Bucket Guild | FUBU BH Forums

the goverment exists to allow us to get ourselves from point a to b.

Government isn't supposed to be a charity program. That's not its purpose, and societies that lose sight of that end up in the dustbin of history...and the people subsisting off the entitlements generally end up as indentured servants or worse.



My point wasn't that it's peachy-keen to toss money down a hole to keep companies like Boeing afloat, it's that providing for the common defense is a responsibility actually outlined in the Constitution. Running a giant pyramid scheme (Social Security) and medicare/medicaid nor anything of their nature are mentioned as something the federal government is explicity given authority to handle. Since the federal government is not explicitly given this duty/right, it defaults to the states and to the people.

I agree to an extent that the military is a fucking social program, but that's because we quit using it as a military in favor of love and togetherness, and that's when standards went out the window and any dumbass that could pass a simple test could get in. When blacks were given equal treatment and integrated...well, nothing changed, because blacks in general aren't weak or stupid, but when women were allowed to perform combat roles, the standards were set low for them so that they could meet them. When this was pointed out, they didn't raise those standards, they just brought the standards for men down as well so it wouldn't be noticeable. I can't wait to see what sort of silliness comes of the DA/DT repeal (if it happens).

There's a big difference between fucking up and mismanaging something you're supposed to be responsible for and assuming power you're not entitled to so that you can...fuck up and mismanage that, too.


In general, military spending is the one bit of excess republicans can get away with just because of the general attitude towards our military. Most people are pro-soldier (at the very least) even if they don't appreciate the 'military-industrial complex.' Much of that is due to the shadow that still hangs over this country because of the collective remorse for the way Vietnam vets were treated. If you'll remember, their other forays into vote-buying and entitlement spending lost them 2 of the 3 branches of government.

Your Pal,
Jubber

AKA "The Gun"
AKA "ROFeraL"

World Renowned Mexican Forklift Artiste

Stupid thing took almost a full minute to post and I got two posts for the price of one...this thing is weird.

Your Pal,
Jubber

AKA "The Gun"
AKA "ROFeraL"

World Renowned Mexican Forklift Artiste

The Founding Fathers envisioned a small citizen-army, and they did not want this country to have a standing army.



Give me one example of this happening.

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

The saddest part of all these spending graphs imo is the differences in education spending

I'd like you to show me a government that did absolutely nothing for the poor and was successful for a long period of time (the only example I can think of is Louis XVI France, and we all know how that turned out).

Also, I really appreciate the indentured servant comment, considering this totally wouldn't happen if all of the safety nets were cut out from the lower 10%.


When our military is bigger than the next 25 runners up COMBINED and is still growing, is it really for personal defense?
Ignoring the fact that things change over 230+ years and the Constitution can't be taken literally anymore, I didn't see you whining and crying when Bush introduced the Patriot Act, blew up the military to ungodly proportions, or actually did things that are unconstitutional.

You could just say that you don't agree with Social Security and that's fine. Trying to pass off a system that literally keeps people who have invested into this country for their entire lives as unconstitutional and some sort of massive injustice just makes you look like an idiot.


Yeah, fuck people who want to serve their country. We should have a mandatory draft of all northern european men ages 16-36 instead.

Also, this isn't what's wrong with the military and you know it.


It also shows the massive hypocrisy of this false conservative movement. They're against spending except if they agree with it (Republicans won't touch the military, which is one of our biggest unnecessary expenses). They're against big government unless it works in their favor (nobody was crying about a fascist regime when the Patriot Act came into being, but giving kids with cancer health insurance is equal to the Bolshevik revolution). They're against "entitlements" unless they're given to the people that vote for them (Republicans have also vowed to not touch Medicare and Social Security because they know their voters are old).

Sure, there might be a few people who actually stick to what they believe in (Ron Paul is the only guy I can think of, even his son sold out), but its really a shame watching people like your genuine anger about the world used for handjobs for the ultra-rich and reacharounds for megacorps.

RETIRED.
[armory loc="US,Bleeding Hollow"]Mayonaise[/armory]
[armory loc="US,Bleeding Hollow"]Jerkonaise[/armory]

Rome is probably the best example. The government of Rome from the earliest days of the republic assumed the responsibility that it should purchase grain in the surrounding countries and sell it to the people at a moderate price (below market value). This price, known as annona vetus, could not rise much without inciting discontent (which should bring to mind campaign ads by one politician/party that the other is going to "take your <insert government program here> away"), and the failure to provide grain at "affordable" prices was publicly considered a sign of neglect of one of the government's most important duties.

