And yet another Bentivolio fail

[angelatc]

Bolding mine:


I voted ‘yes’ on the Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness Reauthorization Act of 2013. This bill reauthorizes and caps the spending (at 2012 levels with no increase in spending for inflation) of a program that facilitates the development of chemical, biological, radioactive and nuclear medical countermeasures and bolsters the nation’s preparedness infrastructure so the nation can better respond to public health emergencies, including those caused by a chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear (CBRN) attack. This program is particularly important to the national security of our country because in the event of a biological, chemical, or nuclear attack the medical countermeasures, such as vaccines and antibiotics for biological attacks, are not likely to be manufactured in the private marketplace due to the rarity of these attacks. At the same time, it is not acceptable to be unprepared in the event of this type of national emergency. As a result, it is proper for the Federal Government to have these resources readily available in the event of an attack pursuant to the General Welfare Clause of the US Constitution. The bill passed 395-29.

https://www.facebook.com/repkerryb/posts/330314253739203




He's telling us that markets don't work, and mis-interpreting the General Welfare clause.

[Darguth]

He's telling us that markets don't work, and mis-interpreting the General Welfare clause.

Out of curiosity, how would you explain a free market creating ample vaccinations and preventative measures for something like a large-scale biological attack?

[EBounding]

Amash and Massie voted no, for everyone's information.

It's starting to get to the point where we should have just let Cassis win. At least we would have saved time and money.

[Darguth]

It's starting to get to the point where we should have just let Cassis win. At least we would have saved time and money.

If nothing else we flexed our muscles and showed our ability to get "our guy" elected, even if he's turning out to not really be "our guy".

[talkingpointes]

So rather then refuting the central argument you create a strawman. Are you trying to work out your arms by carrying water ?

[tsai3904]

Amash and Massie voted no, for everyone's information.

It's starting to get to the point where we should have just let Cassis win. At least we would have saved time and money.

There have been many bills where Amash and Massie voted opposite each other and many bills where Amash and Paul voted opposite each other.

[mz10]

So rather then refuting the central argument you create a strawman. Are you trying to work out your arms by carrying water ?

It's the same argument that led us to the TSA: Terrorist attacks are so rare that free markets (such as private security) cannot adequately prepare for them.

[talkingpointes]

It's the same argument that led us to the TSA: Terrorist attacks are so rare that free markets (such as private security) cannot adequately prepare for them.

Yet since the government took over and adopted their new foreign policy terrorist attacks have been en vogue for the would be mentally ill. I agree.

[EBounding]

There have been many bills where Amash and Massie voted opposite each other and many bills where Amash and Paul voted opposite each other.

Oh I know, I was just giving people a quick reference here.

I think what bothers me most about this vote is he justifies it with the general welfare clause. Congress is responsible for promoting the general welfare, but only through it's enumerated powers. I get the sinking feeling that's how he's going to justify everything else from now on....

[erowe1]

Out of curiosity, how would you explain a free market creating ample vaccinations and preventative measures for something like a large-scale biological attack?

First, in a free market, you'd be able to buy every kind of vaccine and medication you want, in as large a quantity as you want, without a prescription. People who believe there's a risk of a large-scale biological attack who want to prepare for it by hoarding those things would be able to.

Without the government doing this, would there be any private entity that would in such large quantities? Who knows? There are two possibilities. Either someone out there would weigh the risk versus the reward for stocking up large supplies of medicines for such a catastrophe and decide that it's worth it and do it, or nobody would. If nobody would, then that means it's not worth it, according to the people themselves whose money the government is spending.

[cajuncocoa]

So rather then refuting the central argument you create a strawman. Are you trying to work out your arms by carrying water ?
Yes, didn't you get the memo? It's all about winning elections now, even if those elections yield counterproductive results. :rolleyes:

[mz10]

Yes, didn't you get the memo? It's all about winning elections now, even if those elections yield counterproductive results. :rolleyes:

We still have to try to win elections. 90% of the time the people we support turn out to be good. Look at Massie, some people had serious questions about him and so far he's turned out to be dynamite.

Bentivolio is a very unusual case because he was so horrendously unprepared for this position, and as a result was easily corrupted by leadership.

[tsai3904]

Yes, didn't you get the memo? It's all about winning elections now, even if those elections yield counterproductive results. :rolleyes:

In all the interviews Kerry gave, he said the right things. How else was anyone suppose to judge him? If you can't trust someone who says the right things, how do you support anyone?

[cajuncocoa]

We still have to try to win elections. 90% of the time the people we support turn out to be good. Look at Massie, some people had serious questions about him and so far he's turned out to be dynamite.

Bentivolio is a very unusual case because he was so horrendously unprepared for this position, and as a result was easily corrupted by leadership.
Before we go all in for someone in the future, we should make sure we've done our research.

[cajuncocoa]

In all the interviews Kerry gave, he said the right things. How else was anyone suppose to judge him? If you can't trust someone who says the right things, how do you support anyone?
OMG, you know what this sounds like?? You don't want to know, do you?

[tsai3904]

OMG, you know what this sounds like?? You don't want to know, do you?

??

[erowe1]

I remember talking to John Hostettler about why he didn't vote no on everything that's not constitutional like Ron Paul, and he said something like, sometimes when they're whipping up votes you can use your yes vote as leverage to keep stuff out of the bill, knowing that if they can't get yours, they'll go get someone else's who's going to do the opposite and make it worse not better.

I couldn't fault him for that reasoning. And when it came to the major things, like the Iraq War, Medicare D, No Child Left Behind, treaties, and other big foreign policy things, he always voted no. If Bentivolio turns out to be like that, then I'll still support him. The data we have from him so far doesn't add up to enough of a big picture for me to say yes or no about that.

