|
|
| Next: No Internet Connection |
| Author |
Message |
bern
Joined: Mar 12, 2007
Posts: 1434
Location: ann arbor
|
 Posted: Wed Jan 07, 2009 1:49 pm Post subject: [Login to view extended thread Info.] |
|
|
|
|
| ejward wrote: |
Which state should pay for an interstate highway? Having each state take care of their own section is going to lead to huge inconsistencies in the degree of repair. Some states will decide to just do local roads. |
As I said earlier, I might be willing to give a pass to interstate highways. But that is a drop in the bucket of money flowing from taxpayers to washington back to locality.
And, BTW, most states have a system where counties take care of certain roads that extend beyond their borders, and municipalities take care of roads that connect adjacent cities. That can be made to work; and because the money travels less, might well be more efficient.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
mommabear
Joined: Feb 20, 2003
Posts: 6319
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 07, 2009 7:43 pm Post subject: [Login to view extended thread Info.] |
|
|
|
| It says "Reply to ej", but it's really to continuation in reply to several comments from others.
As for the States paying for their own roads, you are not taking into account the population. States with smaller tax roles can't be expected to contribute in the same way as larger states. And that really goes for more than just highways. Schools, hospitals, etc too.
bern, you are too hung up on the idea that all federally funded projects are just a result of the Feds butting into State business. The States also need it out of necessity. We are the "United" States of America. When "we" help one State through a sharing of Federal Funds, we are also helping ourselves too.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CowpokeBob
Joined: Feb 07, 2006
Posts: 1501
Location: South Carolina, USA
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 07, 2009 8:09 pm Post subject: [Login to view extended thread Info.] |
|
|
| ejward wrote: |
| CowpokeBob wrote: |
| mommabear wrote: |
| Quote: |
CowpokeBob said:
Further I think you will find all those infrastructure projects are nothing more than political pork projects which will get awarded to those who best support the agenda. Remember that most if not all infrastructure projects are awarded through a bidding process conducted by the states or the feds. |
I think you're forgetting something here. The Governors are crying to get back the Federal monies that were taken from them because of all the cuts and other "budget balancing" procedures. The majority are plans the States already have in place and are ready to go, but because of those cuts in funding from the Feds, the States don't have the money for infrastructure.
They're not all pork. Trust me. You should drive our streets and highways in Indy and you'd see how badly they are needed.  |
Taken from them? Not hardly. Yup, the plans are in place and ready to go all right. Just like that bridge to nowhere. Incidentally we have one of those here in SC they keep trying to build so I'm not refering to the more well known one. Maybe they can build it this time with some of this stimulus money. Can I say pork, you betcha.
I don't have to drive your streets to know they need fixing. I've got plenty of my own to drive on. Partly becasue there are too many unneeded roads to maintain. If the states planned a little better and spent a little less on pork projects that aren't needed they could do a lot better than they do. Your probably right that not all the projects are pork, just most of them. There's also no reason for me to believe that the states will do something different with the money this time. The main reason I have to drive on my bad roads is becasue the lion's share of the highway funds around here goes to political pork projects instead of fixing what really needs it. I stand behind my comments and we'll see what comes of it. Not holding my breath though. |
Who decides what roads are unneeded? I'm sure the people that live on them don't think they're unneeded. |
State and federal legislatures do it all the time. A highway or traffic engineer would be a better starting choice for making that decision instead of some politician getting a kick back to push a particular project. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bern
Joined: Mar 12, 2007
Posts: 1434
Location: ann arbor
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 07, 2009 9:38 pm Post subject: [Login to view extended thread Info.] |
|
|
| mommabear wrote: |
As for the States paying for their own roads, you are not taking into account the population. States with smaller tax roles can't be expected to contribute in the same way as larger states. And that really goes for more than just highways. Schools, hospitals, etc too. |
Regarding interstate roads, I have agreed that a valid argument can be made for federal funding of such. I am not opposed (but I do recognize that alternatives exist for the creative mind).
