pleased to meet you

[khasquakhas]

but how can you ignore the fact that democracy amounts to mob rule and this government was never intended to be a democracy to begin with.. if I get 51% to agree that coffee is illegal and violations are punishable by death, I can do that.. but its still bull$#@! and it still fails to protect individual liberty.

also.. how can you reconcile the fact that obama has done everything pretty much exactly like Bush would have? his foreign policy is merely a continuation of the Bush Policy..

he has expanded our foreign empire and it seems like there never really was an "Anti War Left" but only an antibush left because I dont hear enough obama supporters calling him out on his imperialism and his expanded drone campaign.

See above.

As for obamacare, let's not open that particular can of worms just yet

[Cleaner44]

Sorry All. Been really busy with this project at work, I'm not running away, but I just wanted to be a little more clear, now that I've been able to compose my thoughts a little.

I've been able to surmise that most of you are really, really into a small central government. I really respect that position, and it seems reasonable considering its many, many evils. I'm getting the impression from a lot of you, especially Cleaner44, of a government that is this giant, sinister behemoth, and if your only experience with it is the news, that's reasonable. We have been, and are still, a part of some horrifying atrocities. If that were my impression of government in general, I too would be extremely hesitant to trust it, maybe even willing to cast it off and try something different.

However, I am a person who avoids moral absolutes. I care not at all about ideology, and I have to confess a personal bias. Let me tell you a story.

When my first child was born I worked at a barely above minimum wage job. We didn't have the extensive support system that allows some parents to both work. So I had to make enough to support me, my wife and son. This is when I began to feel trapped, like I'd be a mere frycook for decades. I didn't want that to happen, but I could barely afford rent, let alone college. Enter the Hope Scholarship and Pell Grant.

I know that the Hope Scholarship is state funded and paid for 100% of my tuition, but without Pell it still wouldn't have been possible, because I would have had to work two jobs without the $5000 a year that Pell dolled out. That was 4 years ago. 5 Months ago I graduated with a Bachelor's in Mathematics and 2 months ago I was hired by a multi-billion dollar software company. I couldn't have done it without my amazing wife, who sacrificed her education for the sake of her family, but it wouldn't even have been conceivable without gov't help, so when the question arises whether government CAN be a force for good, I cannot be swayed.

So anyway, that's my perspective. I think it's good we have conversations about the role of government, or even about the existence of government, but like you said, what's really important is trying to use policy to improve people's lives.

Yes, those Pell dollars that were given to me were taken from somebody else, by force when necessary, but I'll be paying income taxes for the first time in my life this year. Some of that money will go to things I don't agree with, but some of it will go to helping another little guy get his own really big leg up.

All I'm saying is, don't throw out the baby with the bathwater.

I appreciate you sharing your experiences with us and I understand your views. In fact in my younger years I held many of the same views.

My experience with the government comes from many factors, including my time as a federal employee in the U.S. Air Force. Let me share some of my story.

When I in my early 20s I had a slightly better than minimum wage job, a high school diploma and my first child on the way. I was very concerned because I really didn't have much in the way of sellable skills and soon I would have a child to support. I decided to join the military as it seemed like my only option to better my life. I spent 4 years excelling, getting promoted early and learning valuable skills. During the time I served I saw massive corruption and a massive waste of public funds.

My time in the military did allow me to improve my skills and life for my family. I even utilized my VA loan guarentee to purchase a home. When I was in the military I was a Democrat, mainly because I could easily see that Republicans were corrupt turds and giant hypocrites. About 4 years after leaving the military I finally started seeing how Democrat politicians were lying to me and were actually being giant hypocrites themselves. This left me in an odd spot, I was done being a Democrat, I briefly attempted to be a Republican but that didn't work because they were still the same turds as always. I didn't fit into either group because they each said some things I agreed with, but at the same time they were lying hypocrites.

A few years later I came across Michael Badnarik and realized there was a name for what I believed for a long time... libertarian. I had developed my beliefs from a point of integrity, not politicians. The more time went by, the more I could see through the web of deceit spun by both political parties. The more I learned, the more I realized that the best government is that which governs least. Local politicians are more responsive than those we send to D.C. where the voices of the people they are supposed to represent are distant and easily ignored.

I would not disagree with you that Pell grants have the ability to help Americans improve their lives, in fact I think that is indisputable. That doesn't change the fact that the overwhelming amount of money taken from taxpayers is wasted on things that don't improve the lives of the great majority of the American people. It is no different than if I robbed a local liquor store and then gave you $100 from the $1500 I just stole. Sure you would be grateful for the gift, but it would still be wrong for me to rob the liquor store that Joe opened with money that he saved for the last 5 years.

