Tuesday, September 07, 2010

Frame the issue

"The solution is not more taxes, it's more taxpayers."

I am so sick of hearing this. What is this a solution to? Is the problem that government doesn't have enough money? Why is our rallying cry "we need to create more taxpayers to make sure that the government is flush with cash!"

I like some of what I read in Chris Dudley's 26 point plan but let me summarize with my own three point plan:

1. Less government
2. Less government
3. Less government

As a wonderful byproduct of my three point plan we will achieve the following:

1. More liberty
2. More liberty
3. More liberty

I long for the day when we can get politicians to talk about government like Ronald Reagan did:

Man is not free unless government is limited.

Government always finds a need for whatever money it gets.


Government does not solve problems; it subsidizes them.

Government's first duty is to protect the people, not run their lives.

Government is like a baby. An alimentary canal with a loud voice at one end and no responsibility at the other.

19 comments:

Anonymous said...

Everybody called him, the coward of the countyyyy....

http://i.imgur.com/eSxA9.png

Anonymous said...

Just don't forget that Kitzhaber has a one step plan for Oregon: 1)Sales tax.

Anonymous said...

I don't understand why some people (like Miglavs) seem to define their entire being and existence on this world in terms of their relationship to government and what the government is somehow doing to them. If I spent half the time and energy as Miglavs obsessing about how the government is infringing upon my "liberty," I'd go fucking nuts. I go weeks, months, even, without having any contact with the government or any awareness that they're doing anything, other than maybe chatting with my mailman sometimes. Oh yes, sometimes I hear sirens wailing down on the main street, no doubt patrol cars loaded with jack-booted government thugs racing to infringe on someone's precious liberty. (Or, more likely, heading to the scene of an automobile accident or maybe a domestic disturbance).

What is it you want to do, Miglavs, that the government is keeping you from doing? Give us an example: How would you have exercised your beautiful liberty in the last month if the government had not been there to stop you? What do you want to do? Throw us a bone. Anything.

Or are you just blowing smoke out your dumb ass?

Robin said...

The best thing that we really need to do is just vote out all the incumbents and start over.

Because you know the only time that they really care about our opinions is during the elections, and they know that we are either going to do one of two things. Vote for the lesser of two evils (if we vote at all) or vote for whoever sounds more familiar.

But think about it, if we all decided just to clean house... imagine what type of message that that would send.

And I mean everybody... all the incumbents even if you liked them. You can reelect them next time.

I know one thing that I'm going to do for sure... is everybody that voted in favor of ObamaCare is definitely not going to get my vote

Anonymous said...

Within one year of enactment (2010-2011)

Insurance companies barred from dropping people from coverage when they get sick, ending the practice of rescission.

Lifetime coverage limits eliminated and annual limits restricted.

Young adults able to stay on their parents' health plans until age 26.

Uninsured adults with pre-existing conditions will be able to obtain health coverage through a new program

Insurance companies cannot deny group or new (non-grandfathered) individual coverage to children under age 19, due to a pre-existing condition.

A temporary reinsurance program is created to help companies maintain health coverage for early retirees between the ages of 55 and 64.

Medicare drug beneficiaries who fall into the "doughnut hole" coverage gap will get a $250 rebate.

A tax credit becomes available for some small businesses to help provide coverage for workers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_reform_in_the_United_States

http://i.imgur.com/eSxA9.png

Kaelri said...

Has it ever occurred to you that one of the reasons for the excess, ineffectiveness and corruption in government throughout the last half-century is that one of the dominant political parties is full of people who disdain and demonize the very job that they were elected to do? How can you possibly be motivated to serve the people and fulfill your end of the social contract - to do it at all, much less virtuously - if you believe that "government is the problem?"

Anonymous said...