[belian78]

Before we go all in for someone in the future, we should make sure we've done our research.
Of course, but to be fair Kerry had no prior voting history to judge his rhetoric against. So, in this case, lesson learned. He'll just figure out how fast those that took him to where he is can remove him.

[tsai3904]

Before we go all in for someone in the future, we should make sure we've done our research.

Didn't we? We had many Ron Paul supporters on the ground working for him. He gave a lengthy interview on various policy topics from drugs to foreign policy to the federal reserve. What more research do you expect to have done?

[cajuncocoa]

??
Read what you posted again. Now tell me what that says about trust and honesty.

And then think about where else on this board have we applied that same argument.....

[mz10]

I remember talking to John Hostettler about why he didn't vote no on everything that's not constitutional like Ron Paul, and he said something like, sometimes when they're whipping up votes you can use your yes vote as leverage to keep stuff out of the bill, knowing that if they can't get yours, they'll go get someone else's who's going to do the opposite and make it worse not better.

I couldn't fault him for that reasoning. And when it came to the major things, like the Iraq War, Medicare D, No Child Left Behind, treaties, and other big foreign policy things, he always voted no. If Bentivolio turns out to be like that, then I'll still support him. The data we have from him so far doesn't add up to enough of a big picture for me to say yes or no about that.

Is he really savvy enough to do that? Maybe he's a political mastermind underneath the surface, but I doubt it.

[Sola_Fide]

Yes, didn't you get the memo? It's all about winning elections now, even if those elections yield counterproductive results. :rolleyes:

Cajuncocoa, I wouldn't mind the posters like you who constantly disparriage any of our electoral successes, IF you would also give praise to people like Massie who actually have proven to be principled. I haven't seen you post in a Massie thread lately....which tells me that you are not being consistent.

[ronpaulfollower999]

I was never much of a Bentivolio fan. I'm guessing he's not going back on Defenders of Liberty anytime soon.

[tsai3904]

Read what you posted again. Now tell me what that says about trust and honesty.

You do understand that trust and honesty are two different things. I can trust Kerry to do the right thing but if he doesn't, it doesn't mean he wasn't honest. Based on his rhetoric in many interviews, I trusted him to vote in a certain way. If Kerry had said I will never vote to raise the debt ceiling under any circumstances, then yea, he was dishonest.

[cajuncocoa]

Cajuncocoa, I wouldn't mind the posters like you who constantly disparriage any of our electoral successes, IF you would also give praise to people like Massie who actually have proven to be principled. I haven't seen you post in a Massie thread lately....which tells me that you are not being consistent.
Yay, Massie!! Woo-hoo!!

Satisfied?

P.S. I like Amash too....Go, Justin!

[cajuncocoa]

I was never much of a Bentivolio fan. I'm guessing he's not going back on Defenders of Liberty anytime soon.
I wasn't either. There was always something off-putting about him to me.

[mz10]

I wasn't either. There was always something off-putting about him to me.

Maybe the fact that he barely knows how to talk in complete sentences?

[cajuncocoa]

You do understand that trust and honesty are two different things. I can trust Kerry to do the right thing but if he doesn't, it doesn't mean he wasn't honest. Based on his rhetoric in many interviews, I trusted him to vote in a certain way. If Kerry had said I will never vote to raise the debt ceiling under any circumstances, then yea, he was dishonest.
My point is that the only thing people have is a candidate's word on issues when they go to the polls to vote for him/her. It's not a good thing when said candidate only panders to a group to get them suckered in and then turns into something the voters didn't expect. Where have we talked about that before? :rolleyes:

[Sola_Fide]

Yay, Massie!! Woo-hoo!!

Satisfied?

Ah, so you don't care to be a consistent person then? Well, fine. I won't take anything you say seriously. Thanks for the heads up.

[cajuncocoa]

Ah, so you don't care to be a consistent person then? Well, fine. I won't take anything you say seriously. Thanks for the heads up.
I get the feeling you didn't take anything I said seriously before now, but that's OK. I guess you're just feeling a bit snarky this morning.

[angelatc]

Out of curiosity, how would you explain a free market creating ample vaccinations and preventative measures for something like a large-scale biological attack?

We have no evidence that government vaccine and preparedness programs will work either. No solution will ever be perfect, but the free markets always work the most efficiently.

Watching the growing fascination (for lack of a better word) that Americans have for preppers and the like, I can't quite believe that there wouldn't be a market for vaccines and preventative measures in the private sector.

[VBRonPaulFan]

Out of curiosity, how would you explain a free market creating ample vaccinations and preventative measures for something like a large-scale biological attack?

The free market isn't making those things because they aren't needed and there is no (or very little) demand for it. What Kerry is really saying here is that he doesn't have enough faith in Americans to prepare themselves so he's going to force them to prepare, instead. Gee, what a great guy.

[jcannon98188]

Ah, so you don't care to be a consistent person then? Well, fine. I won't take anything you say seriously. Thanks for the heads up.
Or, perhaps, cajuncocoa just hasn't spent any time in the Massie and Amash forums? Personally, I am a huge fan of Justin Amash, and agree with him on a vast majority of what he says. I just never spend time on his subforum. I see everything he does on Facebook. If you criticize one person, and don't praise another that isn't inconsistency. What would be inconsistent would be if cajuncocoa attacked Rand for doing something, then praised Amash or Massie for doing the exact same thing.

[Sola_Fide]

I get the feeling you didn't take anything I said seriously before now, but that's OK. I guess you're just feeling a bit snarky this morning.


Well, one of the things I look for and respect about people is consistency. All of us should strive to be consistent in our lives and thinking. If not, why should anyone take what we say seriously?

[angelatc]

I was never much of a Bentivolio fan. I'm guessing he's not going back on Defenders of Liberty anytime soon.


