Romney: We have too many teachers, cops, and firemen. Fire them!

[WildCat]

And these aren't just "California" needs, or "Illinois" needs; they are American needs.

Which is why it makes no sense for the feds to pay for it - every town needs police, fire, teachers. As has already been pointed out, you're lucky to get 78 cents in return economically once you send it to the feds. If this is paid for locally, 100% of the proceeds stay local.

You can send $1 to the feds to do the job, or you can send 78 cents to your local taxing authority to get the same result.

I know which option I prefer.

 

[RandFan]

In contrast, the spirit of the Conservative movement seems to be "**** you, me and my cronies will take what we want, get your own."

Ah yes, the old "you're a meanie!" argument. I guess I have to concede now.

It would be nice if a long term and broad based vision were part of conventional conservative thinking. There was a time that conservatives actually cared about infrastructure and eduction. Now it would seem that anything government does beyond the military is unnecessary or better done privately. I think Piscivore has a valid point. And it's not that they're mean. It's that they just don't care.

The point is this, Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan, they couldn't get elected on their records today.



Infrastructure? Roads? Education? Fairness? Please. Conservatives don't do that anymore.

 

[Piscivore]

So "Illinois is corrupt" morphs into "the States are corrupt and incompetent"?

Do you have an example of a US state you think is well run?

So you're a big fan of No Child Left Behind, correct? It's from the feds after all!

Are you trying to assert I must think everything the Federal Government does is perfect and righteous because I like Federal Republicanism better than a loose Confederacy? Who is flinging straw now?

 

[Piscivore]

Which is why it makes no sense for the feds to pay for it - every town needs police, fire, teachers. As has already been pointed out, you're lucky to get 78 cents in return economically once you send it to the feds. If this is paid for locally, 100% of the proceeds stay local.

That's part of the problem. We don't live in a country based on "My Town Uber Alles"

You can send $1 to the feds to do the job, or you can send 78 cents to your local taxing authority to get the same result.

I know which option I prefer.

It just seems strange you can complain about how many taxing entities there are in IL yet reject out of hand reducing it to one. Or how you complain bitterly about graft and corruption on the local level. Sure my "proceeds" stay local but half of them go into the pockets of the corrupt, right?

And why should I object if some of my tax dollars got to help students in Arkansas learn science, if some of Maine's tax dollars go to helping my state enforce border security or some of Hawaii's help administrate our water rights over those of California? We are all in this together.

 

[WildCat]

Do you have an example of a US state you think is well run?

Under what definition of "well run"?

Are you trying to assert I must think everything the Federal Government does is perfect and righteous because I like Federal Republicanism better than a loose Confederacy? Who is flinging straw now?

I could have sworn a minute ago you were all for the feds taking control of local schools?

That's part of the problem. We don't live in a country based on "My Town Uber Alles"

I don't understand what this means. Do you think it's better to spend $1 on something you can get for 78 cents with less hassle?

It just seems strange you can complain about how many taxing entities there are in IL yet reject out of hand reducing it to one.

Just because I think 6,994 tax districts is too many doesn't mean I think anything but one is also too many.

Or how you complain bitterly about graft and corruption on the local level. Sure my "proceeds" stay local but half of them go into the pockets of the corrupt, right?

So would you rather have half of your $1 go to corrupt local officials or half of your 78 cents go to corrupt local officials?

And why should I object if some of my tax dollars got to help students in Arkansas learn science, if some of Maine's tax dollars go to helping my state enforce border security or some of Hawaii's help administrate our water rights over those of California? We are all in this together.

Imagine if you and 19 friends each win $20 at the slot machines and decide to share the wealth, so everyone sends everyone else $1. It costs 22 cents to mail the letter... so you and everyone else start out with $20 and end up with $15.82.

How did that mutual help work out for you and your friends?

 

[elbe]

Imagine if you and 19 friends each win $20 at the slot machines and decide to share the wealth, so everyone sends everyone else $1. It costs 22 cents to mail the letter... so you and everyone else start out with $20 and end up with $15.82.

