Why I'm getting a concealed carry permit.

50 posts / 0 new
Last post
rigel1
rigel1's picture

Am I a gun nut? Am I paranoid? Nope. Everybody who knows me knows I'm pretty level headed. So why do I want to carry my pistol? I don't necessarily want to carry it, but I want to be able to carry it.

I don't shoot often. Maybe two or three times per year. But I enjoy it. I like the noise, the kick, the smell, the action, watching brass fly and the challenge. It's fun! Does that mean that I want to shoot someone? Hell no. I don't even want to shoot a rabbit. But I love to shoot things. Especially things that don't die. I like darts too, but I don't really want to stick somebody with a dart either.

Then why do I want to carry? My state allows it but I'm pretty sure he feds don't like it. That appeals to me. Every year the feds want more of my life to control. They want to regulate me more, make more decisions for me, tell me what to eat, punish me more for behavior that they don't approve of. And soon decide what medical procedure I can have and what doctor I can see. Well they do a million things that I don't approve of and I have no recourse. So I will exploit the one freedom that I'm pretty sure they don't appreciate. So why do I want to carry my pistol? It's simple. Because I can.  

Comments

Dr. Econ
Dr. Econ's picture
And people say you are nut! I

And people say you are nut! I don't believe them.

Dano45
Dano45's picture
Dr. Econ wrote: And people

Dr. Econ wrote:

And people say you are nut! I don't believe them.

Ditto!

anonymous green
It's not the gun part of you

It's not the gun part of you that's really so dangerous, but you'll become lots more dangerous when you start packing heat.

It's your mind rigel, laid bare on these pages.

It's truly terrifying.

workingman
workingman's picture
rigel1 wrote: Am I a gun nut?

rigel1 wrote:

Am I a gun nut? Am I paranoid? Nope. Everybody who knows me knows I'm pretty level headed. So why do I want to carry my pistol? I don't necessarily want to carry it, but I want to be able to carry it.

I don't shoot often. Maybe two or three times per year. But I enjoy it. I like the noise, the kick, the smell, the action, watching brass fly and the challenge. It's fun! Does that mean that I want to shoot someone? Hell no. I don't even want to shoot a rabbit. But I love to shoot things. Especially things that don't die. I like darts too, but I don't really want to stick somebody with a dart either.

Then why do I want to carry? My state allows it but I'm pretty sure he feds don't like it. That appeals to me. Every year the feds want more of my life to control. They want to regulate me more, make more decisions for me, tell me what to eat, punish me more for behavior that they don't approve of. And soon decide what medical procedure I can have and what doctor I can see. Well they do a million things that I don't approve of and I have no recourse. So I will exploit the one freedom that I'm pretty sure they don't appreciate. So why do I want to carry my pistol? It's simple. Because I can.  

Do not tell the libs you are getting a conceal carry it scares the little girls to know you can defend yourself. See they are all completely dependent on the government to Care for them so you have to be too.

al3
al3's picture
While I do understand the

While I do understand the desire for concealed carry or shooting things because there may be some practical reasons for it,  I'll never understand the paranoia of government coupled with the complete confidence in a corporate CEO to do good by you.

workingman
workingman's picture
With the government you have

With the government you have to accept what they give you if you likr it or not. With corporations you can choose to do bussiness with them or not.

delete jan in iowa
workingman wrote:With the

workingman wrote:
With the government you have to accept what they give you if you likr it or not. With corporations you can choose to do bussiness with them or not.

Gee.... It's exactly the opposite of how you're describing things.

With the government you can go to your elected prepresentative and raise hell or get help.  If you haven't gone to your elected prepresentative for assistance, then you don't know how helpful they can be and how the system actually works.

Corporations don't give a crap what you do, they can dominate a market and you really don't have any choice, i.e. Walmart forcing out all competition in rural areas.

Given the choice I prefer "we the people" i.e. government.

al3
al3's picture
workingman wrote:With the

workingman wrote:
With the government you have to accept what they give you if you likr it or not. With corporations you can choose to do bussiness with them or not.

That familiar reasoning just doesn't resonate with me....for example, you can't choose to have healthcare or not.  Do you want your death panels administered by Washington bureaucrats or an altruistic corporate CEO who's sees a quarterly bonus bonanza if he whacks costs?"  And guess what, YOU are the cost?.....I know which one I'd want......

Or unless you want to bury your savings in the back yard, you are forced to deal with the financial services industry, and ultimately Wall Street..  Yes there are different choices within each industry that you can punish or reward, but for the most part, you are ultimately dealing with bankers.  Now, for shoes or computers, no problem with your argument, and I don't know a liberal who pushes for government made shoes.   

But for many cases, it comes down to the government vs. bankers and I have no problem with greater government involvement in those areas, because I do trust a politician over a banker even in this age where the bankers own them.  Bankers are the origin of our corrupt politicians.  Neuter the bankers, and we'll have better politicians. 