I actually gave him money. Which is really quite a hardship for us these days. I think that gives me a right to bitch, even though I don't live in his district and therefore did not vote for him.

I didn't pimp for him like I did Amash though, so I am happy that my beg list is still uncontaminated.

[EBounding]

Watching the growing fascination (for lack of a better word) that Americans have for preppers and the like, I can't quite believe that there wouldn't be a market for vaccines and preventative measures in the private sector.

Why would there be a market for it if the government just crowds them out? It's almost like a self-fulfilling prophesy.

I gave him quite a bit of money too, even though I don't live in the district. I think I gave more to him than Amash. He's going to have to do something extraordinary before he gets another dollar from me.

[Sola_Fide]

Or, perhaps, cajuncocoa just hasn't spent any time in the Massie and Amash forums? Personally, I am a huge fan of Justin Amash, and agree with him on a vast majority of what he says. I just never spend time on his subforum. I see everything he does on Facebook. If you criticize one person, and don't praise another that isn't inconsistency. What would be inconsistent would be if cajuncocoa attacked Rand for doing something, then praised Amash or Massie for doing the exact same thing.

In my view it is inconsistent to say "I will criticize them when they vote against my principles, but not say anything good when they consistently vote along with my principles". It is troll behavior. Be consistent and praise the liberty folks that do the right things. Don't just sit on a computer and throw bombs at everything.

[KingNothing]

Out of curiosity, how would you explain a free market creating ample vaccinations and preventative measures for something like a large-scale biological attack?


There is no free market solution to this situation. I give him a pass on this issue, though I wish he would have voted against it. That said, this could certainly be viewed as defense spending, for the sake of defense. As far as types of spending go, I don't have as much of a problem with that sort.

[kathy88]

Cajun is about as consistent as they come.

[cajuncocoa]

Or, perhaps, cajuncocoa just hasn't spent any time in the Massie and Amash forums? Personally, I am a huge fan of Justin Amash, and agree with him on a vast majority of what he says. I just never spend time on his subforum. I see everything he does on Facebook. If you criticize one person, and don't praise another that isn't inconsistency. What would be inconsistent would be if cajuncocoa attacked Rand for doing something, then praised Amash or Massie for doing the exact same thing.

This....I have not spent much time in either Massie's or Amash's subforums. I don't go to particular subforums, I use the "New Posts" feature and then check thread titles for things that interest me.

Well, one of the things I look for and respect about people is consistency. All of us should strive to be consistent in our lives and thinking. If not, why should anyone take what we say seriously?


In my view it is inconsistent to say "I will criticize candidates when they vote against my principles, but not say anything good when the candidates vote along with my principles". It is troll behavior. Be consistent and praise the liberty candidates that do the right things. Don't just sit on a computer and throw bombs at everything.

I just went over to Massie's subforum and it didn't take long for me to find something to praise about him (and I commented). I will strive to pay more attention to him in the future. I am already following Justin Amash's actions on Facebook.

[tsai3904]

My point is that the only thing people have is a candidate's word on issues when they go to the polls to vote for him/her. It's not a good
thing when said candidate only panders to a group to get them suckered in and then turns into something the voters didn't expect.

If you want to say Rand is pandering to certain groups, I agree completely with you because you do that to appeal to as many constituencies as you can to win. However, you don't pander to a certain group when you have a less than 1% chance of winning. If you think Kerry was pandering when he gave his lengthy policy interview before McCotter dropped out, then I think there are some trust issues.

[cajuncocoa]

If you want to say Rand is pandering to certain groups, I agree completely with you because you do that to appeal to as many constituencies as you can to win. However, you don't pander to a certain group when you have a less than 1% chance of winning. If you think Kerry was pandering when he gave his lengthy policy interview before McCotter dropped out, then I think there are some trust issues.
I didn't even mention Rand, but I guess I didn't need to.

[tsai3904]

I didn't even mention Rand, but I guess I didn't need to.

Yea you didnt need to mention him because that seems to be the only topic I see you ever commenting on.

[cajuncocoa]

Yea you didnt need to mention him because that seems to be the only topic I see you ever commenting on.You need to get around more.

[FSP-Rebel]

Cajun is about as consistent as they come.
From what I've seen, I can agree on that.:p

[cajuncocoa]

Cajun is about as consistent as they come.Thanks, Kathy :)


From what I've seen, I can agree on that.:p
I'll take that as a compliment from you as well....I do try. ;)

[Darguth]

We have no evidence that government vaccine and preparedness programs will work either. No solution will ever be perfect, but the free markets always work the most efficiently.

Watching the growing fascination (for lack of a better word) that Americans have for preppers and the like, I can't quite believe that there wouldn't be a market for vaccines and preventative measures in the private sector.

I'm not trying to justify this vote or play Devil's Advocate, I'm just somewhat musing out-loud (textually...) but I'm actually not sure with something like this you're going to get a perfectly efficient system like this without the forethought of a large agency (not saying a government agency, but some kind of conglomerate of individuals).

Most people aren't going to necessarily weigh ALL of the costs when making a consumer choice like getting vaccinated. For instance the average consumer would likely compare the price of the vaccine to the perceived risk to their individual self of not being vaccinated. However, they won't usually consider the social costs associated with not getting vaccinated. With a contagion this could include the additional costs of spreading the disease if you contract it, etc.

So while I think a free market could provide the research and analysis needed to find an appropriate cost and supply level, I don't think it's as simple as some would suggest for this particular economic segment.

Also, I'm unconvinced that a government agency is Constitutionally improper (even if a free market solution could theoretically provide a more efficient instrument for delivery). While I don't think this falls under the General Welfare clause as Bentivolio suggests, may it not fall under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1, "The Congress shall have power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States"

Thoughts? I'm willing to be educated on how this is not a Common Defense issue.