Regarding schools and hospitals: A smaller population needs fewer of these. The distribution of these should be about proportional to population density, so no outside funds should be needed. A geographically large empty state might better spend its money on air ambulance services than empty hospitals in the desert.
| mommabear wrote: |
| bern, you are too hung up on the idea that all federally funded projects are just a result of the Feds butting into State business. The States also need it out of necessity. We are the "United" States of America. When "we" help one State through a sharing of Federal Funds, we are also helping ourselves too. |
There are many functions that the states cannot do that impact the whole nation. Foreign relations, national currency and reserve banking, military defense; dealing with contagion;, etc. The common thread is that the effects of all are directly interstate. I support Federal involvement here. There are those who feel that kindergarten education directly affects the entire nation. But local action/funding works here where it does not work in the items I mention above. I am a narrow constructionist when it comes to what I think it is absolutely necessary for Washington to do for you and me. And let me be perfectly clear: I do believe there are proper functions for government in general, and for Washington in particular.
But your statement above "sharing Federal Funds" is simplistic. If the Fed did not extract more money than they need for Federal functions so they could "share" it, the money would be left in taxpayers pockets so they would more happily pay the taxes directly to their state. The federal funds they are so generously "sharing" are extracted from the taxpayer at the expense of the states. And (this is the really sad part) much of this money disappears in the Washington bureaucracy so that the States don't get any benefit from it. There would be more money and more flexibility if the money went directly from the taxpayer to the state. (except maybe for Illinois) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ejward
Joined: Jan 06, 2003
Posts: 7054
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 08, 2009 2:15 pm Post subject: [Login to view extended thread Info.] |
|
|
| bern wrote: |
| ejward wrote: |
Which state should pay for an interstate highway? Having each state take care of their own section is going to lead to huge inconsistencies in the degree of repair. Some states will decide to just do local roads. |
As I said earlier, I might be willing to give a pass to interstate highways. But that is a drop in the bucket of money flowing from taxpayers to washington back to locality.
. |
I know. I had posted before I read the rest of the posts. I would have deleted my post but, you can't any more. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ejward
Joined: Jan 06, 2003
Posts: 7054
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 08, 2009 2:23 pm Post subject: [Login to view extended thread Info.] |
|
|
| bern wrote: |
| mommabear wrote: |
As for the States paying for their own roads, you are not taking into account the population. States with smaller tax roles can't be expected to contribute in the same way as larger states. And that really goes for more than just highways. Schools, hospitals, etc too. |
Regarding interstate roads, I have agreed that a valid argument can be made for federal funding of such. I am not opposed (but I do recognize that alternatives exist for the creative mind).
Regarding schools and hospitals: A smaller population needs fewer of these. The distribution of these should be about proportional to population density, so no outside funds should be needed. A geographically large empty state might better spend its money on air ambulance services than empty hospitals in the desert.
|
It's not always proportional. The tax base has to be considered too. Take the city of Providence, RI for example. The highest population in the state. The most schools, hospitals, etc. The problem is that half of the city is owned by universities and churches that don't pay taxes. I'm sure all the state office buildings don't pay taxes either. So, the city needs state money to help out with it's schools. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CowpokeBob
Joined: Feb 07, 2006
Posts: 1501
Location: South Carolina, USA
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 08, 2009 7:53 pm Post subject: [Login to view extended thread Info.] |
|
|
| ejward wrote: |
| bern wrote: |
| mommabear wrote: |
As for the States paying for their own roads, you are not taking into account the population. States with smaller tax roles can't be expected to contribute in the same way as larger states. And that really goes for more than just highways. Schools, hospitals, etc too. |
Regarding interstate roads, I have agreed that a valid argument can be made for federal funding of such. I am not opposed (but I do recognize that alternatives exist for the creative mind).
