Ron Paul trending #10 on Yahoo Search
-
josda1000 wrote:
Agreed, but they can research if they really want to donate for a specific cause they deem worthy.
In an ideal world, that might work... But in this world, people don't know about things unless the media tells them. Therefore, only causes with good publicity would get help.
josda1000 wrote:
Where did you get this stat? I find this hard to believe.
Intentionally exaggerated. Just making a point. If I donate $1,000 to a charity, I want as much of that $1,000 as possible to actually go towards helping people. Some charities have tons and tons of overhead. I'm not saying I want a charity full of non-religious people... Just a charity that isn't in any way financially, politically, or organizationally linked to a religion. I don't want my money being used to send missionaries to convert people in Africa.
josda1000 wrote:
I'm guessing not. Think of when you ship a box: you choose either FedEx or UPS. And I'm guessing that you choose the same company every time.
Shipping a package is something most people do once in a blue moon, so driving to the nearest FedEx/UPS office is alright. Sending letters, such as monthly bills, greeting cards, business mailers, etc... That stuff is every day, and in large quantities. I'm not saying the private sector couldn't do it, but I'm saying it adds a LOT of complexity to a system that already works. Also, you should know that the US Postal Service is NOT funded by taxes. Hasn't been since around 1980. That's why they're having budget problems. (With the exception of the Army Post and such, which I'm assuming use some military funds)
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)Ian Shlasko wrote:
In an ideal world, that might work... But in this world, people don't know about things unless the media tells them. Therefore, only causes with good publicity would get help.
Not necessarily. It's never "only" this or "only" that. There are always small organizations. What about sabbaticals? What about missions of churches and such?
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Intentionally exaggerated.
But proven right, to some degree. Wow, what a find that you posted... that sucks.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Some charities have tons and tons of overhead.
Just like bureaucracies in general, such as governments. CSS has that spot on.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
I'm saying it adds a LOT of complexity to a system that already works.
How do you know? You haven't seen it in action, ever. How about we try it out and see what happens for a year? I'm betting that the positives would outweigh the negatives, but we just will never know, will we, until we try it.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Also, you should know that the US Postal Service is NOT funded by taxes. Hasn't been since around 1980. That's why they're having budget problems.
I did not know this, but I definitely understand that now. I might have to concede this point then, though I wouldn't mind trying a private sector postal service.
-
ragnaroknrol wrote:
Local control doesn't always mean better control.
I have to agree, if that guy in New Orleans really did what you said. My God, what an idiot. Anyway...
ragnaroknrol wrote:
For all the stuff a state would normally have to deal with, they already have the infrastructure and equipment. FEMA comes in with the big guns, stuff no state can afford on their own that they would need access to.
Yes, because that's what you see today. If things were in the hands of the states, we'd see things very different, I'd say. States would send a lot less money to the federal government, costing taxpayers a lot less, for the very fact that there would be fewer employees to pay with the taxes. FEMA could obviously afford things, but the states could decide for themselves what to buy, what not to, what's needed, what's not, that sort of thing. States could definitely afford these things if the money just stayed in the state in the first place.
ragnaroknrol wrote:
A lot of people see the federal government as some sort of evil.
You got that right lol
ragnaroknrol wrote:
They made it for a reason. It is there to handle things that are on a scope that can't be handled locally.
Big disagreement here. The federal government is made to create a union. Each state was its own nation-state before the federal government was made. In effect, each state had its own currency, its own militia, its own government (which still exists today of course). All of these things are now on the federal level.
ragnaroknrol wrote:
When 3+ states see tons of flooding, FEMA shows up.
Sure, but why can't each state have its own FEMA type doohicky?
josda1000 wrote:
States could definitely afford these things if the money just stayed in the state in the first place.