Don't let the results fool you. Wealth redistribution is wrong and really only a small portion gets redistributed to people like you, while most goes to the well connected special interests. Even it you are adamant about socialist programs, they work much better when run at a state level than a federal level and they don't have a large portion funnelled off to military dictators in foreign nations.

There is nothing wrong with people getting help, but the only moral answer is help on a voluntary basis. I would bet that you are willing to help others and I know that I am. Since this is already very long, let me leave you with one of my favorite videos in the world. This is the code that I live by.

[libertywanter]

@khas, I definitely understand your point of equal opportunity, if it was all private it would be a little more of "its who you know" but really if you think about it, it is basically that way today, even with all the government intervention, just not as extreme as it would be in an all private scenario. I also agree I would not want to cut the whole tree of government down, but I would probably want to cut quite a few branches off that tree, right off the bat, but agree to use caution in order to see the effects. I think maybe a good place to start cutting would be all the non-essential jobs that were shut down during our recent fiasco. Non-essential is just what it means. A great idea I heard was privatize all of these parks and memorials. They would be run so much more efficient and instead of costing tax payers they could generate revenue. But there is so much more that could be cut or privatized, the parks and memorials are just a drop in the bucket of waste.

[kcchiefs6465]

Monetary policy is fascinating, I love it. I'm definitely not an expert, but I know enough to totally blow my mind.

You sound like you'd be a fan of Ward Churchill, one of the harshest critics of American foreign policy that I've ever encountered. Check out "On the justice of roosting chickens"

Like I said, I don't agree with a lot of things Obama has done, specifically, I think his foreign policy sucks in so many ways. Could be worse (**COUGH** BUSH **COUGH**) but I failed to see any better options at the ballot.

Also, you live in KC too?

No I don't live in KC. (I've actually never even been to KC. I liked Tony Gonzalez and Priest Holmes and became a fan)

I've never heard of the author. I'm just about finished with the book I'm reading now so I may have to order that.

You know, it's kind of odd people think Obama is better than George W. Bush with regards to foreign policy. In a lot of ways Obama further normalized the policies of Bush. At the most all he did was re-brand a couple of them. For instance with Bush we invaded Afghanistan, then Iraq. (neither government sanctioned 9/11) With Obama we have bombed Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, Mali, etc. as well as the US conducting operations in some 75 countries. (now granted most of these weren't started under Obama, it has long been American foreign policy) What Obama normalized was assassination.. especially with regards to a citizen being arbitrarily killed without any due process. Frankly while it is hard to compare war criminals and their merits, Obama and Bush should both be forced to face trial. Bush irradiated Iraq for eternity. Obama is directly responsible for the raid in Gardez, Agoor Adda, Al Majalah, et al. The torture programs Obama allegedly ended only were transferred to subsidiaries. (third world governments contracted to do "our" dirty work) I recommend Jeremy Scahill's Dirty Wars. So much information most pages need read twice.

Obama normalized a lot of the policies we have. From JSOC conducting targeted kills and drone strikes, to signature strikes (they literally bomb people for being in groups, they don't even know their names) to double taps. (two drone strikes consecutively.. kills the first responders or instills fear in those who would try to help the wounded)

I'm not some partisan hack simply saying things because I despise democrats. I despise them both. They do the same thing but the rhetoric is a little bit different. Reagan was a war criminal and should have been impeached for violating the Boland Amendment and selling arms to Iran (and more). Clinton was a war criminal and should have been impeached for bombing a medicine factory in Sudan (and more). It wasn't an IED factory.

[erowe1]

But you do understand that it's going to be one or the other, right? So, which would you choose?

What choice? If you think the only choice is between ruling over others with a criminal gang, and ruling over others with a criminal gang, then you haven't given a choice.

I have. Do you support theft, murder, and kidnapping, or not? My answer is no. Yours is yes. We've made two different choices.

[erowe1]

Like I said, I don't agree with a lot of things Obama has done, specifically, I think his foreign policy sucks in so many ways. Could be worse (**COUGH** BUSH **COUGH**) but I failed to see any better options at the ballot.

As for obamacare, let's not open that particular can of worms just yet

If you don't support Obama's foreign policy, and you don't want to talk about Obamacare, then what's left to discuss about Obama that you do support?

The only legacy of his that I can think of outside of those two is his big penchant for corporate welfare (of which Obamacare and his warring would be subsets, but which includes other things as well, such as his so-called economic stimulus). Is that the thing about him that you support?