I don't expect you to agree with this, but I just don't understand the fear of government and the inference of absolute trust of those who have NO other real concern besides next quarter's profits.  And they don't give a rat's a** about you, and would just as soon flatten you if you got in the way of their quarterly numbers game.

workingman
workingman's picture
al3 wrote: workingman

al3 wrote:

workingman wrote:
With the government you have to accept what they give you if you likr it or not. With corporations you can choose to do bussiness with them or not.

That familiar reasoning just doesn't resonate with me....for example, you can't choose to have healthcare or not.  Do you want your death panels administered by Washington bureaucrats or an altruistic corporate CEO who's sees a quarterly bonus bonanza if he whacks costs?"  And guess what, YOU are the cost?.....I know which one I'd want......Or unless you want to bury your savings in the back yard, you are forced to deal with the financial services industry, and ultimately Wall Street..  Yes there are different choices within each industry that you can punish or reward, but for the most part, you are ultimately dealing with bankers.  Now, for shoes or computers, no problem with your argument, and I don't know a liberal who pushes for government made shoes.   But for many cases, it comes down to the government vs. bankers and I have no problem with greater government involvement in those areas, because I do trust a politician over a banker even in this age where the bankers own them.  Bankers are the origin of our corrupt politicians.  Neuter the bankers, and we'll have better politicians.  I don't expect you to agree with this, but I just don't understand the fear of government and the inference of absolute trust of those who have NO other real concern besides next quarter's profits.  And they don't give a rat's a** about you, and would just as soon flatten you if you got in the way of their quarterly numbers game.

Well lets look at wall street ver government on retirement. the individual stocks you own pay you dividends for owning their stock they want their shares to be stable And increase in value this is to your benefit and theirs. You need to pay attention And move your money as needed to avoid loss.

Now the government side they take 6 perecent from you and 6 percent from your employer this is sold to you as a Secure retirement. However the government has sad that they are currently paying out more than take in. This Will empty the account by 2030 or so at which time they Will only be able to pay out 78 percent of the benefits promised to you. That is a 22 percent loss which is actually worse than that when you add the fact that they pay no interest on the money they take And hold from you for decades. This means you get zero benefit from compounded interest or the ability to avoid this 20 plus percent loss.

Health Care i do not want death panels at all. Go down to your local free government run clinic And see how bad it is than go to the nicest hospital in town tell me which one you want to be treated in. Once the government has control the free clinic Will be your only choice which is no choice at all.

anonymous green
Unless of course, you use

Unless of course, you use your power to tax on the rich, and make them pay for Health Care, and infrastructure, and social services for the poor.

An Estate tax equal to what America took from my family in the 90's, retro-active to the burning of the American Reichstag in 2001, and the Bush 'tax cuts', on every wealthy person who died and actually did take it with them.

Fifty-five percent.

doh1304
doh1304's picture
It is a sad truth that all

It is a sad truth that all systems can only work to the extent of the moral quality of the people who manage them. (whether you call them a CEO or a Mayor, an entrepreneur or a bureaucrat ) And as a corollary the level of morality that we allow and encourage. The "free market" idea that if a corporation acts immorally one can chose not to do business with it fails in reality because we have allowed - in fact rewarded - immoral business practices so well and for so long that there are no more moral businesses, and we have allowed them to control our world so totally that it is, or at least it is almost universally believed to be, impossible to avoid doing business. To claim otherwise is in reality to unilaterally deny yourself the ability, the tools, to defend yourself.

Dr. Econ
Dr. Econ's picture
workingman wrote:With the

workingman wrote:
With the government you have to accept what they give you if you likr it or not. With corporations you can choose to do bussiness with them or not.

Sounds like you never actually tried shopping for something.

Take cars, for example. According to Consumer Reports, if you want to have your car last beyond 200,000 then the only car most people can afford (under 20,000) is a Honda or a Toyota.  There's basically no difference between them, except the Honda is a bit more expensive and a bit more horsepower.

That is basically, in a nutshell, our 'free market'. A small number of firms offering nearly identical products to large segments of the population. Just like in politics, if you have no choice unless you are part of a large segment of the population whose behavior would make a difference to either a politician or a CEO.

I am not aruging that we should vote on what is made or how, but I am saying that an individual's preference is basically nill in both cases - unless he agrees what large numbers of people want.

workingman
workingman's picture
anonymous green wrote: Unless

anonymous green wrote:

Unless of course, you use your power to tax on the rich, and make them pay for Health Care, and infrastructure, and social services for the poor.

An Estate tax equal to what America took from my family in the 90's, retro-active to the burning of the American Reichstag in 2001, and the Bush 'tax cuts', on every wealthy person who died and actually did take it with them.

Fifty-five percent.