Increasingly I found myself spending time with people of means – law firm partners and investment bankers, hedge fund managers, and venture capitalists… They reflected, almost uniformly, the perspectives of their class: the top 1 percent or so of the income scale that can afford to write a $2,000 check to a political candidate… They had no patience with protectionism, found unions troublesome, and were not particularly sympathetic to those whose lives were upended by the movement of global capital…

I know that as a consequence of my fundraising I became more like the wealthy donors that I met, in the sense that I spent more and more of my time above the fray, outside the world of immediate hunger, disappointment, fear, irrationality and frequent hardship of the other 99% of the population – that is the people that I entered public life to serve. And in one fashion or another, I suspect this is true for every Senator: The longer you are a Senator, the narrower the scope of your interactions. You may fight it… But your schedule dictates that you move in a different orbit from the people you represent.

--BHO

Anonymous said...

Why do I need my own blog when I can take over Daniels?

Here's some funny cat videos
http://mashable.com/2010/04/07/funny-cat-videos-youtube/

And an oldie but a goodie
http://lemonparty.org

Bobkatt said...

Kaelri- that philosophy might hold up if the excesses, ineffectiveness and corruption weren't exhibited by those that believe that "government is the answer" also. Those of us that feel that government is the problem have a different philosophy that believes that government has a limited duty and ability to effectively control a huge economy and determine what "free" people can and can't do. We feel that since the government is the only group that can legally use threat of force to accomplish it's goals it must be used judiciously and minimally.

Anonymous said...

TOP 10 WAYS THE GOVERNMENT INFRINGES UPON DANIEL MIGLAVS' PERSONAL LIBERTY:

10) Doesn't see why he shouldn't be able to go duck hunting in downtown Portland with a grenade launcher.

9) Resents being told he must wear a swimming suit in neighborhood pool.

8) If the government didn't "steal" his money to run local police department, he would use the tax savings to hire Blackwater badasses to patrol his front yard. [Note: This would pay for approximately 5 hours and 25 minutes of service]

7) Wants to be able to drive 120 miles an hour anywhere he wants and run red lights if he does so "responsibly."

6) Bombardment of scientific facts from government scientists prevents him from teaching his children the "truth" about evolution.

5) Enjoyment of Coors beer diminished by presence of Surgeon General's health warning on can.

4) Who needs public schools or libraries when you've got a Bible?

3) Pissed that school district won't let his kids carry loaded sidearms at school. (Because we'd all be safer if we all had a gun.)

2) Wants absolutely no restrictions on what he can build on his own lot (but would go apeshit if next-door neighbor decided to build a strip club on his lot).

... but the MAIN reason Miglavs thinks the government is infringing upon his liberty:

1) Wants to go back to selling crack.

Kaelri said...

Well, that's great. You've reduced Daniel's declaration of stark principle into a statement so abstract and equivocating that it can be just as accurately applied to the views of left-wing progressives. That may be how you feel, Bobkatt, but it's a far cry from "government does not solve problems."

What I'd like is to hear someone reconcile the spirit of Daniel's "three-point plan" with the policies he supports, and do so in a way that isn't either hypocritical or disingenuous. I want him to explain his opposition to the tax plan that gave him a tax cut along with 95% of American families. If he opposes federal stimulus spending in a recession, I want him to explain why. I am tired of hearing programs which would have been moderate, even conservative by the standards of the 40s and 60s, described as "socialist" by people who have apparently never read a book about the USSR. Actual conservatism is a virtue, and one we could use more of. But, if you'll forgive my saying so, the people around here are giving it a bad name.

A Liberty Lover said...

On the day that Miglavs' 3-point plan is implemented and the wonderful 3-point byproduct of unlimited liberty is realized, I'm going to buy all the lots on Miglavs street and build the following:

1) A slaughterhouse.
2) A swingers' club, with the brightest neon sign I can find.
3) Some industrial facility that requires a smokestack.
4) A marijuana/bong shop.
5) A homeless shelter that caters to gay people and immigrants.
6) Office space, leased to the ACLU, "Just Out," PCUN and the Democratic Party of Washington County.

Land-use regulations currently prohibit me from enjoying my liberty in the manner and place that I choose.

Liberty for all!

Daniel said...

Liberty lover,

In the interest of saving you some money can we combine numbers 2, 4 and 5 into one building?

Bobkatt said...

Kaelri-I was commenting on your comment not on Daniel's simple post.
The fact that you don't acknowledge that excesses, ineffectiviness and corruption are rampant in both parties slays me. You can't possibly be that brain washed.