Regarding schools and hospitals: A smaller population needs fewer of these. The distribution of these should be about proportional to population density, so no outside funds should be needed. A geographically large empty state might better spend its money on air ambulance services than empty hospitals in the desert.
|
It's not always proportional. The tax base has to be considered too. Take the city of Providence, RI for example. The highest population in the state. The most schools, hospitals, etc. The problem is that half of the city is owned by universities and churches that don't pay taxes. I'm sure all the state office buildings don't pay taxes either. So, the city needs state money to help out with it's schools. |
Sounds like the city needs to handle its affairs better to me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ejward
Joined: Jan 06, 2003
Posts: 7054
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 08, 2009 8:29 pm Post subject: [Login to view extended thread Info.] |
|
|
| CowpokeBob wrote: |
| ejward wrote: |
| bern wrote: |
| mommabear wrote: |
As for the States paying for their own roads, you are not taking into account the population. States with smaller tax roles can't be expected to contribute in the same way as larger states. And that really goes for more than just highways. Schools, hospitals, etc too. |
Regarding interstate roads, I have agreed that a valid argument can be made for federal funding of such. I am not opposed (but I do recognize that alternatives exist for the creative mind).
Regarding schools and hospitals: A smaller population needs fewer of these. The distribution of these should be about proportional to population density, so no outside funds should be needed. A geographically large empty state might better spend its money on air ambulance services than empty hospitals in the desert.
|
It's not always proportional. The tax base has to be considered too. Take the city of Providence, RI for example. The highest population in the state. The most schools, hospitals, etc. The problem is that half of the city is owned by universities and churches that don't pay taxes. I'm sure all the state office buildings don't pay taxes either. So, the city needs state money to help out with it's schools. |
Sounds like the city needs to handle its affairs better to me. |
Well, there's a lot more to it than just that but, the city has come a long way. What can they do? Can states tax federal non-profits like schools and churches? If they can, do they? Taxing Brown University is not going to break them or make them move out of state, I think churches should be taxed anyway. They're not really non-profit. I guess that's another subject though. The answer for RI in general is to run the whole state as one big city. Then, thing would be proportional. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CowpokeBob
Joined: Feb 07, 2006
Posts: 1501
Location: South Carolina, USA
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 11, 2009 7:59 am Post subject: [Login to view extended thread Info.] |
|
|
| ejward wrote: |
| CowpokeBob wrote: |
| ejward wrote: |
| bern wrote: |
| mommabear wrote: |
As for the States paying for their own roads, you are not taking into account the population. States with smaller tax roles can't be expected to contribute in the same way as larger states. And that really goes for more than just highways. Schools, hospitals, etc too. |
Regarding interstate roads, I have agreed that a valid argument can be made for federal funding of such. I am not opposed (but I do recognize that alternatives exist for the creative mind).
Regarding schools and hospitals: A smaller population needs fewer of these. The distribution of these should be about proportional to population density, so no outside funds should be needed. A geographically large empty state might better spend its money on air ambulance services than empty hospitals in the desert.
|
It's not always proportional. The tax base has to be considered too. Take the city of Providence, RI for example. The highest population in the state. The most schools, hospitals, etc. The problem is that half of the city is owned by universities and churches that don't pay taxes. I'm sure all the state office buildings don't pay taxes either. So, the city needs state money to help out with it's schools. |
Sounds like the city needs to handle its affairs better to me. |
Well, there's a lot more to it than just that but, the city has come a long way. What can they do? Can states tax federal non-profits like schools and churches? If they can, do they? Taxing Brown University is not going to break them or make them move out of state, I think churches should be taxed anyway. They're not really non-profit. I guess that's another subject though. The answer for RI in general is to run the whole state as one big city. Then, thing would be proportional. |
There's one of those terms you hear alot, proportionality. Ranks right up there with equality of service if you ask me. I equate these terms with the Robbing Hood mentality. Or take from the rich and give to the poor if you prefer. What is wrong with inequality of service or facilities? Thats what provides the impetus to strive to do better. Find out what the other guy is doing right and see what you can do better yourself. On the other hand taking from those that are doing better simply to give to those that aren't only serves to make the better off less likely to continue to strive and the worse off less likely to want to improve thier lot. The former since what they earn in excess of thier needs will be taken from them and the latter because they will wait for thier hand out. In the end you end up with a population where everyone is waiting for hand outs and nobody is producing. Hmmm, actually sounds familiar for some reason. Folks much as you may wish it to be otherwise there is no such thing as equality or its catch phrase, proportionality. You've probably heard this before but even if you were to mandate that eveyone be given exactly the same share of wealth to start with in a short time there would