What did america take from you in the 90's? How will taxing the rich help you get back what you think you lost in the 90's.

Did the rich come to your House with a gun And force you to buy products that make them rich?

How Will sending the government over to their House eith a gun get back what you think you lost?

drc2
I don't know how rigging the

I don't know how rigging the laws on corporations and banks to commit what many have called "legal crimes" compares with coming to my house with a gun to buy their stuff.  I do know that Woodie Guthrie told us that "you can steal more with a briefcase than a gun" in the earlier Depression.  I think "a portfolio" beats a briefcase all to hell.

So, how many "guns" do the bills bring to your house, or do you really think you are enjoying the market efficiencies of free market capitalism as the honored consumer?  Oh, and they did bring the guns to "their house" when that mortgage fraud made neighborhood real estate tank.  Being underwater has not meant getting any help from the banks.  How is this little analogy playing out?

Honest "workingmen" as well as those who employ them ought to oppose the pirates ransacking the town instead of handing it over to them to run "like a business."  We need to run our own town instead.  What always rings the wrong note in your posts is this contempt for government rather than an alternative way to govern.  Just getting out of the way of business to let some "free market" play out does not strike me as more than an emotional rant.  The idea that "free markets" and "choice" give you "power" we cannot have in democracy does not persuade me.  I think it is divide and conquer v. the solidarity the many need to equalize the playing field of humanity with "the few."  It is they who choose to be on the short side, not we.

delete jan in iowa
Maybe we're missing what

Maybe we're missing what "workingman" is really saying.  He just wants to be left alone.

In centuries past he would have been able to go up in the mountains and be a hermit or mountainman.  Live on the edge with nature, hunt, fish and grow his own food without needing anyone else.  That could be an idealic life, back a hundred years ago.

But today he isn't able to be solitary.  He has to put up with neighbors, traffic lights, car insurance, driver's liscences, grocery stores, all the day to day agrivations, not to mention where ever he has to work.  No wonder he's unhappy, he has the heart of a mountainman, a hermit who wants to be left to his own talents.

A man born into a world he doesn't wants to be a part of.

workingman
workingman's picture
When the market crashed And

When the market crashed And the government bailout out the banks they also gave home owners that could not afford thr House they bought a way out. But people like me who bought the House we could afford get the shaft.

The bills that come to your House where a volentary decission between you and the company sending the bill. The government does not send bills they take the money from you before you ever get a chance to say no.

We have fundamental difference between our thinking, you want complete government control over your entire life, believing it Will enhance your freedom. I bet the russians under communism thought that too. Were i want the smallest least powerful government possible. I realize the federal government can not set up any rule, law or agency that can help everyone with any thing. Laws that make since in new york Will not work in south dakota.

workingman
workingman's picture
jan in iowa wrote: Maybe

jan in iowa wrote:

Maybe we're missing what "workingman" is really saying.  He just wants to be left alone.

In centuries past he would have been able to go up in the mountains and be a hermit or mountainman.  Live on the edge with nature, hunt, fish and grow his own food without needing anyone else.  That could be an idealic life, back a hundred years ago.

But today he isn't able to be solitary.  He has to put up with neighbors, traffic lights, car insurance, driver's liscences, grocery stores, all the day to day agrivations, not to mention where ever he has to work.  No wonder he's unhappy, he has the heart of a mountainman, a hermit who wants to be left to his own talents.

A man born into a world he doesn't wants to be a part of.

I do not mind being part of the world as long as i do not have to pay for your life at the expense of my own. I am saying i sacrafice buying this And going places because i can not afford it while people living off the government doll get everything handed to them for no work at all.

delete jan in iowa
workingman wrote: I do not

workingman wrote:

I do not mind being part of the world as long as i do not have to pay for your life at the expense of my own. I am saying i sacrafice buying this And going places because i can not afford it while people living off the government doll get everything handed to them for no work at all.

So you are jealous and envious, and feel cheated and robbed of what is rightfully yours?

workingman
workingman's picture
jan in iowa wrote: workingman

jan in iowa wrote:

workingman wrote:

I do not mind being part of the world as long as i do not have to pay for your life at the expense of my own. I am saying i sacrafice buying this And going places because i can not afford it while people living off the government doll get everything handed to them for no work at all.

So you are jealous and envious, and feel cheated and robbed of what is rightfully yours?

Robbed yes everytime the government steals money from my Check to give it to someone who has not earned it.

Jealous nope, envious not at all, cheated not even close. I just want the government to go back to the 18 jobs it is assigned nothing more nothing less.

delete jan in iowa
workingman wrote: I just want

workingman wrote:

I just want the government to go back to the 18 jobs it is assigned nothing more nothing less.

If only the complexities of modern life could make that possible for you.

anonymous green
workingman wrote: anonymous

workingman wrote:

anonymous green wrote:

Unless of course, you use your power to tax on the rich, and make them pay for Health Care, and infrastructure, and social services for the poor.

