I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

What exactly does this mean?

• Do you mean you want government run more efficiently? This always seems like code for doing away with services that will not be replaced.
• Do you mean you want to reduce spending on social programs? If so, which will you cut?
• Does this mean you want to privatize aspects of the federal government? Does this come with the realization that you will pay the same or more to private companies for the same or worse services?
• Do you want the same services, but just want to lower your taxes? Would you prefer to shift your tax burden upward to the rich or downward to the poor and middle class?

TM

I was making a joke.

Although this city seems to have lower services in the last year. Trash pick up from the streets and parks, and just general park upkeep (TP in the restrooms please) seems down. I assume taxes weren't lowered?

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Wonk is trying to kill me.

We're all trying to kill you, GGG.

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by Not Bob

It was really more about me showing off that I retained something from the liberal arts education I received at Podunk U.

Well ain't you all erudite as shit. Getting back to the funky funk, here is a sweet number by All the People. Today's Daily Dose is "Cramp Your Style":

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iL70Xw-FteU

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Adder

We're all trying to kill you, GGG.

Trump has really lowered the levels of discourse around here.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

What exactly does this mean?

• Do you mean you want government run more efficiently? This always seems like code for doing away with services that will not be replaced.
• Do you mean you want to reduce spending on social programs? If so, which will you cut?
• Does this mean you want to privatize aspects of the federal government? Does this come with the realization that you will pay the same or more to private companies for the same or worse services?
• Do you want the same services, but just want to lower your taxes? Would you prefer to shift your tax burden upward to the rich or downward to the poor and middle class?

TM

1. Shrink it across the board. Military decreased by at least 40% for starters.
2. Yes. All non-essential programs. Preserve welfare state, but remove all other subsidies. And audit SSDI, and cut all fraudulent recipients.
3. No.
4. No. If the radical cuts I'd like were employed, I'd agree to pay more in taxes. Over long haul, it'd save me, by avoidance of truly nasty increases we'd see later if we stay on the current idiotic course.

You can't simply demand more in taxes because "government needs it."

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Military decreased by at least 40% for starters.

I do wish there was more of a constituency for this. Even more modest cuts could free quite a bit of money for other things.

All non-essential programs. Preserve welfare state, but remove all other subsidies.

What does this even mean? Which social program are non-essential and which are the welfare state that should be preserved? And things like food stamps are both a subsidy to food producers and part of the welfare state/safety net. Which bucket do they fall in?

And audit SSDI, and cut all fraudulent recipients.

It's now quite some time ago, but my dad used to bitch about all the paperwork he had to fill out for his 75 year old mother, who had nearly cut her hand off working as a meat inspector years before and also suffered parkinson's and various mental illnesses, to continue to receive disability.

Maybe it's gotten easier since then? Is there something in particular that makes you think that they aren't trying to prevent fraud? Maybe they need a little more funding for that function?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Disagree. Libertarians are not interested in setting up the protections required to protect those of us who face discrimination.

That's true. The various laws and regulations used over the years to combat discrimination were necessary, and remain necessary to an extent, but they are overused and have become overly burdensome to commerce. There needs to be an effort to aggressively weed out bullshit claims from very real ones.

However, Libertarians are very much against any state actions which perpetuate discrimination. Black Lives Matter, sentencing and prison reform, and ending the persistent racism in our court system are very Libertarian ideals. I don't think anyone claiming to be Libertarian can do so honestly without supporting Black Lives Matter and justice reform. You can't have liberty of any sort where the state, in concert with the private prison lobby, preys on a portion of the population based on race. That's anathema to the most basic tenets of Libertarianism.

This argument is in the same vein as those bullshit artist Republicans who say, "I'm socially liberal, but fiscally conservative." No you're not. Because there's no such thing. Whenever it comes down to actually funding support for those social issues you pretend you care about, you're nowhere to be found. And that's because you don't really care about them. All you care about is less taxes.

Anyone calling himself a pure Libertarian is a fool. (Frankly, anyone calling himself a pure anything is a fool. No ideology mirrors perfectly the views of any rational, normal person.) "Tempered" or "Moderate" Libertarian is preferred. I'd pay more in taxes to see justice reform. And the reasoning is simple. One can't combat a corrupt set of government systems without a very big pocketbook. Would I pay to fund a more involved EEOC? No. Would I pay more to create programs to socially engineer racism and sexism out of society? No. I don't see those aims as realistic. That only changes with time, and with the integration of disparate groups. Immigration's the best fix for systemic discrimination. Blur the ethnic and racial lines as much as possible. To borrow a line from Braveheart, "breed out" the xenophobes.