As far as the current programs go you seem to be a little misled. In the 40s and 60s if the government proposed taking over GM, the health care system and telling CO's how much money they should make it would not only have been called socialism but they would have been sent packing.

Limiting government to it's constituted mandate is hardly a flaw. Working to eliminate rampant waste and corruption is hardly a flaw. Working to eliminate unnecessary and counter productive regulations is hardly a flaw.

I for one would be interested in learning what conservative values you think are virtuous.

Kaelri said...

"The fact that you don't acknowledge that excesses, ineffectiviness and corruption are rampant in both parties slays me."

I have at no point suggested that these problems are limited to members of the Republican party, nor that their self-abasing attitude is the sole or principal cause thereof. Please read my posts as carefully as I write them, and I will do the same for you.

As far as the current programs go you seem to be a little misled. In the 40s and 60s if the government proposed taking over GM, the health care system and telling CO's how much money they should make it would not only have been called socialism but they would have been sent packing.

...yeah. How about if a president in the 40s proposed a national system of retirement pensions to be paid out of the federal budget, closed every bank in the country until reopening them under Treasury Department control, and employed millions of people in public works programs? Could this socialist bastard be reelected three times? Or if a president in the 60s gave unconditional medical insurance to welfare recipients?

Can we be realists? No legislation signed by this president is even comparable to the New Deal or the Great Society - regardless of whether that fact pleases or disappoints you. (As for GM, by the way, I'd remind you that TARP was signed into law by George W. Bush and voted for by then-Republican presidential candidate John McCain. Not exactly a pair of pinko commies.)

"Limiting government to it's constituted mandate is hardly a flaw. Working to eliminate rampant waste and corruption is hardly a flaw. Working to eliminate unnecessary and counter productive regulations is hardly a flaw."

I don't know what prompted this stirring defense, but once again, you seem to have divorced it from specific policy suggestions such that no one could possibly disagree. It's not like anyone supports waste and corruption - like Democrats are running on a platform to burn money and grant pardons to the mafia and melt ice cream and kick puppies. Stop pretending your opponents are Disney villains and just explain what you would do differently.

Kaelri said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ted said...

http://i.imgur.com/qXyHc.png

Bobkatt said...

Kaelri- You said:

I have at no point suggested that these problems are limited to members of the Republican party, nor that their self-abasing attitude is the sole or principal cause thereof.

No you didn't but you did say:

Has it ever occurred to you that one of the reasons for the excess, ineffectiveness and corruption in government throughout the last half-century is that one of the dominant political parties is full of people who disdain and demonize the very job that they were elected to do?

I won't attempt to apologize for the Republicans because I feel most of them are not very conservative either. But I don't see why you think they are "self-abasing" According to the
Wikipedia definition: "Self-abasement is voluntary self-punishment or humiliation in order to atone for some real or imagined wrongdoing." I don't see any of the top two parties suggesting any voluntary self-punishment or eliminating their own jobs. I don't see any of them even suggesting reducing any of their own power except perhaps Ron Paul. If one had to apply the term self-abasing on any major party it would have to be the Democrats who bend over backwards to atone for real or imagined sins. They apologize for everything including America's greatness.

I'm sorry if you are under the impression that John McCain and George W. Bush are conservatives.

Democrats are not my opponents. I simply wish to reign in government excesses. Excesses that are neither prudently or constitutionally the purview of the Federal Government. I believe in the ability and resourcefulness of the American people to run their own lives and determine their own destiny. The government needs to guarantee equal opportunities but not necessarily equal outcomes.

What would I have done differently? I don't really know but I would not have surrounded myself with the same people that helped cause the problem. I would realize that you can not spend your way out of debt and you can't reward bad behavior. I would acknowledge that you can't run a huge economy by simply moving money around, you have to produce things that other people want and can afford. I would also realize that you can not micromanage the economy because you can not anticipate the unintended consequences.

how to get rid of genital warts said...

Just don't forget that Kitzhaber has a one step plan for Oregon: 1)Sales tax.