[angelatc]

In my view it is inconsistent to say "I will criticize them when they vote against my principles, but not say anything good when they consistently vote along with my principles". It is troll behavior. Be consistent and praise the liberty folks that do the right things. Don't just sit on a computer and throw bombs at everything.

Justin Amash has about 42,000 likes for his post explaining why he voted no. Last time I checked, Bentivolio has 6 likes, and 6 crabby comments. I think we're showing the love adequately.

[angelatc]

I'm not trying to justify this vote or play Devil's Advocate, I'm just somewhat musing out-loud (textually...) but I'm actually not sure with something like this you're going to get a perfectly efficient system like this without the forethought of a large agency (not saying a government agency, but some kind of conglomerate of individuals).

Most people aren't going to necessarily weigh ALL of the costs when making a consumer choice like getting vaccinated. For instance the average consumer would likely compare the price of the vaccine to the perceived risk to their individual self of not being vaccinated. However, they won't usually consider the social costs associated with not getting vaccinated. With a contagion this could include the additional costs of spreading the disease if you contract it, etc.

So while I think a free market could provide the research and analysis needed to find an appropriate cost and supply level, I don't think it's as simple as some would suggest for this particular economic segment.

Also, I'm unconvinced that a government agency is Constitutionally improper (even if a free market solution could theoretically provide a more efficient instrument for delivery). While I don't think this falls under the General Welfare clause as Bentivolio suggests, may it not fall under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1, "The Congress shall have power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States"

Thoughts? I'm willing to be educated on how this is not a Common Defense issue.

As it stands, we don't even yet know what's in the bill.

As for your post, you're making the same argument - that people aren't going to spend their money properly, and will make the wrong choices because they don't assign the same risk value that the government does. Therefore, the government ( or maybe an agency, for the anarchists among us) needs to force them to make the right choice.

That's the thought process that makes me bang me head, hard, against nearby wooden things. Leave me and my choices the fuck alone. The free market always works more efficiently. The government is always the least efficient option. It really is that simple.

I'm too lazy to run upstairs and get my book, but Tom Woods has documented the discussions the founders had over this. One of them (maybe Madison?) specifically clarified that it would be ridiculous to assert that it applied to anything except the enumerated powers, because then it would mean that the federal government could do anything they wanted to do in the name of General Welfare.

If it is defense spending, put it in the Pentagon's budget.

Edited because I found the quote:


"If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare,
and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare,
they may take the care of religion into their own hands;
they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish
and pay them out of their public treasury;
they may take into their own hands the education of children,
establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union;
they may assume the provision of the poor;
they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads;
in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation
down to the most minute object of police,
would be thrown under the power of Congress.... Were the power
of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for,
it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature
of the limited Government established by the people of America."

[Darguth]

As it stands, we don't even yet know what's in the bill.

Right, and that's why we're mostly speaking in theoreticals.


As for your post, you're making the same argument - that people aren't going to spend their money properly, and will make the wrong choices because they don't assign the same risk value that the government does. Therefore, the government ( or maybe an agency, for the anarchists among us) needs to force them to make the right choice.

That's the thought process that makes me bang me head, hard, against nearby wooden things. Leave me and my choices the fuck alone.

I think you're extrapolating assumptions beyond what I've actually posited. I never actually advocated anyone being forced to do jack-shit, so don't go there. I was simply stating that I don't think individuals always make the best economic decisions. Even in an anarcho-capitalist model you're going to have agencies/corporations/call-them-whatever-you-wants that will be engaged in large-scale economic analysis.

Those agencies will sell that analysis as a service to individuals or voluntary collectives to guide economic decisions. It's entirely possible that those agencies will only provide services at some form of higher voluntary-collective model where such collectives choose to insulate themselves with a vaccination because such a scheme might be totally untenable at an individual level given the details of the contagion/threat in question.

For example it's not particularly feasible for individuals to be able to make price-risk decisions for a missile defense grid to deter or defeat a nuclear attack. That's the kind of decision that likely could only be done on a collective level.


The free market always works more efficiently. The government is always the least efficient option. It really is that simple.

I'm not disagreeing with you on this. However, I do think "we" sometimes view this in a more stark black-and-white extreme than it really is. I describe myself as an idyllic anarcho-capitalist that is pragmatically a Constitutional minarchist. My explanation for this stance is that while I agree that a free market would always provide a more efficient system, that a--properly controlled and restrained--limited government would be negligibly less efficient than a voluntary collective might be.

So it would be better to, in the short-term, advocate for a reduction to a minimalist government that only provides services in arenas where it's theoretical inefficiencies against a free market solution are the smallest. Providing for a common defense is one of those areas (again, in a theoretically idyllic and minimalist Constitutional government--not what we have now).

This to me is a more desirable option than forever banging our collective heads into nearby, hard, wooden objects. Incrementalism works for the statists, it can work for us too.


If it is defense spending, put it in the Pentagon's budget.

This, to me, is pretty much a very small technical issue. Sure, if it's for the Common Defense it should be bucketed as such. However, I think whether or not it is justified spending is orders-of-magnitude higher in importance.

[itshappening]

I think you need to see how he votes many different times before drawing a conclusion.

I am sure tsai is keeping score and so are JBS, Freedomworks etc. many of them only use "key votes" to assess performance. There are a lot of votes that don't mean much in the grand scheme of things..

[twomp]

I think you need to see how he votes many different times before drawing a conclusion.

I am sure tsai is keeping score and so are JBS, Freedomworks etc. many of them only use "key votes" to assess performance. There are a lot of votes that don't mean much in the grand scheme of things..

In case you already forgot, Bentivolio voted to RAISE the debt limit a few weeks ago. I don't know how many more votes you need to "keep track" of.

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2013/roll030.xml

[klamath]

I think he is wrong on general welfare but I consider this national defense. I support his vote.