Using simple numbers as an example... Option 1 - No FEMA: Texas collects income taxes... Say $1M of it goes into their Texas Emergency Management Agency (TEMA), just for a nice round number. Now they have $1M to go out and buy equipment, hire extra people, prepare supplies, etc. Of course, this stuff is going to sit around unused for a long time, so mostly they're paying people to sit around and wait for a phone call. When disaster does hit, they've got $1M worth of funding... Could be some local flooding, could be a hurricane, could be an earthquake. Option 2 - FEMA: Texas collects income taxes, but instead of keeping the $1M for their TEMA, they forward it to the federal government to fund FEMA (Ok, the state never actually sees that money, but that's irrelevant). All of the other states are doing the same thing. Now FEMA has $50M worth of cash to work with. They can afford the best equipment, skilled workers, efficient communication systems... Basically, they're ready to kick ass and chew bubble gum. Now a disaster hits Texas and four neighboring states. They call FEMA, and FEMA flies in $10M worth of hardware and manpower to each of the 5 affected states, all of which is well-maintained, because they use it 50 times as often as any individual state would. Sure, they could afford their own, but with FEMA, they're paying the same amount and getting 10-50 times as much help. Or you could think about it the other way... Instead of each state spending, say, $25M for their own agency, each state chips in $1M for one big collective agency.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel) -
Ian Shlasko wrote:
In an ideal world, that might work... But in this world, people don't know about things unless the media tells them. Therefore, only causes with good publicity would get help.
Not necessarily. It's never "only" this or "only" that. There are always small organizations. What about sabbaticals? What about missions of churches and such?
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Intentionally exaggerated.
But proven right, to some degree. Wow, what a find that you posted... that sucks.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Some charities have tons and tons of overhead.
Just like bureaucracies in general, such as governments. CSS has that spot on.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
I'm saying it adds a LOT of complexity to a system that already works.
How do you know? You haven't seen it in action, ever. How about we try it out and see what happens for a year? I'm betting that the positives would outweigh the negatives, but we just will never know, will we, until we try it.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Also, you should know that the US Postal Service is NOT funded by taxes. Hasn't been since around 1980. That's why they're having budget problems.
I did not know this, but I definitely understand that now. I might have to concede this point then, though I wouldn't mind trying a private sector postal service.
josda1000 wrote:
Not necessarily. It's never "only" this or "only" that. There are always small organizations. What about sabbaticals? What about missions of churches and such?
Ok, I shouldn't speak in such absolutes. But you have to admit the less "popular" causes would get MUCH less funding. I mean look how these things go nowadays. One year, tons and tons of people want to donate to cancer. One year it's AIDS, one year it's world hunger... What about the ones that are unpopular this year? The government is still putting down the money.
josda1000 wrote:
I did not know this, but I definitely understand that now. I might have to concede this point then, though I wouldn't mind trying a private sector postal service.
Right now, it looks like the Postal Service is operating kind of like the Fed (Which you loathe so much :) ), in that it's operated like a private company, but with special government-granted privileges: 1) The President and Senate appoint nine of the 11-person board of directors. That board then appoints a Postmaster General (CEO) and Deputy Postmaster General (COO). 2) It has sovereign immunity - It can't be sued or prosecuted (Unless the federal government allows it) 3) It can exert eminent domain 4) It can make postal treaties with other countries to deliver mail to them 5) And of course it gets a monopoly on first-class and third-class mail Interestingly enough, according to WP, there's only one company in the US that employs more people than the Postal Service..... Wait for it.... here it comes........ Walmart.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel) -
josda1000 wrote:
States could definitely afford these things if the money just stayed in the state in the first place.