be some with plenty and some with nothing. There will always be someone or something that is better than you or something better than what you have. And there is nothing wrong with lending a hand so long as it is not done by order or force. As to how all this relates to roads and such why does a small state with a small population need as many miles of roads and highways as a large state with a large population. If the states were paying thier way then there would be the kind of proportionality you speak of in thier road systems. Yes small poor states (like mine) would have far less money for roads but we have plenty of unneeded multi-lane highways in places we don't need them right now while many of our needed/used routes are still two-lanes and horribly outdated, or in need of repair. If we were responsible for our own road system and for funding it there would be far less roads but the ones left would then be easier and less costly to maintain. And I'd bet with a limited budget that the roads most needed would get the most attention. Instead because of a federal pork process that dictates where and how highway funds are used based on politcal favoritism and power we have the current mess of unneeded roads and wasted highway funds. And I'm not even talking about the interstate highway system as it is implemented in my state, don't get me started there. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ejward
Joined: Jan 06, 2003
Posts: 7054
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 11, 2009 1:37 pm Post subject: [Login to view extended thread Info.] |
|
|
| Quote: |
| On the other hand taking from those that are doing better simply to give to those that aren't only serves to make the better off less likely to continue to strive and the worse off less likely to want to improve thier lot.The former since what they earn in excess of thier needs will be taken from them and the latter because they will wait for thier hand out. In the end you end up with a population where everyone is waiting for hand outs and nobody is producing. Hmmm, actually sounds familiar for some reason. Folks much as you may wish it to be otherwise there is no such thing as equality or its catch phrase, proportionality. |
What about the greater good of society? What if the state of RI just stopped maintaining their roads? Or dug them up? People would be forced to drive around the state. How about education? What you seem to be proposing is that people are on their own. If they can afford an education, they can get one. So lets stop public education because some people are paying less into the educational system than I am. Let's end all the government mandated tests in schools and let schools set any standard they want and call it an education. I can go on line and become a doctor of divinity for $30. Does that make me a real doctor? How would all of this effect this country on the world market? We'd slide down the tubes even further than we are now. The greater good of society has to be considered. Everyone looking out for themselves doesn't always work. So, in the case of educating kids in Providence, I don't mind kicking in a few extra dollars. This way, our WHOLE state does better. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CowpokeBob
Joined: Feb 07, 2006
Posts: 1501
Location: South Carolina, USA
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 11, 2009 7:45 pm Post subject: [Login to view extended thread Info.] |
|
|
| ejward wrote: |
| Quote: |
| On the other hand taking from those that are doing better simply to give to those that aren't only serves to make the better off less likely to continue to strive and the worse off less likely to want to improve thier lot.The former since what they earn in excess of thier needs will be taken from them and the latter because they will wait for thier hand out. In the end you end up with a population where everyone is waiting for hand outs and nobody is producing. Hmmm, actually sounds familiar for some reason. Folks much as you may wish it to be otherwise there is no such thing as equality or its catch phrase, proportionality. |
What about the greater good of society? What if the state of RI just stopped maintaining their roads? Or dug them up? People would be forced to drive around the state. How about education? What you seem to be proposing is that people are on their own. If they can afford an education, they can get one. So lets stop public education because some people are paying less into the educational system than I am. Let's end all the government mandated tests in schools and let schools set any standard they want and call it an education. I can go on line and become a doctor of divinity for $30. Does that make me a real doctor? How would all of this effect this country on the world market? We'd slide down the tubes even further than we are now. The greater good of society has to be considered. Everyone looking out for themselves doesn't always work. So, in the case of educating kids in Providence, I don't mind kicking in a few extra dollars. This way, our WHOLE state does better. |
I can always count on you to take what I say to the farthest extreme possible. What about the greater good of Scoiety? Just what the heck is that, care to give a definition a try? I have one for you. Its a polite way to say bend over... You got one point right at least so we're making progress. That is exactly what I am saying...people are on thier own. What is so wrong with that? Are you implying that people are incapable of taking care of themselves? If you want to sit back and let the State look after your needs go ahead and how about letting me know how thats working out for you. I know its the Democratic way for all of us to sacrifice for the "greater good of Society". It's also pretty similar to what Stalin preached. I'm curious. While I'm doing all that "sacrificing" what part of Society is going to look after my good cause I haven't seen it yet and I'm getting a bit long in the tooth. And yes, if everyone is on thier own some will do quite a bit better than others. That's life, get over it.