[sailingaway]

yikes

[sailingaway]

I think he is wrong on general welfare but I consider this national defense. I support his vote.

the general welfare bit is concerning in any event. explaining your votes only helps you if your explanation is constitutionally sound.

[cajuncocoa]

Yay, Massie!! Woo-hoo!!

Satisfied?

P.S. I like Amash too....Go, Justin!
http://s17.postimage.org/92baw9mzz/Capture.jpg

Pound sand, Capt.

[angelatc]

the general welfare bit is concerning in any event. explaining your votes only helps you if your explanation is constitutionally sound.

That's a good point. If he had said this was, in his opinion, for the national defense (which I still think is a load of crap, but regardless....) we could crab about the spending, but at least the constitutional issue would be clear.

[Brian4Liberty]

First, in a free market, you'd be able to buy every kind of vaccine and medication you want, in as large a quantity as you want, without a prescription. People who believe there's a risk of a large-scale biological attack who want to prepare for it by hoarding those things would be able to.

Without the government doing this, would there be any private entity that would in such large quantities? Who knows? There are two possibilities. Either someone out there would weigh the risk versus the reward for stocking up large supplies of medicines for such a catastrophe and decide that it's worth it and do it, or nobody would. If nobody would, then that means it's not worth it, according to the people themselves whose money the government is spending.

That is the situation. It's not worth it to create a huge supply of perishable vaccines for a very unlikely event, which will go bad and never be used. How many preppers have a fridge full of vaccines? If they create a demand, someone would create a supply at some price. The actual production price may create a minimum price where no preppers will buy.

Of course the government will buy at any price, and not worry about having to repeat the process over and over as supplies expire. Deep pockets that the pharma industry loves to pick. Why sell a few to some crazy preppers when you can sell a ton to the government?


I'm not trying to justify this vote or play Devil's Advocate, I'm just somewhat musing out-loud (textually...) but I'm actually not sure with something like this you're going to get a perfectly efficient system like this without the forethought of a large agency (not saying a government agency, but some kind of conglomerate of individuals).

Most people aren't going to necessarily weigh ALL of the costs when making a consumer choice like getting vaccinated. For instance the average consumer would likely compare the price of the vaccine to the perceived risk to their individual self of not being vaccinated. However, they won't usually consider the social costs associated with not getting vaccinated. With a contagion this could include the additional costs of spreading the disease if you contract it, etc.

So while I think a free market could provide the research and analysis needed to find an appropriate cost and supply level, I don't think it's as simple as some would suggest for this particular economic segment.

Also, I'm unconvinced that a government agency is Constitutionally improper (even if a free market solution could theoretically provide a more efficient instrument for delivery). While I don't think this falls under the General Welfare clause as Bentivolio suggests, may it not fall under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1, "The Congress shall have power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States"

Thoughts? I'm willing to be educated on how this is not a Common Defense issue.

It could be construed as a Defense issue. That would fit better than "General Welfare" application.

It comes down to cost/benefit. If the private market won't spend the money, why should the government take the money from us and spend it anyway (with massive middlemen costs)? There are a million things that could be sold to the government (and are on a regular basis). Crony corporatists love this arrangement.

Why doesn't the government purchase a billion cans of corn in case there is a corn crop failure in the future? And throw them all away when they go bad and then do it all over again. Where does it stop? This a just case of a clever sales pitch for government spending.

[erowe1]

In case you already forgot, Bentivolio voted to RAISE the debt limit a few weeks ago. I don't know how many more votes you need to "keep track" of.

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2013/roll030.xml

I think you need to keep track of all of them and compare him to what the alternative is.

[TCE]

His anti-liberty votes far out number his pro-liberty votes at this point. Heck, I can't remember the last time this guy voted for liberty. Face it, we probably got duped. I call it the Jaynee Germond: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?395172-Jaynee-Germond-endorsed-by-Ron-Paul-Blames-Ron-Paul-for-destroying-America&highlight=Jaynee+Germond

[Occam's Banana]

Has Bentivolio made any "good" votes? I haven't followed him closely, but so far all the votes of his that I've heard about have been "bad" ones.

And how did Yoho vote on this? Have his votes been "good" or "bad" (in general)? Maybe he can be our third musketeer ...

[tsai3904]

Has Bentivolio made any "good" votes?

He voted correctly on all the Sandy related amendments and final passage.

[sailingaway]

That Stockman guy Ron donated to does a bunch of stuff I like. I haven't been following his voting record, just his twitter account, so it may be slanted, but I am favorably impressed

I'll find Yoho on twitter and follow him as well.

---
huh, can't find it, just references to him. I asked someone posting about him what his twitter name is, but if someone here has his account, I'd appreciate it if you posted it.

[TCE]

Has Bentivolio made any "good" votes? I haven't followed him closely, but so far all the votes of his that I've heard about have been "bad" ones.

And how did Yoho vote on this? Have his votes been "good" or "bad" (in general)? Maybe he can be our third musketeer ...

And that post, right there, is a problem. When you don't even know what good votes he's cast, then he is not "our" guy. As Tsai points out, he did vote correctly on the Sandy amendments, but there is a lot more stick than carrot here.

@Sailing: You mean Stockman?

[jcannon98188]

I was simply stating that I don't think individuals always make the best economic decisions.
I don't actually know anyone who is 16trillion in debt do you?

[TCE]

I don't actually know anyone who is 16trillion in debt do you?

I know over 300 million people who collectively are.

[EBounding]

Has Bentivolio made any "good" votes? I haven't followed him closely, but so far all the votes of his that I've heard about have been "bad" ones.

And how did Yoho vote on this? Have his votes been "good" or "bad" (in general)? Maybe he can be our third musketeer ...

To his credit, Bentivolio did vote against the Sandy funding and got a lot of outside grief from other people.

