November 6th, 2012: Campaigning, Early Voting, Election Day, And The Results! II

[wiegeabo]

So all that stuff that tax dollars pay for you could just do without, right?

You get them in a different way.

And there are probably some you can do without.

 

[Hotwire]

Really?

1. Mandated government run healthcare.
2. Taxation to fund government run education and welfare programs.
3. Medical marijuana crackdowns and the rest of the drug war.
4. We can't even drink unpasteurized milk if we choose to.
5. And for the ladies, under Obama's vision government should be involved in every aspect of their lives:
http://www.barackobama.com/life-of-julia/

We have more freedoms than most and I am thankful for that, but the democratic vision for a free society is not truly that.

1. Well, the healthcare makes it affordable so, I'm for it. The reason I'm uninsured right now is because the private insurance companies want too much money to cover me and my family.
2. You would prefer private education that not everyone can afford, or just not have it paid for by taxes? Are you advocating eliminating welfare as well, or just that it's funded by tax dollars?
3. You want to eliminate the laws regarding illegal drugs?
4. Yes you can. The Amish sell it all over Pennsylvania. It's legality is decided from state to state.
5. That outlines the opportunities that she would have access to, not how she would be controlled.

 

[Holiday]

So all that stuff that tax dollars pay for you could just do without, right?

Roads and bridges, local police force, military, no, I can't do without some things from government.

Other things, like someone's pell grant, or foodstamps, or cell phone, or farm subsidy... yeah, I can absolutely do without those things.

 

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

Pell grants allowed me to go back to school to get an education, so that I can be a productive member of society that can pay taxes and give back to this society that gave to me, instead of being a bum living off the welfare system because I can't get more than a minimum wage job.

I think Pell grants are a very positive thing that lead us to being a freer society.

 

[Hotwire]

Roads and bridges, local police force, military, no, I can't do without some things from government.

And how would you propose the government pay for those things?

 

[Kelly]

Pell grants allowed me to go back to school to get an education, so that I can be a productive member of society that can pay taxes and give back to this society that gave to me, instead of being a bum living off the welfare system because I can't get more than a minimum wage job.

I think Pell grants are a very positive thing that lead us to being a freer society.

I think Pell Grants are good as well, but I do think we need to tighten up the loose ends in this area. There is not much oversight here, and I want my tax dollars being spent efficiently, and effectively.

The cellphone thing is absolutely laughable, and a perfect example of the governments inability to pull its head out of its butt. so to speak.... : )

 

[Kelly]

OK, I just spent a good bit of my time cleaning up this thread.

GROW UP, the "Well you did it first...." crap is childish. If you cannot play nice, then move on. THAT MEANS EVERYONE, EVERY COLOR....get it? The veiled general statements about different groups involved needs to stop if all you are doing is insulting. You want to discuss the issues at hand, DISCUSS.

To those of you who have been discussing the political results of last night, I apologize and please continue.

 

[Holiday]

1. Well, the healthcare makes it affordable so, I'm for it. The reason I'm uninsured right now is because the private insurance companies want too much money to cover me and my family.
2. You would prefer private education that not everyone can afford, or just not have it paid for by taxes? Are you advocating eliminating welfare as well, or just that it's funded by tax dollars?
3. You want to eliminate the laws regarding illegal drugs?
4. Yes you can. The Amish sell it all over Pennsylvania. It's legality is decided from state to state.
5. That outlines the opportunities that she would have access to, not how she would be controlled.

It's going to cost some American workers to have their hours reduced to under 30 or more a week. I hope you're for that too. That's not the point though, insurance mandates are not freedom.

I can't answer the question you're asking on education. I think public education is a failure and more choices for parents is the way to go. How that is done is beyond my knowledge on the subject.

Eliminate government welfare? Yes. Overnight? No. But eventually, yes, I would like government welfare done away with and handled by private charities.

Back to my point though, when money is taken by force from one group to give to another, that is a violation of freedom. Whatever it's for. Someones foodstamps or some wall street ***hole's bonus.

Illegal drug laws? If freedom is the name of the game, how can we have laws telling us what to do with our bodies?

Regarding raw milk, the Obama administration has been cracking down on those that sell it in some states. Shouldn't they be free to sell it to those that want to buy it?

 

[warhorse78]

Roads and bridges, local police force, military, no, I can't do without some things from government.