I think you overstate the impact of what you're deeming "libertarian ideals." People who support (or don't block) gay marriage or marijuana aren't embracing libertarianism. They have (i) evolved into understanding that gay people are people and (ii) figured out that marijuana is no more harmful (and probably much less harmful) than the drugs we take which are currently legal, everyone is doing that shit already, and it is a great source of tax revenue.

I see your point. Those aren't Libertarian ideals. Those are factual realities recognized by anyone employing logic and rational thinking. But if you look at Libertarianism - again, a moderate form of it - you'll notice it's based in rational thinking. Its guiding principle is it has no principle except that men should be as free as possible. It tries to be as exclusively fact-based as it can, and while the emotional arguments on things like gay marriage or weed have played out among the non-rational for so many years, Libertarianism was never against either. On gay marriage, it always held that the state had no business being involved in marriage at all, let alone deciding who could and couldn't do it. On weed, it said the state had no business telling consenting adults what they can or cannot put in the bodies. Those aren't political ideas. Those are conclusions based in simple logic.

We can't manage ourselves based purely on logic and rationality, but if we try, I'm willing to bet we'd do a lot better than we have allowing emotional arguments, religion, and party politics run things. Libertarianism attempts that, futile as the effort might be, and this is a good thing.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

I do wish there was more of a constituency for this. Even more modest cuts could free quite a bit of money for other things.

Our military budget is a subsidy for certain workers and companies at detriment to taxpayers. It's also an easy lever from which politicians may wring campaign funds and pork. That industry is the true basket of deplorables.

What does this even mean? Which social program are non-essential and which are the welfare state that should be preserved? And things like food stamps are both a subsidy to food producers and part of the welfare state/safety net. Which bucket do they fall in?

Food stamps, Medicaid, housing subsidies, fine. Basic subsistence (food, health care, shelter). On top of that, I'd add a negative income tax, or "living wage." Instead of paying all the administration costs of the endless programs providing benefits above basic subsistence, I'd give $$$ directly to the people who need it. Yes, that would involve converting a whole lot of govt workers into recipients of the benefits distribution of which they currently oversee. That's fine with me. It's just trading one form of transfer payment (the cost of a bureaucrat) for another cheaper one (the cost of subsidizing an ex-bureaucrat).

It's now quite some time ago, but my dad used to bitch about all the paperwork he had to fill out for his 75 year old mother, who had nearly cut her hand off working as a meat inspector years before and also suffered parkinson's and various mental illnesses, to continue to receive disability.

SSDI's been abused since 2008. It's become a go-to source of income for a lot of people who can't otherwise survive, at cost to those honest people who really deserve the disability payments. It's unconscionable that people with iffy back injuries should be sucking up benefits while a guy with congestive heart failure or MS has to wait forever, or suffer initial denial. There's a special ring in hell for the able-bodied people using SSDI as "enhanced, extended welfare." And a hotter one for their lawyers.

Maybe it's gotten easier since then? Is there something in particular that makes you think that they aren't trying to prevent fraud? Maybe they need a little more funding for that function?

We know they weren't trying to prevent fraud because the Admin in 2009 relaxed its claims scrutiny, because it lowered unemployment numbers and avoided what was then a real concern about impending social unrest. But we're past that now, and SSDI is being more aggressive about guarding against fraud. The problem is, there's still a huge backlog because these legions of hopeless workers are still throwing claims and appeals at the program. Perhaps more spending is needed to weed them out. Or perhaps just better use of the current staff at SSDI.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

1. Shrink it across the board. Military decreased by at least 40% for starters.

You realize that military spending is really just a huge jobs program, correct? What's your plan for the people you just threw into the unemployed pool? Wait. Is unemployment non-essential?

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

2. Yes. All non-essential programs.

Put some meat on that bone. What are essential (or non-essential, I'm not picky) programs?

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Preserve welfare state, but remove all other subsidies.

Again. Meat. Bone.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

And audit SSDI, and cut all fraudulent recipients.

Probably going to have to spend some money to get this done right (and to keep frauds out going forward).

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

You can't simply demand more in taxes because "government needs it."

You knock down strawmen with the best of them!

TM

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Instead of paying all the administration costs of the endless programs providing benefits above basic subsistence

Again, what programs are you talking about? Because it sounds like you just said you'd keep all of them.

SSDI's been abused since 2008.