Now as to the rest. If the states did half the things you suggest I would think they were populated by idiots. Come to think of it maybe some are. Those were your suggestions not mine. Oh, and if YOU don't mind ponying up some extra cash to help I commend you and feel free to do so. Since your so eager to help another idea would be if you donated some of your time to help teach those poor kiddies (I do) than the state could save a few bucks and the kiddies would probably end up with a better education in the end without the need of the States assistance.. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mommabear
Joined: Feb 20, 2003
Posts: 6319
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 12, 2009 5:39 am Post subject: [Login to view extended thread Info.] |
|
|
| CowpokeBob wrote: |
| ejward wrote: |
| Quote: |
| On the other hand taking from those that are doing better simply to give to those that aren't only serves to make the better off less likely to continue to strive and the worse off less likely to want to improve thier lot.The former since what they earn in excess of thier needs will be taken from them and the latter because they will wait for thier hand out. In the end you end up with a population where everyone is waiting for hand outs and nobody is producing. Hmmm, actually sounds familiar for some reason. Folks much as you may wish it to be otherwise there is no such thing as equality or its catch phrase, proportionality. |
What about the greater good of society? What if the state of RI just stopped maintaining their roads? Or dug them up? People would be forced to drive around the state. How about education? What you seem to be proposing is that people are on their own. If they can afford an education, they can get one. So lets stop public education because some people are paying less into the educational system than I am. Let's end all the government mandated tests in schools and let schools set any standard they want and call it an education. I can go on line and become a doctor of divinity for $30. Does that make me a real doctor? How would all of this effect this country on the world market? We'd slide down the tubes even further than we are now. The greater good of society has to be considered. Everyone looking out for themselves doesn't always work. So, in the case of educating kids in Providence, I don't mind kicking in a few extra dollars. This way, our WHOLE state does better. |
I can always count on you to take what I say to the farthest extreme possible. What about the greater good of Scoiety? Just what the heck is that, care to give a definition a try? I have one for you. Its a polite way to say bend over... You got one point right at least so we're making progress. That is exactly what I am saying...people are on thier own. What is so wrong with that? Are you implying that people are incapable of taking care of themselves? If you want to sit back and let the State look after your needs go ahead and how about letting me know how thats working out for you. I know its the Democratic way for all of us to sacrifice for the "greater good of Society". It's also pretty similar to what Stalin preached. I'm curious. While I'm doing all that "sacrificing" what part of Society is going to look after my good cause I haven't seen it yet and I'm getting a bit long in the tooth. And yes, if everyone is on thier own some will do quite a bit better than others. That's life, get over it.
Now as to the rest. If the states did half the things you suggest I would think they were populated by idiots. Come to think of it maybe some are. Those were your suggestions not mine. Oh, and if YOU don't mind ponying up some extra cash to help I commend you and feel free to do so. Since your so eager to help another idea would be if you donated some of your time to help teach those poor kiddies (I do) than the state could save a few bucks and the kiddies would probably end up with a better education in the end without the need of the States assistance.. |
| Quote: |
| CowpokeBob: You got one point right at least so we're making progress. That is exactly what I am saying...people are on thier own. What is so wrong with that? |
It's lost cause, ej, When it gets down to this, they (not you in particular, Bob) cannot understand the difference. Their concept of accepting responsibility and doing things for the Greater Good only applies to the "me". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ejward
Joined: Jan 06, 2003
Posts: 7054
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 12, 2009 8:31 am Post subject: [Login to view extended thread Info.] |
|
|
| Quote: |
| While I'm doing all that "sacrificing" what part of Society is going to look after my good cause I haven't seen it yet and I'm getting a bit long in the tooth |
I guess you don't have water in your home? If you are connected to the public water system, you didn't pay for all of that yourself. You couldn't possibly do it without everyone pitching in. If you have well water, then you don't have the high tech filtering systems you get with public water.