How did that mutual help work out for you and your friends?

Really, WildCat? I'm pretty sure the concept of paying for goods or services isn't alien to you. I bet you can do better if you try.

 

[WildCat]

Really, WildCat? I'm pretty sure the concept of paying for goods or services isn't alien to you. I bet you can do better if you try.

What, exactly, are you disputing?

 

[elbe]

What, exactly, are you disputing?

It's pretty basic economics. The value doesn't just disappear after being spent, the spender gets a return for their payment. If I pay 22 cents to deliver a letter to someone I assume it has a value, to me, of at least 22 cents. I'm only "down" if you look at my money supply in isolation.

I don't want to get involved in this, though, I just think you can do better. I believe in you, fellow illinoisian!

 

[Ziggurat]

Police
Prisons
Fire (including wildfires)
Forestry (to suppress conditions that cause wildfires)
Coroners
National Guard (that's the Militia for you knuckle-draggers)
Watershed management
Water distribution (All tied up with Rights out west)
Sewage management (unless you like having **** washing up on all the beaches and destroying tourism.)
Ports

Just a few NEEDS of the State.

There are many more.

Three things about your response jump out at me. First, as before, your list is incomplete, and therefore doesn't really answer my question. If you want to itemize the needs of the state, then the list should be complete to answer my question, otherwise you should provide some criteria for what does or doesn't qualify as a need of the state.

Second, everything you list, combined, constitutes a minority of the spending of the state. So even as a partial answer, it's not even close to sufficient.

Third, there is a notable absence on your list of any entitlement programs. Why? Do you not think these are needs of the state? Or do you not think you can defend them as being needs of the state? This is a curious omission, since entitlement programs are actually the focal point of both recent government growth and the primary point of contention between conservatives and liberals. Their complete absence from your list is rather surprising, and I really don't know what to make of it, except to point out again the insufficiency of your response.

 

[MattusMaximus]

The Romney campaign is now trying to paint Obama as a flip-flopper on this issue, claiming that the President actually supported the same thing Romney does - the shrinking of state and local governments.

Unfortunately, the only way they could do this was by cutting out the bits of what Obama said which show that his position has actually been the same all along, and has always been the opposite of the position that Romney is now trying to justify.

Really? Romney wants to play that game? Fine.

Every time Romney tries to call Obama a flip-flopper, we should all just take a few minutes to view this little set of statements from Mitt...

 

[MattusMaximus]

The people of California vote, and they vote for no tax increases time and time again. How are they not responsible for their own predicament?

I have to say I agree with WC on this one. At least here in Illinois we had the smarts to vote for some kind of tax increase, because without that there's no way in the Nine Hells we are going to dig our way out of our budget mess by just cutting spending.

 

[MattusMaximus]

I think conservatism nearly every argument in the Politics subforum should be renamed I'm-right-ism!

Ftfy

 

[Piscivore]

Under what definition of "well run"?

Go with yours; just tell me what it means.

I could have sworn a minute ago you were all for the feds taking control of local schools?

You shouldn't swear.

I don't understand what this means. Do you think it's better to spend $1 on something you can get for 78 cents with less hassle?

Sometimes. Who you are buying from comes into it too. Would you rather buy something for $1 from a reputable dealer, or pay $0.78 for the "same" thing from a shady guy selling out of his car trunk?

Just because I think 6,994 tax districts is too many doesn't mean I think anything but one is also too many.

I didn't say you did.

So would you rather have half of your $1 go to corrupt local officials or half of your 78 cents go to corrupt local officials?

Imagine if you and 19 friends each win $20 at the slot machines and decide to share the wealth, so everyone sends everyone else $1. It costs 22 cents to mail the letter... so you and everyone else start out with $20 and end up with $15.82.

How did that mutual help work out for you and your friends?

Is that how you think it works?