An Estate tax equal to what America took from my family in the 90's, retro-active to the burning of the American Reichstag in 2001, and the Bush 'tax cuts', on every wealthy person who died and actually did take it with them.

Fifty-five percent.

What did america take from you in the 90's? How will taxing the rich help you get back what you think you lost in the 90's. Did the rich come to your House with a gun And force you to buy products that make them rich? How Will sending the government over to their House eith a gun get back what you think you lost?

55% is what they took from everyone in the '90s. I was glad to give it, until Bush wasted it on war by artifice, and let a whole generation get away tax free.

Either take the same from the people who started this mess we're in, or give me mine back.

I would prefer to have remained proud to have helped give America the biggest surplus it ever had.

workingman
workingman's picture
anonymous green

anonymous green wrote:

workingman wrote:

anonymous green wrote:

Unless of course, you use your power to tax on the rich, and make them pay for Health Care, and infrastructure, and social services for the poor.

An Estate tax equal to what America took from my family in the 90's, retro-active to the burning of the American Reichstag in 2001, and the Bush 'tax cuts', on every wealthy person who died and actually did take it with them.

Fifty-five percent.

What did america take from you in the 90's? How will taxing the rich help you get back what you think you lost in the 90's. Did the rich come to your House with a gun And force you to buy products that make them rich? How Will sending the government over to their House eith a gun get back what you think you lost?

55% is what they took from everyone in the '90s. I was glad to give it, until Bush wasted it on war by artifice, and let a whole generation get away tax free.

Either take the same from the people who started this mess we're in, or give me mine back.

I would prefer to have remained proud to have helped give America the biggest surplus it ever had.

55 percent of what?

anonymous green
The family estate, the death

The family estate, the death tax, the way we fold the billions back into America's bloodstream, be it the estate of our racists, our fascists, or our saints.

workingman
workingman's picture
anonymous green wrote: The

anonymous green wrote:

The family estate, the death tax, the way we fold the billions back into America's bloodstream, be it the estate of our racists, our fascists, or our saints.

So you think you are entitled to 55 percent of some thing you never earned and they have already paid taxes on.

anonymous green
No, not me. America is

No, not me.

America is entitled to 55% of the estates of every multimillionaire and billionaire who died since Bush said they could go tax free.

workingman
workingman's picture
anonymous green wrote: No,

anonymous green wrote:

No, not me.

America is entitled to 55% of the estates of every multimillionaire and billionaire who died since Bush said they could go tax free.

I think no, because they already paid taxes on thd money before they bought the estate.

Dr. Econ
Dr. Econ's picture
jan in iowa wrote: In

jan in iowa wrote:

In centuries past he [workingman] would have been able to go up in the mountains and be a hermit or mountainman.  Live on the edge with nature, hunt, fish and grow his own food without needing anyone else.  That could be an idealic life, back a hundred years ago.

I can't tell if your joking or not.

Dr. Econ
Dr. Econ's picture
workingman wrote:... We have

workingman wrote:
... We have fundamental difference between our thinking, you want complete government control over your entire life, believing it Will enhance your freedom. I bet the Russians under communism thought that too. Were i want the smallest least powerful government possible. .

I think we all agree the government should be as small as possible. Your just being intellectually lazy by not wanting to attack the specific programs we want. It's a abstract and sort of worthless point. Of course we all want the government as small as possible.

I mean, take something you like - say defense spending. If you thought it was necessary to tax people 55% in order for our country to defend itself, then that would be fine.

anonymous green
OK, it's necessary to have

OK, it's necessary to have 55% of America's wealth fold back into our Country in order that we can defend ourselves from God, who is trying to kill us.

With flood, and with flame.

With disease.

With sadness and lonliness.

[15] And the kings of the earth, and the great men, and the rich men, and the chief captains,
and the mighty men, hid themselves in the dens and in the rocks of the mountains;
 
[16] And said to the mountains and rocks, Fall on us, and hide us from the face of him that
sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb:
 
[17] The great day of his wrath is come; and who shall stand? The meek inherit everything, at
this stage of the game, as these cowards fade away.

delete jan in iowa
Dr. Econ wrote: jan in iowa

Dr. Econ wrote:

jan in iowa wrote:

In centuries past he [workingman] would have been able to go up in the mountains and be a hermit or mountainman.  Live on the edge with nature, hunt, fish and grow his own food without needing anyone else.  That could be an idealic life, back a hundred years ago.

I can't tell if your joking or not.

I was being sarcastic and sort of kind with him, he is a good soul you know.  

However, it goes to the thread I started  Libertarians are incapable of coping with modern society  

ah2
rigel1 wrote: Am I a gun nut?

rigel1 wrote:

Am I a gun nut? Am I paranoid? Nope. Everybody who knows me knows I'm pretty level headed. So why do I want to carry my pistol? I don't necessarily want to carry it, but I want to be able to carry it.