This program, of course, was eventually exploited to the degree that it seriously threatened the financial stability of the Roman government. The program was not seriously examined until Caesar, who greatly reduced the number of recipients to the program by ensuring that only citizens of Rome could participate. This is because one of the reasons the program had become unsustainable was that non-Romans had migrated to the city in order to take advantage of programs like the one for grain distribution, much as we have persons who have entered our country illegally taking advantage of such programs today. While Caesar reduced the number of eligible recipients by roughly half, he did not abolish the program in its entirety, and after his death it eventually reverted to its previous state.

The program was expanded under Aurelian, who made the right to relief hereditary, in other words, those whose parents received government benefits were entitled, by right, to the same benefits their parents (had) received. In addition, Aurelian's program provided recipients with government-baked bread (the prior practice was that recipients were provided with wheat to bake their own bread) and added free salt, pork and olive oil. Over time, the ranks of the unproductive grew fatter, and the ranks of the productive grew thinner. This correlates with our modern tax/welfare system, where entitlements are routinely expanded to provide more benefits to more recipients, and roughly half the citizenry has no tax burden, while 5%-15% of the populace pays the majority of taxes.

Beginning with Hadrian, municipalities which got themselves into financial difficulties lost their independence as the central government placed them under the authority of imperial curators. Local authority was increasingly replaced by the power of the central government. This is should not be unfamiliar given the number of modern American localities that are threatened with (or actually experience) a loss of autonomy to either state or federal powers over loose fiscal policy, especially where schools are concerned. This centralization of power in the federal government did not begin in earnest in our own country until the Supreme Court, under pressure from FDR, redefined the commerce clause in order to define any commerce as interstate commerce (based on the argument that if you were doing business, you were having an effect on business across state lines whether you traded across state lines or not).

This all led to what we're experience presently, which is a shrinking middle-class, being replaced on one end by dependents of the state and on the other by a class of wealthy elites who don't mind their heavy tax burden because of they're well-off and their wealth, because it is sought after by politicians who need it for re-election, gives them enormous clout.

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years.
--Alexander Tytler

Your Pal,
Jubber

AKA "The Gun"
AKA "ROFeraL"

World Renowned Mexican Forklift Artiste

clearly they learned from khmer rouge and are depriving their citizenry with adequate education as to keep them from being smart enough to organize against them

█▀█ █ █░█ █░█ █ █░ █▀█ █░█ █▀▀
█▀▄ █ █▀▄ █▀▄ █ █░ █▀█ █▀▄ █▀▀
▀░▀ ▀ ▀░▀ ▀░▀ ▀ ▀▀ ▀░▀ ▀░▀ ▀▀▀
sunshine.kittens.bubblegum.happythoughts

Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result...every time we object to a thing being done by Government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all.
--Frederic Bastiat

I think that pretty adequately sums up your argument.

I can't show you something that doesn't exist (because it can't exist in the first place), but I can point to instances in history where the expenditures in the name of the "public good" have led to financial collapse...like in my previous post. These expenditures are unsustainable in the long run, and do more harm than good on both a social and individual level.

Charity is the responsibility of society, not government. This was the norm in the United States until the mid-20th century. Even now, private charity gives more (and more effectively, but I see no need to sidetrack the discussion with talk of the overhead involved with government "help") than the federal government. No one is suggesting that the destitute are not deserving of aid, they're saying that government is not the proper vehicle for providing it, and outlining the dangers of using it as such.


No, it obviously is not for the defense of America alone, which is why so many of the European nations can afford the healthcare/welfare programs that folks like yourself point to as models we should follow. We're footing the bill. If we weren't, the collapse of social programs and the need for "austerity" in such nations as the United Kingdom would have happened years earlier. In my opinion, the military should be reduced, but only after we've removed ourself from our extensive network of foreign bases, especially those in Europe. In fact, I believe that after nearly 3/4 of a century, Germany and Japan should be released from the restraints placed upon them after WWII, and allowed to take responsibility for their own defense so that we no longer have to provide for it.


Things do change after 230+ years...that's why we have an amendment process...which is rarely used. Instead of actually using that process, it's easier for those who wish to ignore the limits placed on government to say things like, "the Constitution is a living document," or "you can't take it literally." Why can't you take it literally? It was written literally. What parts are we supposed to stop taking literally? "Not taking it literally" is a double-edged sword, as your own argument points out. When we don't "take literally" the limits placed on government in regards to redistribution of wealth/using government to enforce charity, it opens the door for the government to not "take literally" the protections provided in that same document. When your arguments for doing what you like are that the Constitution is old and can't be taken literally, you can't really complain when someone agrees with you...but decides that arguments of age and literalism empower them to do what you don't like.

Oh, and if you think that I and others weren't opposed to the Patriot Act (or at least portions of it), you weren't paying attention...as usual when you make these sort of grandiose blanket accusations regarding what you think other people think.