Other things, like someone's pell grant, or foodstamps, or cell phone, or farm subsidy... yeah, I can absolutely do without those things.

I think farm subsidies are a good thing. It helps keep farms that grow our food in business. It's not easy, or cheap, to keep a farm going. I know, I have a farm, and I get subsidies for the hay fields I grow.

 

[Holiday]

And how would you propose the government pay for those things?

I'm not against taxation. We obviously have a need for government. We just disagree on what needs government should fill.

 

[Holiday]

Pell grants allowed me to go back to school to get an education, so that I can be a productive member of society that can pay taxes and give back to this society that gave to me, instead of being a bum living off the welfare system because I can't get more than a minimum wage job.

I think Pell grants are a very positive thing that lead us to being a freer society.

I'm glad you got to finish school, and I wish more people could afford college but the reason tuition is high is because of government in the first place.

Also, I only make 75 cents more an hour than minimum wage and I live quite well without and state or government assistance.

 

[Holiday]

I think farm subsidies are a good thing. It helps keep farms that grow our food in business. It's not easy, or cheap, to keep a farm going. I know, I have a farm, and I get subsidies for the hay fields I grow.

Well, no wonder.

Here's why I'm not a fan;

[YT]BkxukIvzmR4#t=01m47s[/YT]

 

[wiegeabo]

I think farm subsidies are a good thing. It helps keep farms that grow our food in business. It's not easy, or cheap, to keep a farm going. I know, I have a farm, and I get subsidies for the hay fields I grow.

But wouldn't you rather grow to the market, rather than to the subsidies?


I'm against farm subsidies, not because the farmers don't need the money (they obviously do), but because they artificially lower the price of food, which forces farmers to take the subsidies just to survive.

When the subsidies go away, prices will go up. Now that sounds bad. Food gets harder to buy. But this is exactly what needs to happen. Why?

Because when prices go up, farmers make more money.

And when farmers make more money, they're incentivised to make even more money by taking advantage of the higher prices to expand (and new farms may even start up). And then a lot more food is grown to fill the market's demand.

And when more food is grown, prices start coming down again because supply catches up with demand. But prices coming down won't be a bad thing for farmers because they'll be producing so much more. It's ok if the price per bushel goes down 10% if you're selling 20% more than you used to. The margins might be getting squeezed, but the profits still go up. Sure, they won't get to continue to enjoy that short term jump in high prices, but in the long run, they'll be better off as prices stabilize to something farmers can actually make a decent living on.

And then, suddenly, we have self-sustaining farms with no subsidies. Farms are bigger and more stable because they can more easily (partially) switch crops based on market trends and prices. There's more food being grown and sold. Plus, we might get some actual diversity in our food supply, instead of everything relying on a single, artificially cheapened crop (god help us if an infestation or disease hits the corn farms).


Is this something we could turn off tomorrow? God no. I mean, we could, but then we'd have to ride out the tumultuous readjustment of the marketplace. But is it something we could phase out so the market adjustments are safe and orderly? I believe so.

 

[Paradoxium]

That and get rid of the ridiculous subsidized crop known as corn. God, every animal is corn fed. So hard to find grass fed beef and what not.

 

[wiegeabo]

That and get rid of the ridiculous subsidized crop known as corn. God, every animal is corn fed. So hard to find grass fed beef and what not.

Not only that, but corn is in pretty much every food product (corn syrup, corn starch, and other ingredients that don't say the word corn). Even though rice and sugar cane can be turned into the same ingredients.

So whenever corn prices go up (thanks useless ethonol subsidies that provide for a fuel with negative efficiency), all food prices go up.

And I pray you don't have a corn allergy. There's so little processed food that my mom can safely eat. Hell, there's some medications she can't take because corn starch is used as the binding agent in pills.

 

[Hotwire]

It's going to cost some American workers to have their hours reduced to under 30 or more a week. I hope you're for that too. That's not the point though, insurance mandates are not freedom.
Source?

I can't answer the question you're asking on education. I think public education is a failure and more choices for parents is the way to go. How that is done is beyond my knowledge on the subject.
I didn't think you would have an answer but, if you want to offer more options to parents, you're going to need to come up with ways to pay for them.