Do you have a fire department? Or police? Should everyone pay for their own protection? I guess you think so. If the house next door burns down because they can't afford a fire department, so what. "some will do quite a bit better than others. That's life, get over it." And if that fire spreads to YOUR house?
| Quote: |
Since your so eager to help another idea would be if you donated some of your time to help teach those poor kiddies (I do) than the state could save a few bucks and the kiddies would probably end up with a better education in the end without the need of the States assistance..
|
I do volunteer my time at a special needs school. Without help from the state, the school would not exist. Or, it would exist and be so crowded that it would not be effective. I can't just write these kids off because their parents can't afford an education. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
xavierx
Joined: Nov 06, 2004
Posts: 5427
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 12, 2009 4:25 pm Post subject: [Login to view extended thread Info.] |
|
|
I've been staying out of this because I believe in both sides of this argument. I think we don't make people take enough personal responsibility, and I think all our government programs encourage dependence on the government rather than trying to better ourselves. I also believe that we need to take care of those that need help, and that there are some things that only the government can do.
However, there is one clear issue to me. The Federal Government is limited by the Constitution to a few, specific things that they are allowed to do. There are also a very limited set of things that states are forbidden to do. Everything else by our founding law is the responsibility and power of each individual state.
Establishment of roads ("post roads") are a power given to Congress. So are taxes, interstate and international commerce regulation, coining money, immigration rules, declaring war and keeping a military, promoting art and science, and ruling over DC. Everything else belongs to the states.
Schools aren't in that list. Neither are fire departments, police, or many other things. Until there is a Constitutional amendment to grant power to the federal government over anything not in the Constitution, I'll continue to say that it's wrong to give up that power to the feds.
There is a reason why the founding fathers set things up that way - they knew that a strong federal government would be as inefficient and self-serving as it is. They knew that once politicians got that much power they'd get corrupted. They were right, and it gets proven every day.
Bottom line for me - we need to take care of each other, but that doesn't mean we need big brother forcing us to do it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ejward
Joined: Jan 06, 2003
Posts: 7054
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 13, 2009 9:51 am Post subject: [Login to view extended thread Info.] |
|
|
I'm not implying that the federal government be responsible for everything. I'm just saying that government in general, be it local, state, or federal, needs to sometimes do things in a non-proportional way for the greater good of society.
I can't afford my own fire department ..... collectively, a bunch of us can.
It is costing my town about $12,000 a year to send my son to public school. I can't afford that but, because people that don't even have kids in the school system put into it, our town can afford to educate all of it's kids. A town of uneducated kids doesn't help anyone. What's wrong with that? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
xavierx
Joined: Nov 06, 2004
Posts: 5427
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 13, 2009 3:26 pm Post subject: [Login to view extended thread Info.] |
|
|
| ejward wrote: |
| It is costing my town about $12,000 a year to send my son to public school. I can't afford that but, because people that don't even have kids in the school system put into it, our town can afford to educate all of it's kids. A town of uneducated kids doesn't help anyone. What's wrong with that? |
Nothing, provided the town decided to do that. If the federal government (which it does) dictates who must be taught and what they must be taught, then that is unconstitutional, but it's perfectly fine for a town or state to do that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CowpokeBob
Joined: Feb 07, 2006
Posts: 1501
Location: South Carolina, USA
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 13, 2009 7:46 pm Post subject: [Login to view extended thread Info.] |
|
|
| ejward wrote: |
| I'm not implying that the federal government be responsible for everything. I'm just saying that government in general, be it local, state, or federal, needs to sometimes do things in a non-proportional way for the greater good of society. |
Thats not the way I read it but thats an issue for another day.We are not on opposite sides of the fence concerning the need for people to band together collectively to get things done. Its that last sentence about proportionality, especially "the greater good of society" part that gets me. Police, fire, education, even roads are important aspects of any society. Where we disagree is in what is the best method of getting them done. You seem to be in favor of having the government completely take charge and I am in favor of the people taking care of it with as little govenment involvement as possible.
There's nothing wrong with government providing for these services up to a point so long as society has empowered them to. But there are also plenty of alternatives to big government. Neighborhood watches and citizen patrols to aid in crime prevention, volunteer fire depts to aid in fire prevention, home schooling and tutoring for education, and though they were ended in this state some time back unfortunately, chain gangs to help maintain roads to name a few. There is a purpose for government in the areas of national defense, foreign policy, interstate commerce, etc.
