>>>>>i think it should be the other way
>>>>>>around. let the city/state govts handle the budgets that
>>>>way
>>>>>>your tax money goes to things that benefit you. like
>>roads
>>>>>and
>>>>>>healthcare.
>>>>>
>>>>>...and crack if you live in DC.
>>>>
>>>>so you point to one instance and that is supposed to be a
>>>>rebuttal?
>>>
>>>No, it's supposed to be a clever line. But beyond that it
>>>wasn't directly relevant. Marion Barry (and don't pretend
>>>this is the only example one could raise of corrupt local
>>>government) didn't have the authority you would like to
>have
>>>given him. My main contention is that he would have done
>>more
>>>harm in that situation, and that more other mayors would
>>have
>>>done similarly.
>>
>>i highly doubt it.
>
>Naive again. It looks like you and I just have different
>views of human nature. We probably won't make any progress if
>we continue this discussion.

basically
>
>>>>>>sure some people may argue that the poorer
>>>>>>communities get left out and the fed govt is there to
>>>>>>distribute the wealth so that the poor communities are
>>not
>>>>>>left behind. personally i think that the poorer
>>>communities
>>>>>>will realize they can do quite well with an increased
>>>>>>local/state tax and a vastly decreased federal tax.
>>>>>
>>>>>If we want the same services, the government will have to
>>>>pay
>>>>>the same money. The only question is how much money is
>>>>>inadvertantly lost or stolen, a question of efficiency.
>>At
>>>>>least from a statistical point of view, it seems most
>>>likely
>>>>>that money can be handled most efficiently when it's
>>>>>centralized.
>>>>
>>>>its centralized now and its certainly not effecient.
>>>
>>>Well, we haven't defined a measure for efficiency. But the
>>>issue isn't how efficient it is, it's whether it would
>>become
>>>more or less efficient if it was taken over by local
>fatcats
>>>who went to highschool with other local fatcats.
>>
>>if you dont think that small govt = less corruption then
>maybe
>>you should spend some time in local govt...
>
>And maybe you should spend some time in federal government
>(just don't expect me to vote for you). But the issue isn't
>local government, as it exists, the issue is local government
>as you would make it. Even if you've spent time in a local
>government, you haven't spent a moment in a local government
>with a significant budget, or with real legislative or
>executive power.

that is the whole point. local govts dont have much power and when they chose to excercise it the people are right there to check it.
>
>
>>>>>>the state
>>>>>>can help out these poorer communities when needed and
>>>>states
>>>>>>can aide one another if they agree on exchanging
>>services.
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>That requires that the states have something to exchange.
>
>>>>>Most rural states nowadays contribute very little to the
>>>>>national economy. Should we be willing to leave them
>>>behind
>>>>>if they can't figure out some bargaining chips?
>>>>
>>>>they contribute very little because the federal govt gives
>>>>them everything. states have always been able to produce
>>>goods
>>>>needed by other states, until of course our good
>benevolent
>>>>friends in the federal govt grew so large.
>>>
>>>So you're saying that mere competition will even the
>playing
>>>field. Then why aren't all the nations in the world on
>>>roughly equal economic par?
>>
>>uh..cause most nations ae ruled by dictatorships
>
>*salutes the flag ... single tear*
>
>Dictatorships aren't handed down from God. They emerge from
>particular economic circumstances. A number of states would
>quickly become dictatorships if freed from federal oversight.

how can you speculate that?
>
>>>>>>the federal govt will exist only to ensure that each
>>state
>>>>>>adheres to the consitution.
>>>>>
>>>>>So it would be, for the US, essentially what the UN is
>for
>>>>the
>>>>>world. A body purportedly meant to oversee the legality
>>of
>>>>>its members' affairs, but with no independent powers to
>>>>>enforce its decisions.
>>>>
>>>>youve confused me here. that is exactly what the federal
>>>govt
>>>>is under the guidelines of the constitution so im not sure
>>>>what point you are trying to make.
>>>
>>>Maybe the constitution was wrong on that point, as it was
>on
>>>so many others.
>>
>>oh boy
>
>Do you disagree that the constitution has, on some issues,
>been dead wrong?

lets not get into that
>
>>>>other than that independent
>>>>powers sentence which im not sure exactly where you pulled
>>>>that outta.
>>>
>>>The point is simple. How would the federal government
>>enforce
>>>the constitution if it can't raise its own army?
>>
>>the states combined = the federal govt. its been this way
>>since the beginning
>
>Just like the nations combined = the united nations. A family
>of treaties, an impetus ro cooperate, is not gonna replace a
>centralized government.
>
what does this have to do with anything?