I don't shoot often. Maybe two or three times per year. But I enjoy it. I like the noise, the kick, the smell, the action, watching brass fly and the challenge. It's fun! Does that mean that I want to shoot someone? Hell no. I don't even want to shoot a rabbit. But I love to shoot things. Especially things that don't die. I like darts too, but I don't really want to stick somebody with a dart either.

Then why do I want to carry? My state allows it but I'm pretty sure he feds don't like it. That appeals to me. Every year the feds want more of my life to control. They want to regulate me more, make more decisions for me, tell me what to eat, punish me more for behavior that they don't approve of. And soon decide what medical procedure I can have and what doctor I can see. Well they do a million things that I don't approve of and I have no recourse. So I will exploit the one freedom that I'm pretty sure they don't appreciate. So why do I want to carry my pistol? It's simple. Because I can.  

Rigel, NO ONE has ever accused you of being level headed.  NO ONE.  In fact, quite the opposite.  You'll get a conceal and carry permit because you are a partisan hack like you always have been.  Since you openly admitted not practicing shooting, you will probably fall into that statistic where you are more likely to kill or injury yourself or one of your family rather than ever use your gun in self defense.  Good luck with that.  I'll pray for your family's wellbeing....

workingman
workingman's picture
Dr. Econ wrote: workingman

Dr. Econ wrote:

workingman wrote:
... We have fundamental difference between our thinking, you want complete government control over your entire life, believing it Will enhance your freedom. I bet the Russians under communism thought that too. Were i want the smallest least powerful government possible. .

I think we all agree the government should be as small as possible. Your just being intellectually lazy by not wanting to attack the specific programs we want. It's a abstract and sort of worthless point. Of course we all want the government as small as possible.

I mean, take something you like - say defense spending. If you thought it was necessary to tax people 55% in order for our country to defend itself, then that would be fine.

The federal government does not have a revenue problem they have an over controlling spending problem. Lets start by ellimitating all non-essential federal agencies and jobs. The ones they shut down first during the debit ceilling debate. The federal government should have zero non-essential employees. Than we go after all agencies that are not cobstitutionally required. like the department of energy, ag, Ed, ssi, medicare, medicaid, And the list goes on.

Defense is constitutionally requires so if a high tax to pay for the war is needed than every citizen should pay not just the Rich.

Bush_Wacker
Bush_Wacker's picture
workingman wrote: Dr. Econ

workingman wrote:

Dr. Econ wrote:

workingman wrote:
... We have fundamental difference between our thinking, you want complete government control over your entire life, believing it Will enhance your freedom. I bet the Russians under communism thought that too. Were i want the smallest least powerful government possible. .

I think we all agree the government should be as small as possible. Your just being intellectually lazy by not wanting to attack the specific programs we want. It's a abstract and sort of worthless point. Of course we all want the government as small as possible.

I mean, take something you like - say defense spending. If you thought it was necessary to tax people 55% in order for our country to defend itself, then that would be fine.

The federal government does not have a revenue problem they have an over controlling spending problem. Lets start by ellimitating all non-essential federal agencies and jobs. The ones they shut down first during the debit ceilling debate. The federal government should have zero non-essential employees. Than we go after all agencies that are not cobstitutionally required. like the department of energy, ag, Ed, ssi, medicare, medicaid, And the list goes on. Defense is constitutionally requires so if a high tax to pay for the war is needed than every citizen should pay not just the Rich.

Hell you're right workingman.  As a matter of fact let's take away everything that you take for granted.  Let's privatize the parks and the National parks so that you can pay some outrageous fee if you ever want to use them.  Let's privatize all the roads and let you pay out of your pocket everytime you want to drive somewhere.  Let's privatize the water system so that you can pay some ungodly fee for watering your lawn or making iced tea.  Let's privatize the air that we breathe because corporations have to pay money in order to keep the pollution down.  That gives them every right in the world according to you to charge you up the ying yang for reimbursing them.  Let's privatize the police department that way you can have to wait for a credit check before they deploy someone to your house while you're being robbed.  Same for the fire department.  Let's privatize SS, medicare and medicaid so that you can get those assurances ONLY if you can afford them, screw everybody else.  Spending problem solved!

That sounds more like the communist Soviet Union way of doing things than the democratic American way of doing things but what the hell, you conservatives know whats best for us all.

workingman
workingman's picture
Bush_Wacker wrote: workingman

Bush_Wacker wrote:

workingman wrote:

Dr. Econ wrote:

workingman wrote:
... We have fundamental difference between our thinking, you want complete government control over your entire life, believing it Will enhance your freedom. I bet the Russians under communism thought that too. Were i want the smallest least powerful government possible. .