Stupid is in the eye of the beholder, but I'm not insulted since this is the view of someone who doesn't take the Constitution 'literally.' Social Security is far more than an "investment program," as you imply. Social Security does not merely pay out to those who have paid in, and in fact started making payments to people who had never paid into the system at its inception, and in general pays more out to recipients than those recipients ever put into the system. The system has been sustained not by fiscal prudence, but by placing the burden of providing for the previous generation on the shoulders of the current generation. If you do not see the inherent dangers and injustices built into a such a system, you may wish to re-examine who the idiot here is.


More like fuck anyone who can't meet the legitimate standards for physical and intellectual strength and endurance that should be expected of those that serve in our armed forces. You wouldn't have to be white (or even male) to meet those standards, but you can't complain that the military is bloated while also complaining that everybody should get to serve. Everyone should be given the opportunity, and if they can't hack it, too bad. The "everyone should be able to" mentality is half of what's wrong with the military and what is spent on it, and that half comes from the side of the aisle you're shooting spit-balls from most of the time. The other half of the problem, the one that comes from the side of the aisle I'm most often on, is excessive spending on equipment that pretty much keeps a handful of military contractors afloat. Addressing one without addressing the other does nothing to seriously deal with the issue.


Agreed, which is, as I said previously, why republicans got their asses booted out of DC. No one voted for republicans so they could go in and make vote-buying expenditures...and after they made those expenditures, no one voted for them. You make the mistake of thinking, despite the solid rejection by their own base, that the behavior of elected republicans reflected the thinking of conservative voters.


Like I said before, if you think no one from the right was opposed to the Patriot Act, you obviously weren't paying attention.

Social Security spending isn't going to be touched for the same reason that even Caesar wouldn't entirely cut a major entitlement: political power. Let any republican seriously start discussing changes to Social Security and the "republicans are going to steal your social security" ads will flood the airwaves. If anything, this should demonstrate to you the danger of entitlement programs. Once they're started, you can't pare them down, much less get rid of them.

Your Pal,
Jubber

AKA "The Gun"
AKA "ROFeraL"

World Renowned Mexican Forklift Artiste

I keep saying that throwing money at a problem isn't going to fix it, but if teachers were paid according to the work they put in(ie like double what they make) we would probably have smarter and harder working people going into the teaching field, because it would actually be profitable, if not lucrative.

inb4 Aestu wrecks Jubber

Grats on reading something off Google, or some political editorial, and becoming an instant expert. So let me set you straight:

First off, the reason the grain distribution became necessary in the first place was that after the Punic Wars, small-scale farming was no longer possible or economical because small farms were unable to compete with massive latifundae owned by the rich and worked with slave labor. The Senate made the decision they weren't going to change this (see: the Gracchi, or Cato's treatise on farming), so the status quo endured. Then as now, it was not so simple as "get a job". There were simply no opportunities for a poor person to make his own means.

Second off, your chronology is wrong. Grain handouts spiraled in the years AFTER Caesar, and the one who really set the precedents in this regards was his adoptive son Augustus, who conquered Egypt and used it as a source of grain handouts. Caesar was, contrary to what you believe, big into handouts, and this was the major reason he was able to become a successful politician. On several occasions he threw banquets for literally every man in Rome, and handed out grain and olive oil upon returning from his conquests. He paid off the debts of individuals to buy their loyalty, and paid for this in turn by selling his own political loyalty to Crassus, the richest man in Rome.

Third, Caesar, although an agent of handouts, did attempt to do what most Roman - and American - politicians refused to do, which was spend government funds on state work projects. Plutarch describes how before his death he intended to create a WPA system, employing thousands of Romans to dig a new tributary for the Tiber, drain swamps, and build an enlarged and improved harbor accessible to Rome. All that came to an end with his death, but if that had come to pass, Roman history would have been very different because their society would have been stabilized and the poor would have had economic opportunities. So really this proves the validity of government having a proactive role in ensuring the public welfare - contrary to your interpretation.

Fourth, you don't understand Rome's relationship with the world at large. The Roman Empire was not one big, happy family and the relationship of Rome to its dominions was not the relationship between DC and the 50 states or between America and NATO. The Social War was one of Rome's most brutal and hard-fought conflicts, and what the war was about, was Rome's continued exploitation and oppression of other Italian communities. Other communities could not compete with Rome on an even footing because of imperial oppression, and like I said back then it wasn't as simple as "get a job" because life was even less fair than it is now.