Yoho voted Yea for this bill.


Amash has a good explanation:


This bill has no CBO score (which would provide an estimate of how the entire bill impacts the budget). I now know that one of the largest reauthorizations—$3.2 billion—is for an award program for state and local governments to help further the goals of the National Health Security Strategy. The program requires state matching funds and requires states to maintain funding of "public health security" at a set level for an unspecified period of time—presumably even after the federal award is long gone. I oppose these types of grant programs because they divert the time and resources of state and local governments to federal priorities that the localities might not otherwise pursue or might pursue using alternative strategies that better fit local needs. In short, these grant programs incentivize waste. The bill passed 395-29.

[tsai3904]

That Stock.... whosis guy Ron donated to does a bunch of stuff I like. I haven't been following his voting record, just his twitter account, so it may be slanted, but I am favorably impressed

I'll find Yoho on twitter and follow him as well.

Stockman voted to raise FEMA's debt limit by $9 billion.

So far, Yoho, has been the one voting most similar to Amash and Massie.

[sailingaway]

Stockman voted to raise FEMA's debt limit by $9 billion.

So far, Yoho, has been the one voting most similar to Amash and Massie.

Do you have his twitter account?

I will tell you, and I know it is heresy, but at the end of the day if one guy's bad votes are just a couple of $9 billion funding bills in their entire term (unfortunately marginal to our problem) I am going to consider them a pretty strong contender against the field. If they had a TON of those, or a $100 billion dollar one or something, it would be different. I do allow SOME fudging, in the margins as I see them, until I get perfection, which I am always seeking, of course. Particularly when congressmen are finding their feet.

Was the vote to raise FEMA the same as the one Amash commented on which PERPETUALLY increased operational activity of an agency? Because that would be worse, but in the end of the day, again, may sort out to be a freshman mistake. They have to train their staff to the details the grass roots require. We are more demanding than legislative staff in DC are used to.

--

and yes, TCE, I was speaking of Stockman, thanks.

[Lucille]

That Stockman guy Ron donated to does a bunch of stuff I like. I haven't been following his voting record, just his twitter account, so it may be slanted, but I am favorably impressed

I'll find Yoho on twitter and follow him as well.

---
huh, can't find it, just references to him. I asked someone posting about him what his twitter name is, but if someone here has his account, I'd appreciate it if you posted it.

New: https://twitter.com/RepTedYoho

Old: https://twitter.com/TedYoho

[Michigan11]

This really sucks people. We should be mad as hell about Reindeer Man using the commerce clause

[sailingaway]

https://twitter.com/RepTedYoho

Thank you!

[sailingaway]

This really sucks people. We should be mad as hell about Reindeer Man using the commerce clause

a principle error of that sort is certainly worse to me. If it is an educational lapse and he sees the light he might win me back, but at this point he isn't one of my guys, despite the fact that I donated to him (not a ton.)

[Michigan11]

a principle error of that sort is certainly worse to me. If it is an educational lapse and he sees the light he might win me back, but at this point he isn't one of my guys, despite the fact that I donated to him (not a ton.)

Agreed. I wonder if he is being medicated for something at this point. He could possibly be mentally ill for all we know

[TCE]

This really sucks people. We should be mad as hell about Reindeer Man using the commerce clause

Have you altered your "let's wait and see on Kerry" stance?

[Darguth]

I don't actually know anyone who is 16trillion in debt do you?

The USA's GDP is roughly $15 trillion. So we're *roughly* in 1 year's worth of "income" in debt (not counting unfunded liabilities). I don't know anyone who is in $16 trillion of debt, but I do know plenty of people that make say $30k a year that have $30k or more in debt. Feel free to replace $30k with any reasonable income number for low- or lower-middle class individuals and it'll hold true in plenty of examples.

[sailingaway]

Agreed. I wonder if he is being medicated for something at this point. He could possibly be mentally ill for all we know

He might just be uneducated. The Constitution isn't just a platitude you throw around, it is a system of literal checks and balances. Maybe we should send him some of Ron's youtubes on the subject of the welfare clause...

[tsai3904]

Was the vote to raise FEMA the same as the one Amash commented on which PERPETUALLY increased operational activity of an agency?

This was Amash's explanation of the vote:


I voted no on the motion to suspend the rules and pass H R 41, which temporarily authorizes the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to borrow an additional $9.7 billion from the U.S. Treasury to carry out the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). The bill increases FEMA's borrowing authority from $20.7 billion to a staggering $30.4 billion. NFIP needs another bailout for Hurricane Sandy claims because it still hasn't repaid taxpayers the $18 billion provided after Hurricane Katrina.

Although I oppose the federal government's involvement in the flood insurance industry, it's appropriate for current NFIP policyholders to have their claims paid for flood damage. But another bailout should be fully offset with spending cuts elsewhere or at least coupled with significant reforms to this poorly designed and managed program. Under this bill, NFIP will owe U.S. taxpayers $30 billion, with little prospect of ever paying it back. The bill passed 354-67.

http://www.facebook.com/repjustinamash/posts/496196267086451

[Lucille]

Well, he said he was not a Ron Paul man, and he wasn't kidding.


This really sucks people. We should be mad as hell about Reindeer Man using the commerce clause

The GOP (http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/253048/obamacare-and-war-drugs-david-rittgers) loves the Commerce Clause (http://www.lewrockwell.com/anderson/anderson292.html) as much as the Dems (http://reason.com/blog/2012/10/11/if-you-demand-a-good-progressive-commerc).

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

The USA's GDP is roughly $15 trillion. So we're *roughly* in 1 year's worth of "income" in debt (not counting unfunded liabilities). I don't know anyone who is in $16 trillion of debt, but I do know plenty of people that make say $30k a year that have $30k or more in debt. Feel free to replace $30k with any reasonable income number for low- or lower-middle class individuals and it'll hold true in plenty of examples.