I think we all agree the government should be as small as possible. Your just being intellectually lazy by not wanting to attack the specific programs we want. It's a abstract and sort of worthless point. Of course we all want the government as small as possible.

I mean, take something you like - say defense spending. If you thought it was necessary to tax people 55% in order for our country to defend itself, then that would be fine.

The federal government does not have a revenue problem they have an over controlling spending problem. Lets start by ellimitating all non-essential federal agencies and jobs. The ones they shut down first during the debit ceilling debate. The federal government should have zero non-essential employees. Than we go after all agencies that are not cobstitutionally required. like the department of energy, ag, Ed, ssi, medicare, medicaid, And the list goes on. Defense is constitutionally requires so if a high tax to pay for the war is needed than every citizen should pay not just the Rich.

Hell you're right workingman.  As a matter of fact let's take away everything that you take for granted.  Let's privatize the parks and the National parks so that you can pay some outrageous fee if you ever want to use them.  Let's privatize all the roads and let you pay out of your pocket everytime you want to drive somewhere.  Let's privatize the water system so that you can pay some ungodly fee for watering your lawn or making iced tea.  Let's privatize the air that we breathe because corporations have to pay money in order to keep the pollution down.  That gives them every right in the world according to you to charge you up the ying yang for reimbursing them.  Let's privatize the police department that way you can have to wait for a credit check before they deploy someone to your house while you're being robbed.  Same for the fire department.  Let's privatize SS, medicare and medicaid so that you can get those assurances ONLY if you can afford them, screw everybody else.  Spending problem solved!

That sounds more like the communist Soviet Union way of doing things than the democratic American way of doing things but what the hell, you conservatives know whats best for us all.

Roads are constitutionally required. The states Will still have those agencies like education, enviromental protection, energy and parks.

There are national parks that have big sections closed off to the public to prevent further damage, however, they allowed an archiologist cut a hill in half to get trex bones. What causes more damage me walking there or the guy using dynamite to remove the hill.

ah2
workingman wrote: Dr. Econ

workingman wrote:

Dr. Econ wrote:

workingman wrote:
... We have fundamental difference between our thinking, you want complete government control over your entire life, believing it Will enhance your freedom. I bet the Russians under communism thought that too. Were i want the smallest least powerful government possible. .

I think we all agree the government should be as small as possible. Your just being intellectually lazy by not wanting to attack the specific programs we want. It's a abstract and sort of worthless point. Of course we all want the government as small as possible.

I mean, take something you like - say defense spending. If you thought it was necessary to tax people 55% in order for our country to defend itself, then that would be fine.

The federal government does not have a revenue problem they have an over controlling spending problem. Lets start by ellimitating all non-essential federal agencies and jobs. The ones they shut down first during the debit ceilling debate. The federal government should have zero non-essential employees. Than we go after all agencies that are not cobstitutionally required. like the department of energy, ag, Ed, ssi, medicare, medicaid, And the list goes on. Defense is constitutionally requires so if a high tax to pay for the war is needed than every citizen should pay not just the Rich.

Define "non-essential."

And you are already contradicting yourself by eliminating, say the dept of energy, because part of its responsibility is the monitoring, regulation, and security of our nuclear power industry which most certainly falls under your "defense only" paradigm.

workingman
workingman's picture
the government all ready

the government all ready defined non-essential personell when they shut down the government. every state has a department of energy to handle the nuclear regulations.   the security of the power plants can be handled locally. 

i am not for defense only i am for the 18 jobs assigned to the government by the constitution.  roads, post offices, immirgration, national defense you know in article one section 8 of the constitution.

anonymous green
Non-essential citizens in

Non-essential citizens in your anti-competitive constitutional profiteering scheme would check in where?

workingman
workingman's picture
anonymous green

anonymous green wrote:

Non-essential citizens in your anti-competitive constitutional profiteering scheme would check in where?

They could get private sector jobs. The federal governmemt should have zero non essential workers.

ah2
workingman wrote: the

workingman wrote:

the government all ready defined non-essential personell when they shut down the government. every state has a department of energy to handle the nuclear regulations.   the security of the power plants can be handled locally. 

i am not for defense only i am for the 18 jobs assigned to the government by the constitution.  roads, post offices, immirgration, national defense you know in article one section 8 of the constitution.

One of those charges was the general welfare of all citizens.

workingman
workingman's picture
ah2 wrote: workingman

ah2 wrote:

workingman wrote:

the government all ready defined non-essential personell when they shut down the government. every state has a department of energy to handle the nuclear regulations.   the security of the power plants can be handled locally. 

i am not for defense only i am for the 18 jobs assigned to the government by the constitution.  roads, post offices, immirgration, national defense you know in article one section 8 of the constitution.

One of those charges was the general welfare of all citizens.

Thst is true but it says to promote general welfare not to provide it..

rigel1
rigel1's picture
anonymous green wrote: It's

anonymous green wrote:

It's not the gun part of you that's really so dangerous, but you'll become lots more dangerous when you start packing heat.