No, it's been abused since it started. Exactly what "disabled" means has always been a challenge, and yeah, that line probable moves toward less meritorious claims in bad times. Oh well.

And, btw, here are the first numbers that Google brings up. Note that after a spike in 2008-2010, the number of awards per year has been declining. You're literally complaining about a small number of people who may only be a little bit physically challenged.

because it lowered unemployment numbers and avoided what was then a real concern about impending social unrest.

This is tinfoil hat stuff. Before getting to your conspiracy, can we maybe stop and observe that giving people these benefits actually helps them?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

This is fascinating. The GOP is Trump's going forward...

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

That's true. The various laws and regulations used over the years to combat discrimination were necessary, and remain necessary to an extent, but they are overused and have become overly burdensome to commerce. There needs to be an effort to aggressively weed out bullshit claims from very real ones.

I'm sorry. Which regulations have been overused and have become overly burdensome? I am very interested in these bullshit claims of which you speak and would love to hear more, because this sounds like the arguments used by the assholes who did away with the preclearance requirement of the Voting Rights Act.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

However, Libertarians are very much against any state actions which perpetuate discrimination. Black Lives Matter, sentencing and prison reform, and ending the persistent racism in our court system are very Libertarian ideals. I don't think anyone claiming to be Libertarian can do so honestly without supporting Black Lives Matter and justice reform. You can't have liberty of any sort where the state, in concert with the private prison lobby, preys on a portion of the population based on race. That's anathema to the most basic tenets of Libertarianism.

I'm not sure you are correct. Gary Johnson may have come out and said, "Black lives do matter," but take a listen to the bullshit justifications this vacuum-living asshole runs through (in the guise of rational thought): http://www.nationalreview.com/media/...ter-and-police

And my experience is that libertarians who pretend that they are all about rational thought are more like this asshole. All the others seem to be lunatics you would find at their convention (see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Psp0A-zJgU)

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Would I pay to fund a more involved EEOC? No.

What the fuck does this mean? Are you implying that if the EEOC were more involved they would be making shit up as opposed to uncovering (and battling) more actual discrimination? Can you give me some examples of the EEOC going overboard? Or is it just a matter of you not wanting to fund a government organization that battles discrimination?

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Would I pay more to create programs to socially engineer racism and sexism out of society? No.

Uh...I wish you would restrict your arguments to shit we are actually talking about. If you are attempting to conflate legislation aimed at protecting people (or giving them equal access) with social engineering, then you can suck it.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

But if you look at Libertarianism - again, a moderate form of it - you'll notice it's based in rational thinking. Its guiding principle is it has no principle except that men should be as free as possible. It tries to be as exclusively fact-based as it can, and while the emotional arguments on things like gay marriage or weed have played out among the non-rational for so many years, Libertarianism was never against either. On gay marriage, it always held that the state had no business being involved in marriage at all, let alone deciding who could and couldn't do it. On weed, it said the state had no business telling consenting adults what they can or cannot put in the bodies. Those aren't political ideas. Those are conclusions based in simple logic.

You can't cherry pick two issues and hold them up as the ideal of libertarianism. I can easily hold up an example of libertarians being for the freedom to discriminate against whoever the fuck they like in their business. Same coin, flip-side.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

We can't manage ourselves based purely on logic and rationality, but if we try, I'm willing to bet we'd do a lot better than we have allowing emotional arguments, religion, and party politics run things. Libertarianism attempts that, futile as the effort might be, and this is a good thing.

I appreciate the fact that you would like to approach problems in this manner. But libertarianism, like absolutely everything else, is influenced by the same human failures as everything else. And it denies the protections to those of us who need them most which our country has proven we so desperately need.

Also, almost every libertarian I've ever come across is fucking nuts.

TM

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Adder

What does this even mean?

Everything is a "subsidy," since no one pays for exactly what they receive from the government.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Anyone calling himself a pure Libertarian is a fool.

The biggest offense to libertarian values that I see on a regular basis is zoning laws, which limit what you can do with your real property less to solve any sort of market failure and more to benefit the most affluent, those who own more expensive residential real estate. Because libertarians are really about preserving traditional social hierarchies, and thus the status of the most well-off, they essentially ignore zoning.

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

The biggest offense to libertarian values that I see on a regular basis is zoning laws, which limit what you can do with your real property less to solve any sort of market failure and more to benefit the most affluent, those who own more expensive residential real estate. Because libertarians are really about preserving traditional social hierarchies, and thus the status of the most well-off, it essentially ignores zoning.

*sniff* I miss Atticus.