[angelatc]

I know you're saying that corporations would be more apt to do this, and I think that's plausible. Indeed, there was a time when all universities were private and, if you weren't the child of an aristocrat, then this was the way to get there, by finding a rich old man to take an interest in you. During the time in which this was the case most of the population was illiterate, though. I know that this would happen if the government got out of the education game, it already happens on a much smaller scale today, but would it be accessible to all, or just the best and the brightest? .

Corporate America thanks you for your support.

Education is a resource, and like all resources has to be allocated. Sending the people most likely to graduate seems to be the best way to allocate that resource. It makes no fiscal sense to me to send "anybody who wants to go, studying any ol' thing they want!" to college on the public dime.

Using tax money to fund advanced education *might* make sense if government could predict what fields were most likely to produce a net gain on the investment. But it is absolutely absurd to fund educations in fields where there is no significant demand.

Business has always been much better at government than allocating resources. If a shortage of educated workers was eminent, then business would start offering advanced education opportunities to their employees. In fact, a lot of them already do.

But thanks to the government, they don't have to. They can socialize the cost of education by lobbying for government insured loans and subsidies, while privatizing the profits and gains the graduate produces.

[angelatc]

When my first child was born I worked at a barely above minimum wage job. We didn't have the extensive support system that allows some parents to both work. So I had to make enough to support me, my wife and son. This is when I began to feel trapped, like I'd be a mere frycook for decades. I didn't want that to happen, but I could barely afford rent, let alone college. Enter the Hope Scholarship and Pell Grant.

I know that the Hope Scholarship is state funded and paid for 100% of my tuition, but without Pell it still wouldn't have been possible, because I would have had to work two jobs without the $5000 a year that Pell dolled out. That was 4 years ago. 5 Months ago I graduated with a Bachelor's in Mathematics and 2 months ago I was hired by a multi-billion dollar software company. I couldn't have done it without my amazing wife, who sacrificed her education for the sake of her family, but it wouldn't even have been conceivable without gov't help, so when the question arises whether government CAN be a force for good, I cannot be swayed.

So you don't mind keeping your fellow fry cooks in poverty - you got yours? And just because you can't imagine having done it without the government's help says a lot about you.

Let me tell you a story: I left home 2 weeks after I turned 18, and worked 2minimum wage jobs. One was at a part-time job at a hardware store, and one was a full-time job on an electronics assembly line at a small company - less than 100 people. I managed to work my way up to a clerical position, and then the company moved to another state, taking me with them. I wanted to make more money, so I started looking for another job. I landed a slightly higher paying job at an international financial firm, and managed to get a couple of promotions there. The firm offered tuition reimbursement, so I started going to college at night. They only paid for 2 classes per semester, so I paid for 2 more out of my pocket. When my bosses boss found that out, he approved an exemption for our department - we could all take as many classes as we wanted.

I can also tell you the tale of a guy who was in a position much like yours - he worked in the mailroom of that same firm. He also took advantage of the tuition reimbursement program, and ended up a senior vice president before he was 30. Not a dime of tax money, and his kids have a life that liberals would consider "unfair."

So I made it through college without taking a single freaking dime of your money, he made it through college without a dime of your tax money, and we didn't have a penny of debt when I graduated. The government still gets my tax income. So which is the better deal for the government, exactly?

[Seraphim]

+ rep.

My current company offers tuition matching as well.

It's nonsense to think folks can't ever get $$ to educate/advanced train themselves **without government assistance**.

So you don't mind keeping your fellow fry cooks in poverty - you got yours? And just because you can't imagine having done it without the government's help says a lot about you.

Let me tell you a story: I left home 2 weeks after I turned 18, and worked 2minimum wage jobs. One was at a part-time job at a hardware store, and one was a full-time job on an electronics assembly line at a small company - less than 100 people. I managed to work my way up to a clerical position, and then the company moved to another state, taking me with them. I wanted to make more money, so I started looking for another job. I landed a slightly higher paying job at an international financial firm, and managed to get a couple of promotions there. The firm offered tuition reimbursement, so I started going to college at night. They only paid for 2 classes per semester, so I paid for 2 more out of my pocket. When my bosses boss found that out, he approved an exemption for our department - we could all take as many classes as we wanted.

I can also tell you the tale of a guy who was in a position much like yours - he worked in the mailroom of that same firm. He also took advantage of the tuition reimbursement program, and ended up a senior vice president before he was 30. Not a dime of tax money, and his kids have a life that liberals would consider "unfair."

So I made it through college without taking a single freaking dime of your money, he made it through college without a dime of your tax money, and we didn't have a penny of debt when I graduated. The government still gets my tax income. So which is the better deal for the government, exactly?

[Henry Rogue]

You guys wore him out fast. He never made it outside this thread. I guess he shouldn't have led with "I'm here to debate you". That's like blood in the water, around here.