It's your mind rigel, laid bare on these pages.

It's truly terrifying.

 

 Really? What exactly are you terrified of? I can be dangerous, but only when the situation requires it. Generally, I'm the last man you need to worry about. Don't worry your little head. I was trained by the world's finest fighting force. So there is no need for you to panic. Feel better yet?

Dr. Econ
Dr. Econ's picture
anonymous green wrote: OK,

anonymous green wrote:

OK, it's necessary to have 55% of America's wealth fold back into our Country in order that we can defend ourselves from God, who is trying to kill us.

With flood, and with flame.

With disease.

With sadness and lonliness.

[15] And the kings of the earth, and the great men, and the rich men, and the chief captains,
and the mighty men, hid themselves in the dens and in the rocks of the mountains;
 
[16] And said to the mountains and rocks, Fall on us, and hide us from the face of him that
sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb:
 
[17] The great day of his wrath is come; and who shall stand? The meek inherit everything, at
this stage of the game, as these cowards fade away.

Are you a socialist or something?

workingman
workingman's picture
Dr. Econ wrote: anonymous

Dr. Econ wrote:

anonymous green wrote:

OK, it's necessary to have 55% of America's wealth fold back into our Country in order that we can defend ourselves from God, who is trying to kill us.

With flood, and with flame.

With disease.

With sadness and lonliness.

[15] And the kings of the earth, and the great men, and the rich men, and the chief captains,
and the mighty men, hid themselves in the dens and in the rocks of the mountains;
 
[16] And said to the mountains and rocks, Fall on us, and hide us from the face of him that
sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb:
 
[17] The great day of his wrath is come; and who shall stand? The meek inherit everything, at
this stage of the game, as these cowards fade away.

Are you a socialist or something?

Sounds more like a freedom hating communist to me.

Dr. Econ
Dr. Econ's picture
workingman wrote: The states

workingman wrote:
The states will still have those agencies like education, enviromental protection, energy and parks.

Fascinating. You just don't want the federal government to have an education department, but you think the states are fine with it?

Is that supposed to make sense? What about a country like Spain, could it have a national education program? France? Germany? Or is it just the US that can't have one?

And if your arguement is that the US is too large to have an education program, what about Russia and China, should they abandon their programs? Do test scores vary with the size of the country?

I think your hypothesis is incredibly arbitrary and based on no facts.

workingman
workingman's picture
Dr. Econ wrote: workingman

Dr. Econ wrote:

workingman wrote:
The states will still have those agencies like education, enviromental protection, energy and parks.

Fascinating. You just don't want the federal government to have an education department, but you think the states are fine with it?

Is that supposed to make sense? What about a country like Spain, could it have a national education program? France? Germany? Or is it just the US that can't have one?

And if your arguement is that the US is too large to have an education program, what about Russia and China, should they abandon their programs? Do test scores vary with the size of the country?

I think your hypothesis is incredibly arbitrary and based on no facts.

So what you are saying is if the federal government does not run the education of the nation it Will not get done. So no one in the u.s. was educated before 1979 when the federal department of education was formed.

My arguement is the federal government is too far away from the students to really know what they need.

al3
al3's picture
workingman wrote: al3

workingman wrote:

al3 wrote:

workingman wrote:
With the government you have to accept what they give you if you likr it or not. With corporations you can choose to do bussiness with them or not.

That familiar reasoning just doesn't resonate with me....for example, you can't choose to have healthcare or not.  Do you want your death panels administered by Washington bureaucrats or an altruistic corporate CEO who's sees a quarterly bonus bonanza if he whacks costs?"  And guess what, YOU are the cost?.....I know which one I'd want......Or unless you want to bury your savings in the back yard, you are forced to deal with the financial services industry, and ultimately Wall Street..  Yes there are different choices within each industry that you can punish or reward, but for the most part, you are ultimately dealing with bankers.  Now, for shoes or computers, no problem with your argument, and I don't know a liberal who pushes for government made shoes.   But for many cases, it comes down to the government vs. bankers and I have no problem with greater government involvement in those areas, because I do trust a politician over a banker even in this age where the bankers own them.  Bankers are the origin of our corrupt politicians.  Neuter the bankers, and we'll have better politicians.  I don't expect you to agree with this, but I just don't understand the fear of government and the inference of absolute trust of those who have NO other real concern besides next quarter's profits.  And they don't give a rat's a** about you, and would just as soon flatten you if you got in the way of their quarterly numbers game.