GDP is not income. Not even close.

[sailingaway]

This was Amash's explanation of the vote:



http://www.facebook.com/repjustinamash/posts/496196267086451


Thanks. so the damage is confined to the $9 billion, and I'll tally that up with others at the end of the year.

[Darguth]

GDP is not income. Not even close.

Actually, it is relatively close when trying to draw a comparson from a macro to a micro scale. GDP is a market value of what goods and services are produced in a country. Personal income is a market value of goods and services produced by an individual. If the full market value of our country's production we redirected into debt reduction, it becomes at least comparable to the degree for the use in my comparison. Obviously that's not a fully realistic scenario because federal revenue will be derived as only a fraction of that wealth, nor does the national federal debt reflect all of the collective debt of everyone and every corporation in the nation which contribute to GDP.

But it's reasonable enough to give a sense of scale. Our entire nation's effort would have to be concentrated solely into producing wealth for a bit more than a year to pay down our collective national debt. In the same way an entire individual's effort would have to be concentrated solely into producing wealth for a year to pay down a level of personal debt equal to their yearly income.


EDIT: In the end the exactness of the metaphor isn't important. My original point was that individuals don't always make the best economic decisions. The fact that people get themselves into scenarios where they financially ruin themselves through no fault but their own is evidence of that. Which was the point I was attempting to make with the metaphor.

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

Actually, it is relatively close when trying to draw a comparson from a macro to a micro scale. GDP is a market value of what goods and services are produced in a country. Personal income is a market value of goods and services produced by an individual. If the full market value of our country's production we redirected into debt reduction, it becomes at least comparable to the degree for the use in my comparison. Obviously that's not a fully realistic scenario because federal revenue will be derived as only a fraction of that wealth, nor does the national federal debt reflect all of the collective debt of everyone and every corporation in the nation which contribute to GDP.


You'd make a better case comparing tax receipts to income. Why make such a goofy comparison when you could make a much more sensible one? GDP is not income, not even close.

[Darguth]

You'd make a better case comparing tax receipts to income. Why make such a goofy comparison when you could make a much more sensible one? GDP is not income, not even close.

Whatever. I'm not going to belabor the point (even though tax receipts are just as much not a true conversion to personal wages as GDP) because the metaphor was simply addressing the point that individuals can and do make bad economic decisions much to the same scale and degree as the federal government. People ruin their own lives with bad economic decisions, all the time.

[Occam's Banana]

And that post, right there, is a problem. When you don't even know what good votes he's cast, then he is not "our" guy. As Tsai points out, he did vote correctly on the Sandy amendments, but there is a lot more stick than carrot here.
What the *hell* are you talking about? I asked for additional information - while noting the fact that what little information I *did* have was not favorable for Bentivolio. Why is that a "problem"? I mean, WTF? :confused:

And you're goddam right he's not "my" guy - not when I don't even know what "good" votes he's cast. THAT'S WHY I ASKED!


So far, Yoho, has been the one voting most similar to Amash and Massie.

THAT is what I was interested in knowing. Thank you.

[SpreadOfLiberty]

Maybe Kerry will turn out to be a Walter Jones type. A good person who can be counted on important issues but doesn't understand the Constitution and how it really works.

I wish more people had paid attention to people like Ted Yoho and Steve Stockman thougn.

[SpreadOfLiberty]

This might be something to vote for.

The problem is he is not using the national security clause, but the general welfare clause.

At least his latest post is in support of Rand's F-16 amendment.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Out of curiosity, how would you explain a free market creating ample vaccinations and preventative measures for something like a large-scale biological attack?

It most likely would not occur, not because the market 'failed', but because it succeeded. In other words, peoples time preferences and values dictate that it is a waste of resources to develop such resources due to the extreme rarity of the events. It is nothing but fear-mongering. I'm sure though, if you really wanted it, that someone would provide it for you somewhere, but it would be costly, because as I said, it's not really in demand.

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

Whatever. I'm not going to belabor the point (even though tax receipts are just as much not a true conversion to personal wages as GDP) because the metaphor was simply addressing the point that individuals can and do make bad economic decisions much to the same scale and degree as the federal government.


It's not closely the same scale/degree. Hence, my point.

[angelatc]

Whatever. I'm not going to belabor the point (even though tax receipts are just as much not a true conversion to personal wages as GDP) because the metaphor was simply addressing the point that individuals can and do make bad economic decisions much to the same scale and degree as the federal government. People ruin their own lives with bad economic decisions, all the time.

But the government also makes very bad decisions. Knowing how well government works, I think it's delusional to believe that they would have the right vaccines in stock, available for mass distribution across the entire country, in a fashion timely enough to minimize any damage at all. The last time they tried to roll out a mid-season flu vaccine, it was chaos, and an expensive boondoggle. If they tried to do that in a nation of panicked, sick people...it wouldn't go near as smoothly.

People make mistakes, but they don't all make the same mistakes. My neighbor might not buy any vaccines, I might choose gas masks over vaccines, and my BIL might build an underground bunker out of a storage container, fill it with every vaccine known to man ,plus food for 10 people that will last 20 years, filter the air ... and go bankrupt.

We won't know who made the mistake until we are looking back. But history shows that the invisible hand serves us much better than the iron fist.

[torchbearer]

I don't see him getting re-elected.
With some of the excuses he has given, he probably doesn't even know he has a two year term.

[torchbearer]

Out of curiosity, how would you explain a free market creating ample vaccinations and preventative measures for something like a large-scale biological attack?

when there is a demand, there are people looking to make some money who will supply.
do we need government to tell us how many cellphones need to be produced? yet, they are everywhere?
how does that happen?

[Bastiat's The Law]

Cajun is about as consistent as they come.
Trolling candidate sub-forums perhaps.