We could write volumes going over this individual issue or that but for me Xavier summed it up as well as anyone could I think and much better than I have.
| Quote: |
| I've been staying out of this because I believe in both sides of this argument. I think we don't make people take enough personal responsibility, and I think all our government programs encourage dependence on the government rather than trying to better ourselves. I also believe that we need to take care of those that need help, and that there are some things that only the government can do. |
I couldn't agree more with what he wrote. I just don't happen to think the last two items about helping others and about the governments role are mutually inclusive.
You could have said something before we spent all that time arguing with each other Xavier |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ejward
Joined: Jan 06, 2003
Posts: 7054
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 13, 2009 8:42 pm Post subject: [Login to view extended thread Info.] |
|
|
| Quote: |
| You seem to be in favor of having the government completely take charge and I am in favor of the people taking care of it with as little govenment involvement as possible. |
I'm not in favor of the government taking over everything but, there's things the government can organize better. My town volunteer fire department. Because I'm close to the town line, I get serviced by the fire department from the next town over (I pay a fire tax). It's not volunteer. Because of this, my insurance is a lot lower. Volunteer fire departments don't always work out well. I guess it's for the town to decide but, according to statistics that the insurance industry uses, government run fire departments do a better job. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CowpokeBob
Joined: Feb 07, 2006
Posts: 1501
Location: South Carolina, USA
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 14, 2009 7:36 pm Post subject: [Login to view extended thread Info.] |
|
|
| ejward wrote: |
| Quote: |
| You seem to be in favor of having the government completely take charge and I am in favor of the people taking care of it with as little govenment involvement as possible. |
I'm not in favor of the government taking over everything but, there's things the government can organize better. My town volunteer fire department. Because I'm close to the town line, I get serviced by the fire department from the next town over (I pay a fire tax). It's not volunteer. Because of this, my insurance is a lot lower. Volunteer fire departments don't always work out well. I guess it's for the town to decide but, according to statistics that the insurance industry uses, government run fire departments do a better job. |
Don't by chance know where I can get a a copy of those statistics cause its the first I've heard of it? I get a discount on my home insurance but its because there is a hydrant within 300' of my house and that puts me in a different risk zone..The fact that I am served by a volunteer fire dept has no bearing on the rate here. Incidentally the insurance company doesn't advertise the discount. I found out about it from the fire dept and had to inform the insurance company about the hydrant to get the discounted rate. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ejward
Joined: Jan 06, 2003
Posts: 7054
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 14, 2009 7:50 pm Post subject: [Login to view extended thread Info.] |
|
|
| CowpokeBob wrote: |
| ejward wrote: |
| Quote: |
| You seem to be in favor of having the government completely take charge and I am in favor of the people taking care of it with as little govenment involvement as possible. |
I'm not in favor of the government taking over everything but, there's things the government can organize better. My town volunteer fire department. Because I'm close to the town line, I get serviced by the fire department from the next town over (I pay a fire tax). It's not volunteer. Because of this, my insurance is a lot lower. Volunteer fire departments don't always work out well. I guess it's for the town to decide but, according to statistics that the insurance industry uses, government run fire departments do a better job. |
Don't by chance know where I can get a a copy of those statistics cause its the first I've heard of it? I get a discount on my home insurance but its because there is a hydrant within 300' of my house and that puts me in a different risk zone..The fact that I am served by a volunteer fire dept has no bearing on the rate here. Incidentally the insurance company doesn't advertise the discount. I found out about it from the fire dept and had to inform the insurance company about the hydrant to get the discounted rate. |
I was told about this when I got insurance. I save about 5% because I'm served by a full time paid fire department as oposed to a volunteer fire department. I was told that statistically, A full time paid fire depatment is more effective.
I was also asked how close I was to a fire hydrant. Even when I'm re-shopping for insurance, I'm always asked this. If your insurane company didn't ask, I'd start shopping around. I'm also asked the volunteer fire department question. Why would they even ask if there was not some sort of difference in price? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
| |
|
|
General