Using simple numbers as an example... Option 1 - No FEMA: Texas collects income taxes... Say $1M of it goes into their Texas Emergency Management Agency (TEMA), just for a nice round number. Now they have $1M to go out and buy equipment, hire extra people, prepare supplies, etc. Of course, this stuff is going to sit around unused for a long time, so mostly they're paying people to sit around and wait for a phone call. When disaster does hit, they've got $1M worth of funding... Could be some local flooding, could be a hurricane, could be an earthquake. Option 2 - FEMA: Texas collects income taxes, but instead of keeping the $1M for their TEMA, they forward it to the federal government to fund FEMA (Ok, the state never actually sees that money, but that's irrelevant). All of the other states are doing the same thing. Now FEMA has $50M worth of cash to work with. They can afford the best equipment, skilled workers, efficient communication systems... Basically, they're ready to kick ass and chew bubble gum. Now a disaster hits Texas and four neighboring states. They call FEMA, and FEMA flies in $10M worth of hardware and manpower to each of the 5 affected states, all of which is well-maintained, because they use it 50 times as often as any individual state would. Sure, they could afford their own, but with FEMA, they're paying the same amount and getting 10-50 times as much help. Or you could think about it the other way... Instead of each state spending, say, $25M for their own agency, each state chips in $1M for one big collective agency.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)yes, but think of it this way: all that money goes into a pot, again, to help people that you don't know, out in california or iowa for example, while you may never get any of that money in the state of new york. say i lived in texas and they had that TEMA. if i were to help out the pot in my state alone, they could stop the aggregation to that pot once they figured it got to a good level, and drop taxes a bit for say, ten years. once disaster hits, they have the equipement and people ready to fight it, even after lowering taxes for ten years, because they don't need to spend any more than they already had ten years ago. now after the hit, they raise taxes for two years, "filling the pot" if necessary, and then lower it again when it's all set. the mandatory contribution to FEMA is a waste for people like me, here in the massachusetts. i mean don't get me wrong, it's great that FEMA gets used for helping people in new york, louisiana, michigan and iowa. but honestly, i don't remember any kind of instance where FEMA has helped us in an emergency setting. therefore, i would personally suggest that massachusetts set up a MEMA type deal, and opt out of FEMA, because it's never helped. The whole thing is that it costs taxpayers, and it helps nobody here. If we set up our own 10M dollar thing (or whatever we decide), it would be more efficient if the day ever arises, and it would cost less over the long run.
-
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
The only solution would be to take random samples of the end product directly from the store shelves, and then test for accuracy of labeling and purity.
Which is pretty much what the FDA does with other products, with the minor difference that it takes these samples BEFORE they hit the store shelves.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Simple basic laws and categorizations are the only things such agency is to enforce.
Right... That's what the FDA enforces... What's your point?
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)Ian Shlasko wrote:
Right... That's what the FDA enforces... What's your point?
My point is that the FDA is known to engage in corruption, approving drugs that shouldn't go onto the market for the profits of specific corporations, and purposely sabotaging competing business by refusing to approve products that qualify to be approved or forcing repeated delays in the process. Its called the "revolving door" where certain special interest individuals work for the FDA, and then after their "job" is complete, they go work for the corporation that they helped while they were in the FDA.
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album (They sound very much like Metallica, great lyrics too)[^]
-
josda1000 wrote:
Not necessarily. It's never "only" this or "only" that. There are always small organizations. What about sabbaticals? What about missions of churches and such?
Ok, I shouldn't speak in such absolutes. But you have to admit the less "popular" causes would get MUCH less funding. I mean look how these things go nowadays. One year, tons and tons of people want to donate to cancer. One year it's AIDS, one year it's world hunger... What about the ones that are unpopular this year? The government is still putting down the money.
josda1000 wrote:
I did not know this, but I definitely understand that now. I might have to concede this point then, though I wouldn't mind trying a private sector postal service.