[Bastiat's The Law]

You can bitch about Bentivolio all you want, but what are you going to DO about it? I think we should start looking into grooming a potential successor right now. Someone with liberty credentials.

[sailingaway]

Trolling candidate sub-forums perhaps.

She likes some and doesn't like others, as with most.

[Bastiat's The Law]

She likes some and doesn't like others, as with most.
She's a destructicon.

[2young2vote]

I don't know why people liked this guy in the first place. I simply couldn't find the integrity that is required of a real liberty candidate, like Justin Amash, in Bentivolio. I just couldn't see it.

[tsai3904]

I don't know why people liked this guy in the first place.

Anything wrong with this interview?

http://libertycandidates.com/2012/01/kerry-bentivolio/

[Bastiat's The Law]

I don't know why people liked this guy in the first place. I simply couldn't find the integrity that is required of a real liberty candidate, like Justin Amash, in Bentivolio. I just couldn't see it.
He was just an average Joe, so I think supporters gave him the benefit of the doubt. There's still a lot of time left for Bentivolio to right his record. That said, we should have a plan B at our disposal should this trend continue.

[fr33]

It's sad but funny too just because he seems to be an idiot that is unqualified but he was smart enough at least to fool us. I gave him money. I regret it. Still it's funny to me. I kinda think he meant well but he's just too dumb and gets co-opted.

[fr33]

Kerry probably has a room temperature IQ

[Bastiat's The Law]

It's sad but funny too just because he seems to be an idiot that is unqualified but he was smart enough at least to fool us. I gave him money. I regret it. Still it's funny to me. I kinda think he meant well but he's just too dumb and gets co-opted.
See, that's where I still give him a little benefit of the doubt. I think he's still a bit awe-struck that he's actually in Congress. It was a complete fluke of fate that we/he got this seat. Is Kerry "simple", well perhaps he is. Someone needs to pinch him.

[tsai3904]

It's sad but funny too just because he seems to be an idiot that is unqualified but he was smart enough at least to fool us.

I think he's just not well versed in politics. He's probably too trusting of leadership of keeping their promises.

Look at Amash. Amash voted for Paul Ryan's 28 year balanced budget his first year but wised up and voted against it the second year.

[torchbearer]

See, that's where I still give him a little benefit of the doubt. I think he's still a bit awe-struck that he's actually in Congress. It was a complete fluke of fate that we/he got this seat. Is Kerry "simple", well perhaps he is. Someone needs to pinch him.

:(

[Bastiat's The Law]

:(
Why the face?

[Darguth]

It's not closely the same scale/degree. Hence, my point.

No, your point was point out a technical error with a metaphor. Your point was--as communicated--not about how the federal government makes mistakes to a larger degree than an individual can when accounting for relativity. An individual that spends themselves into financial ruin through malinvestment of wealth is directly comparable to the federal government doing the same.

[belian78]

She's a destructicon.
Is that like, the retarded cousins to Decepticons or something? If you are going to try and insult other posters, which is against TOS btw, at least have enough grasp of the English language to do so.

[erowe1]

Kerry probably has a room temperature IQ

Why do you think this? His explanations of his votes, including the bad ones, strike me as pretty well thought out.

[erowe1]

Is that like, the retarded cousins to Decepticons or something? If you are going to try and insult other posters, which is against TOS btw, at least have enough grasp of the English language to do so.

Weren't there actually some Decepticons called the Destructicons? I'm pretty sure there were Constructicons. But I think there might have been Destructicons too.

[KingNothing]

Why do you think this? His explanations of his votes, including the bad ones, strike me as pretty well thought out.


I agree, and though I would challenge his positions in several instances, I would say that he has taken a nuanced look before casting "controversial" votes.

[KingNothing]

She likes some and doesn't like others, as with most.


How does she feel about Rand?

[Anti-Neocon]

I can see the arguments behind voting either way, and don't see this as a bad vote.

[mczerone]

Out of curiosity, how would you explain a free market creating ample vaccinations and preventative measures for something like a large-scale biological attack?

If there was a free market in insurance companies, they would make a FORTUNE off of being prepared for these insignificant actuarial events and selling plans that cover people that overestimate the likelihood of these catastrophic events.

[KingNothing]

If there was a free market in insurance companies, they would make a FORTUNE off of being prepared for these insignificant actuarial events and selling plans that cover people that overestimate the likelihood of these catastrophic events.

That is a tremendous point. It would be akin to the profits that Alex Jones and the companies he pushes reap from TEOTWAWKI folks.

[KingNothing]

I can see the arguments behind voting either way, and don't see this as a bad vote.

I'd say that it is definitely not a good vote, but as far as "not good" votes go it is totally trivial.

[cajuncocoa]

How does she feel about Rand?
Is it OK if I answer this for myself? :rolleyes:

At this particular time, my feelings about Rand are mixed.

[EBounding]

I can see the arguments behind voting either way, and don't see this as a bad vote.

If he didn't vote to increase the debt ceiling this wouldn't be that big of a deal to me (although his "general welfare" rationale is distrubing). He was supposed to be a liberty candidate, but he's well down the path of a mediocre-Republican.

[Darguth]

If there was a free market in insurance companies, they would make a FORTUNE off of being prepared for these insignificant actuarial events and selling plans that cover people that overestimate the likelihood of these catastrophic events.

Great point :)

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

No, your point was point out a technical error with a metaphor. Your point was--as communicated--not about how the federal government makes mistakes to a larger degree than an individual can when accounting for relativity. An individual that spends themselves into financial ruin through malinvestment of wealth is directly comparable to the federal government doing the same.


You should be thanking me for pointing out your technical errors, not using them as ammunition to further obfuscate your own point. Being that the metaphor was wrong, the scale is also wrong.