 

[Ziggurat]

It would be nice if a long term and broad based vision were part of conventional conservative thinking. There was a time that conservatives actually cared about infrastructure and eduction. Now it would seem that anything government does beyond the military is unnecessary or better done privately. I think Piscivore has a valid point. And it's not that they're mean. It's that they just don't care.

Your claim about a lack of vision is rather distinct from an attribution of motive. If the former is correct (and I think many conservatives would contest that), then the latter is unnecessary. And no, Piscivore's point, and yours, about the motives of conservatives isn't valid. Unless you want to try for the JREF $1 million, then you don't have grounds to ascribe motives to others that they don't express themselves.

The point is this, Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan, they couldn't get elected on their records today.

The same could be said about most politicians from yesteryears, including JFK and FDR, for example. The same thing was brought up in a different thread in regards to Lincoln: he had pro-labor views that don't sit well with modern Republicans, and he had racist views which don't sit well with hardly anyone. Everyone is a product of their times, and times have changed. They always do. To say that a politician from long ago wouldn't be elected today really has little meaning.

 

[WildCat]

It's pretty basic economics. The value doesn't just disappear after being spent, the spender gets a return for their payment. If I pay 22 cents to deliver a letter to someone I assume it has a value, to me, of at least 22 cents. I'm only "down" if you look at my money supply in isolation.

Can you explain the value of an unnecessary middleman who charges 22%?

 

[maxpower1227]

Can you explain the value of an unnecessary middleman who charges 22%?

Why are you banging on about this so much? There are states that give more than they get back from the feds in tax dollars. But there are also states that get more back than they give. The fact that CA gets back $0.78 for every dollar doesn't mean that they are "losing" 22% of their taxes, it means that they are helping to prop up the more impoverished states. As others have pointed out: we are all in this together. Your argument that CA should just pay for its own needs and save $0.22 on the dollar is missing the point.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

BenBurch: "Police
Okay. Few would disagree. Private security services may outperform government actors in some cases.
BenBurch: "Prisons
This service is often contracted out.
BenBurch: "Fire (including wildfires)
Maybe.
BenBurch: "Forestry (to suppress conditions that cause wildfires)
Generalize and call it "environmental protection" and we agree. Weyerhauser and other firms manage forests without subsidy.
BenBurch: "Coroners
Perhaps. Why could this function not be contracted out?
BenBurch: "National Guard (that's the Militia for you knuckle-draggers)
No! The "militia" is every able-bodies male between 18 and 45.
BenBurch: "Watershed management
"Environmental protection", again. A solid "public good" example.
BenBurch: "Water distribution (All tied up with Rights out west)
This seems so, probably because we are accustomed to the current system.
BenBurch: "Sewage management (unless you like having **** washing up on all the beaches and destroying tourism.)
Probably not. It would be expensive to privatize in the current institutional environment, but I wonder why any more is necessary than anti-pollution laws.
BenBurch: "Ports
Hardly. Do you assert this from "natural monopoly" considerations?

 

[BenBurch]

...

I could have sworn a minute ago you were all for the feds taking control of local schools?

...

So, you disagree with the court in Brown v Board of Education, then?

 

[WildCat]

Go with yours; just tell me what it means.

One not on the hook for a $150 billion pension deficit is a good start.

You shouldn't swear.

Do you want the feds running the schools, or don't you?

Sometimes. Who you are buying from comes into it too. Would you rather buy something for $1 from a reputable dealer, or pay $0.78 for the "same" thing from a shady guy selling out of his car trunk?

The "reputable dealer" is the guy that sold you that NCLB lemon, correct?

I didn't say you did.

Then why the excluded middle fallacy?

Is that how you think it works?

That's exactly how it works. How could it be otherwise?

 

[maxpower1227]

BenBurch: "Prisons
This service is often contracted out.

Do you think this should be the case? The prison industry being run for-profit is probably a leading factor in this nation being the world leader at throwing people in jail, which is certainly a rather dubious honor to hold.