Right now, it looks like the Postal Service is operating kind of like the Fed (Which you loathe so much :) ), in that it's operated like a private company, but with special government-granted privileges: 1) The President and Senate appoint nine of the 11-person board of directors. That board then appoints a Postmaster General (CEO) and Deputy Postmaster General (COO). 2) It has sovereign immunity - It can't be sued or prosecuted (Unless the federal government allows it) 3) It can exert eminent domain 4) It can make postal treaties with other countries to deliver mail to them 5) And of course it gets a monopoly on first-class and third-class mail Interestingly enough, according to WP, there's only one company in the US that employs more people than the Postal Service..... Wait for it.... here it comes........ Walmart.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)Ian Shlasko wrote:
Right now, it looks like the Postal Service is operating kind of like the Fed (Which you loathe so much Smile )
damned right lol yeah i knew all of that, and i really dislike it, it's actually pretty scary. it looks like the post office could be even more powerful than the fed in a way... ah well. someday i shall grab power... and... and... muahahaha! lol
-
Examples, from the DOJ in Oregon: http://www.doj.state.or.us/charigroup/pdf/oregons_20_worst_charities.pdf[^]
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)Don't donate to them. It's that simple. You are going to get more corruption, fraud, and inefficiencies when your money is forcibly confiscated and you have no control what is done with it.
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album (They sound very much like Metallica, great lyrics too)[^]
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Right... That's what the FDA enforces... What's your point?
My point is that the FDA is known to engage in corruption, approving drugs that shouldn't go onto the market for the profits of specific corporations, and purposely sabotaging competing business by refusing to approve products that qualify to be approved or forcing repeated delays in the process. Its called the "revolving door" where certain special interest individuals work for the FDA, and then after their "job" is complete, they go work for the corporation that they helped while they were in the FDA.
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album (They sound very much like Metallica, great lyrics too)[^]
Then the solution is to fix the FDA, not abolish it. Just as I try, most of the time, to actually talk some sense into you, instead of just cursing at or ignoring you. If something doesn't work, you try to fix it.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel) -
yes, but think of it this way: all that money goes into a pot, again, to help people that you don't know, out in california or iowa for example, while you may never get any of that money in the state of new york. say i lived in texas and they had that TEMA. if i were to help out the pot in my state alone, they could stop the aggregation to that pot once they figured it got to a good level, and drop taxes a bit for say, ten years. once disaster hits, they have the equipement and people ready to fight it, even after lowering taxes for ten years, because they don't need to spend any more than they already had ten years ago. now after the hit, they raise taxes for two years, "filling the pot" if necessary, and then lower it again when it's all set. the mandatory contribution to FEMA is a waste for people like me, here in the massachusetts. i mean don't get me wrong, it's great that FEMA gets used for helping people in new york, louisiana, michigan and iowa. but honestly, i don't remember any kind of instance where FEMA has helped us in an emergency setting. therefore, i would personally suggest that massachusetts set up a MEMA type deal, and opt out of FEMA, because it's never helped. The whole thing is that it costs taxpayers, and it helps nobody here. If we set up our own 10M dollar thing (or whatever we decide), it would be more efficient if the day ever arises, and it would cost less over the long run.
It's like health or auto insurance. You pay into it, because you never know what might happen. Don't forget that something like an EMA would require continuous funding... The equipment gets purchased, sure, but it has to be maintained and kept up to date. The staff has to be paid and well-trained. The technology has to be kept current enough to be useful. FEMA can do all of these things, because it's large enough to make the overhead costs lower on a relative basis. Your solution might work, of course. I don't know the actual numbers going into this thing... I would guess that FEMA is only sized to be able to handle a couple big disasters at a time, so it's not fifty times as large as a state one would be. If that's true, then it's likely that each state is only paying 1/10th or 1/20th what it would cost to set up their own. It really comes down to a numbers game.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel) -
Then the solution is to fix the FDA, not abolish it. Just as I try, most of the time, to actually talk some sense into you, instead of just cursing at or ignoring you. If something doesn't work, you try to fix it.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)But as far as the federal reserve goes, it is the problem. The federal reserve is the problem with our economy, and the way to fix the economy is to simply terminate the federal reserve. It's like trying to fix a computer virus rather than simply deleting its presence throughout the system.
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album (They sound very much like Metallica, great lyrics too)[^]
-
But as far as the federal reserve goes, it is the problem. The federal reserve is the problem with our economy, and the way to fix the economy is to simply terminate the federal reserve. It's like trying to fix a computer virus rather than simply deleting its presence throughout the system.