Fifth, immigration was part of the solution and not the problem for Rome. Rome made a point of attracting immigrants because their skills and knowledge, although it competed directly with that of their own citizens, proved invaluable to their success as a civilization. Rome became great because they had a huge population, and the reason they did, was because they encouraged (sometimes forced) people to emigrate. Much of what we today think of as Roman culture is borrowed from other cultures that were integrated into Roman society. Ovid, for example, one of the best Roman writers, borrowed heavily from listening to Judaean immigrants; Aesop, whose stories are still popular today, was an immigrant from Hispania. Roman architects were trained by Greek and Etruscan experts. So to say that Rome would have been better off if they had shut off immigration is to turn the truth on its head.

Sixth, your comment about Hadrian shows you really don't understand how the imperial system worked or why it came undone. An imperial system is all about taking resources from one part of a large empire and giving it to another. This is how an empire operates. The Roman empire was grossly differentiated in terms of local regions' resources, challenges, burdens, etc, and saying "everyone look out for themselves" would be the exact antithesis of what the entire was all about, which was Rome pulling the strings to keep everything going.

Hadrian is today regarded as one of the best and wisest emperors. However, he was very unpopular in his own time, and he ruled in a period when Rome's power was at its greatest extent yet never more precarious and troubled. When Hadrian came to power, the Republic had been dead for nearly 300 years - the causes that undid it lay in the distant past.

Hadrian had the wisdom to see what many other Roman leaders refused to see, which was that in order to survive and function, the Roman empire needed to stop thinking in terms of expansion, stop believing it could grow its way out of problems, and instead focus on consolidation. He understood that knee-jerk military responses were destroying the empire. Hence he built huge defensive fortifications and took steps to establish a fixed border.

Ultimately, and contrary to your interpretation, what drove Rome's fall was militarism and greed, and not the fact that the government handed out grain, but the fact that the government refused to make the changes in Roman society that would have prevented the destabilization of the state, for the same reason that you and people like you don't want to do it today, which is blithely saying, "people should help themselves, if we do nothing it will work itself out", without really understanding how the other half lives or the insurmountable challenge they face.

Rome spent huge sums on their military, and like America they found that having a huge military meant they were drawn into conflicts that could have otherwise been avoided: the Jugurthan War, the Hispanic Wars, the Jewish Wars, the Mithridatic Wars, the Macedonian Wars, the British Wars, on and on the list goes. In the long term, the militarism of the Roman economy limited the scope of their productivity as Rome became focused only around maintaining their global military presence at the cost of fixing social problems at home. Militarism also proved a major ingredient in the political problems that undid the empire as more and more the military became not an instrument of Roman freedom but the tail wagging the dog. In the long run, their military proved to be the problem and not the solution.

The Roman middle class continued to grow and not shrink into the Imperial period, after representative government was dead and gone, but what really undermined Roman power in the long run was the lack of attention paid to the problems of the lowest class, because of the same basic false assumption you make which is that government doesn't have a responsibility to help stabilize society and the economy.

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

This was a major factor in the decline of Rome: because the government did not take care of its citizens, private interests did...and ultimately...those private interests became more powerful than the state.

And that's when democracy died.



I agree with this. But it's a chicken-and-egg scenario. Cutting the budget should come first. Limited aims will follow limited means.



For one thing, the Second Amendment: because the Founding Fathers envisioned a citizen-army (like the Hoplite forces of ancient Greece or the pre-Marian legions of ancient Rome). In 1812 we tried fighting wars with a militia and it sucked. The Founding Fathers lived in a world in which the most effective weapon was a musket that couldn't hit the broad side of a barn at fifty paces and took a minute to reload. They did not draft the Bill of Rights imagining that one day any random person could purchase an automatic weapon on the cheap or that the militia would become obsolete.

Another example is the relationship of the military and war powers to the American government. The Founding Fathers had no understanding of the realities of modern war or the idea that conflicts could be more poorly defined than a declaration of war could address because that was not the world they lived in. How do you apply the Constitution to "military actions"? It's very subjective and based on interpretation and precedent.

These are two examples that come to mind; there are many others.

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

wow good call lol

[✔] [item]Thunderfury, Blessed Blade of the Windseeker[/item] (Three)
[✔] [item]Sulfuras, Hand of Ragnaros[/item] (Two)
[✔] [item]32837[/item] & [item]32838[/item]
[✔] [item]Thori'dal, the Stars' Fury[/item]
[✔] [item]46017[/item]
[✔] [item]49623[/item] (Two)
[✔] [item]71086[/item]

On your third point aestu, paying the poor to build shit that makes the state stronger, like harbors or draining swamps etc, is completely different from paying the poor to do nothing.

Jubbers point was saying that the goverment is not responsible to perform the latter. And really, its not responsible to perform the former either, but no one cares because in caesar's case it worked out for the best for rome(if not for caesar eh brutus?)