Eliminate government welfare? Yes. Overnight? No. But eventually, yes, I would like government welfare done away with and handled by private charities.
Private charities already do as much as they can. The problem is, they rely totally on the generosity of others. As I'm sure you are already well aware, not everyone is that generous. I seriously doubt you would be able to fund any kind of public welfare program strictly from private charities.

Back to my point though, when money is taken by force from one group to give to another, that is a violation of freedom. Whatever it's for. Someones foodstamps or some wall street ***hole's bonus.
And yet, in your next post you say you're not against taxation. Which is it?

Illegal drug laws? If freedom is the name of the game, how can we have laws telling us what to do with our bodies?
The problem with certain drugs is that they don't just effect your body. Look at the families of a drug addict. Certain drugs not only destroy your body and your life but, put you in a position to ruin the lives of those around you. As a result, they are either made illegal or they are regulated.

Regarding raw milk, the Obama administration has been cracking down on those that sell it in some states. Shouldn't they be free to sell it to those that want to buy it?
There's a reason milk is pasteurized. Doing so reduces the risk of disease. This is a situation where the government isn't so much telling you what you can and can't do as it is trying to protect a large portion of it's citizens. This is what the FDA is for. Just take a minute and imagine an outbreak of E. coli from the mass production of raw milk.

I can agree that we are not a totally free society. However, I don't think I would want to live in a totally free society. Why? Because a totally free society is one with rules, and a society without rules will fairly quickly tear itself apart.

 

[Matt Mortem]

I can agree that we are not a totally free society. However, I don't think I would want to live in a totally free society. Why? Because a totally free society is one with rules, and a society without rules will fairly quickly tear itself apart.

THANK YOU. This is an extremely valid point.

 

[TheBat812]

Even the wild west wasn't a completely free society. A completely free society usually turns into a totalitarian state.

 

[Matt]

Obama won. Romney's sons basically owned the voting machines and Obama won. Does that mean we can set aside all of the voting machines are fixed conspiracy theories?

 

[Matt Mortem]

Obama won. Romney's sons basically owned the voting machines and Obama won. Does that mean we can set aside all of the voting machines are fixed conspiracy theories?

You get your facts and common sense out of here.

 

[wiegeabo]

can we just get rid of all the ****ing voting machines and be done with it?

 

[Hotwire]

can we just get rid of all the ****ing voting machines and be done with it?

I say the next election be done by a show of hands.

 

[Lightning Strykez!]

Obama won. Romney's sons basically owned the voting machines and Obama won. Does that mean we can set aside all of the voting machines are fixed conspiracy theories?

Agreed.

I was so expecting some sort of underhanded silliness when the Romney camp initially refused to concede Ohio. Then...they went away.

 

[Holiday]

I can agree that we are not a totally free society. However, I don't think I would want to live in a totally free society. Why? Because a totally free society is one with rules, and a society without rules will fairly quickly tear itself apart.

You're confused. I'm not arguing for a free society devoid of government. I was only pointing out the hypocrisy of Nell saying we're closer to being on our way to a free society under Obama than under Republican leadership. If anything, were moving further away from one under Obama just as we were under Bush.

Also, I'm not an expert on raw milk vs pasteurized but pasteurization of milk destroys some of the nutrients and makes the sugar in milk absorb quicker, meaning you're hungry much sooner after drinking it. But hey, if your government tells you it's okay, drink up.

 

[Fading]

I can agree that we are not a totally free society. However, I don't think I would want to live in a totally free society. Why? Because a totally free society is one with rules, and a society without rules will fairly quickly tear itself apart.

Yeah, as much as I like my freedoms, and hate things like the patriot act...I don't want to live in a Mad Max world. I like my paved highways, military, laws, ect. If you dissolve the government, and just let ppl do whatever they want, it would be anarchy. What would stop another country, or even a citizen with enough backing from taking over? We basically keep the UN together, so not them.

Freedom is important, but laws are needed as well. Like the mention of the wild west, life was worth the price of 1 bullet, and that was with laws. Even with drugs. I'm pro Marijuana legalization, but not all drugs. Plenty cause hallucinations (see homeless zombie dude who ate a guys face), vehicle accidents, ect. You could very well end up hurting others, emotionally, and physically, or worse.

I don't want to live in a place that tells me if I can eat red meat, or has martial law 9 pm curfews (watch Escape from NY and LA for that). However I don't want to live in a place with total freedom either.