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album (They sound very much like Metallica, great lyrics too)[^]
-1, Off-topic
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel) -
-1, Off-topic
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel) -
But... but... She can see Russia from her back porch, don'cha know!
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)Ian Shlasko wrote:
She can see Russia from her back porch, don'cha know!
My nephew just spent a year on Attu with the Coast Guard and he couldn't see Russia from his back porch. :laugh:
You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists.
-
Wow Ian, what a thorough response. Very good sir, this is how I know you're definitely a statist, and I hate you lol jk OK! Let's get to it.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Paul wants to stop foreign aid. So what, just let the third world rot?
No, not at all. The policy of a libertarian in this respect is to "be friends with all, but have entangling alliances with none." What's going on here is we're overseas spending money on militaristic issues that, you and I may agree, may be futile. I 100% believe that we should pull the troops home, permanently, from all bases far and wide, no matter what the original intentions were. This will save a ton of money, and may even be much safer than having foreign wars that were never declared in the first place. As for the aid itself, people always contribute to causes, no matter what they are, privately. Case in point, when hurricane Katrina happened in Louisiana, people from all over the United States contributed money to the cause, and I believe it still goes on today. When the earthquake happened in Haiti a month or two ago, people piled on money to be sent there to help out the people that live there as well. There are so many different funds for different things, but that can definitely be handled so much better in the private sector. When trying to set up funds for foreign aid through the government, the CIA usually gets a handle on it, and gets to prop up dictators instead of having it sent to the people who actually need it.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Paul wants to withdraw all participation and funding from the UN, ICC, NATO, WTO... I could rant on for a half hour about how stupid I think that is, but I'll just keep this brief and say that I STRONGLY disagree with that.
I side with Paul on this, though yes, it could be a very bad decision for the short term. I see one main problem being that the United Nations is actually on New York soil... and we just created INTERPOL... etc. But I still think it would be in the long term best interest of the people of the states. The Constitution is supposed to be our main law, not some other bureaucracy of nations. We are supposed to be a sovereign nation, not governed by a consensus of nations. It's just the principle of the thing.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Wants to remove a lot of federal agencies as part of shrinking government. Some of this, I can agree with..
josda1000 wrote:
The Constitution doesn't allow the federal government to deal with "energy".
They certainly have the power to regulate interstate commerce and very little "energy" distribution isn't interstate anymore.
josda1000 wrote:
The market can make a good solution for each situation the department supervises.
Do like Dub did and relegate energy "policy" to his cronies in Enron? :laugh:
You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists.
-
josda1000 wrote:
The Constitution doesn't allow the federal government to deal with "energy".
They certainly have the power to regulate interstate commerce and very little "energy" distribution isn't interstate anymore.
josda1000 wrote:
The market can make a good solution for each situation the department supervises.
Do like Dub did and relegate energy "policy" to his cronies in Enron? :laugh:
You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists.
Tim Craig wrote:
They certainly have the power to regulate interstate commerce
Yes, you're right. But in its original context, the Constitution is stating that the Congress has the power to regulate, meaning "to keep regular", meaning they have the power to make sure there is actually commerce between the states. It's not to mean that they have the power to make rules concerning how much power is consumed by one state or one person, and that sort of thing. So really there's no reason to make such an agency. Congress could make rules on the fly for that sort of thing, "to keep the flow of energy regular". Regulations are an arbitration of big government.
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Right now, it looks like the Postal Service is operating kind of like the Fed (Which you loathe so much Smile )
damned right lol yeah i knew all of that, and i really dislike it, it's actually pretty scary. it looks like the post office could be even more powerful than the fed in a way... ah well. someday i shall grab power... and... and... muahahaha! lol
josda1000 wrote:
ah well. someday i shall grab power... and... and... muahahaha! lol
Deliver mail?