Well lets look at wall street ver government on retirement. the individual stocks you own pay you dividends for owning their stock they want their shares to be stable And increase in value this is to your benefit and theirs. You need to pay attention And move your money as needed to avoid loss. Now the government side they take 6 perecent from you and 6 percent from your employer this is sold to you as a Secure retirement. However the government has sad that they are currently paying out more than take in. This Will empty the account by 2030 or so at which time they Will only be able to pay out 78 percent of the benefits promised to you. That is a 22 percent loss which is actually worse than that when you add the fact that they pay no interest on the money they take And hold from you for decades. This means you get zero benefit from compounded interest or the ability to avoid this 20 plus percent loss. 

No problem.  Raise the $106K ceiling on SS contributions.  After all, those earning $106K+ have enjoyed outsized gains due to offshoring working class jobs to communist and authoritarian countries.  Last I looked, workers in China and other countries don't contribute to our SS fund.  There is a cost for that cheap flat screen.  Raise the ceiling!

workingman wrote:
 Health Care i do not want death panels at all. Go down to your local free government run clinic And see how bad it is than go to the nicest hospital in town tell me which one you want to be treated in. Once the government has control the free clinic Will be your only choice which is no choice at all.

There are death panels now......death panels run by insurance companies.  A death panel is a death panel..... but I know I don't want my life/death decision made by profit-jackals who's one focus in life is making the most money they can.  And the nicest hospital in town can be afforded by only a lucky few....unless they show up at the Emergency room...and you and I pay for that.  If government healthcare is so bad, why aren't all the other industrialized countries in the world dying or rioting in the streets?  You'll never convince me on this one. 

Happy 4th!

Redwing
Redwing's picture
Enjoy your new gun and wear

Enjoy your new gun and wear it everyday and everywhere it is legal.  Spend lots of money on a high quality gunbelt. They make any size firearm much easier to carry.

If gun owners are as violent as anti-gunners said we are, there wouldn't be any anti's left.

workingman
workingman's picture
al3 wrote: workingman

al3 wrote:

workingman wrote:

al3 wrote:

workingman wrote:
With the government you have to accept what they give you if you likr it or not. With corporations you can choose to do bussiness with them or not.

That familiar reasoning just doesn't resonate with me....for example, you can't choose to have healthcare or not.  Do you want your death panels administered by Washington bureaucrats or an altruistic corporate CEO who's sees a quarterly bonus bonanza if he whacks costs?"  And guess what, YOU are the cost?.....I know which one I'd want......Or unless you want to bury your savings in the back yard, you are forced to deal with the financial services industry, and ultimately Wall Street..  Yes there are different choices within each industry that you can punish or reward, but for the most part, you are ultimately dealing with bankers.  Now, for shoes or computers, no problem with your argument, and I don't know a liberal who pushes for government made shoes.   But for many cases, it comes down to the government vs. bankers and I have no problem with greater government involvement in those areas, because I do trust a politician over a banker even in this age where the bankers own them.  Bankers are the origin of our corrupt politicians.  Neuter the bankers, and we'll have better politicians.  I don't expect you to agree with this, but I just don't understand the fear of government and the inference of absolute trust of those who have NO other real concern besides next quarter's profits.  And they don't give a rat's a** about you, and would just as soon flatten you if you got in the way of their quarterly numbers game.

Well lets look at wall street ver government on retirement. the individual stocks you own pay you dividends for owning their stock they want their shares to be stable And increase in value this is to your benefit and theirs. You need to pay attention And move your money as needed to avoid loss. Now the government side they take 6 perecent from you and 6 percent from your employer this is sold to you as a Secure retirement. However the government has sad that they are currently paying out more than take in. This Will empty the account by 2030 or so at which time they Will only be able to pay out 78 percent of the benefits promised to you. That is a 22 percent loss which is actually worse than that when you add the fact that they pay no interest on the money they take And hold from you for decades. This means you get zero benefit from compounded interest or the ability to avoid this 20 plus percent loss. 

No problem.  Raise the $106K ceiling on SS contributions.  After all, those earning $106K+ have enjoyed outsized gains due to offshoring working class jobs to communist and authoritarian countries.  Last I looked, workers in China and other countries don't contribute to our SS fund.  There is a cost for that cheap flat screen.  Raise the ceiling!

workingman wrote:
 Health Care i do not want death panels at all. Go down to your local free government run clinic And see how bad it is than go to the nicest hospital in town tell me which one you want to be treated in. Once the government has control the free clinic Will be your only choice which is no choice at all.

There are death panels now......death panels run by insurance companies.  A death panel is a death panel..... but I know I don't want my life/death decision made by profit-jackals who's one focus in life is making the most money they can.  And the nicest hospital in town can be afforded by only a lucky few....unless they show up at the Emergency room...and you and I pay for that.  If government healthcare is so bad, why aren't all the other industrialized countries in the world dying or rioting in the streets?  You'll never convince me on this one. 

Happy 4th!

Raising the ssi cap Will do nothing to get make the system work. As you pay in more you get more back. So raising the cap Will push tge problem down the road but not fix it.

Not everyone that shows up at the ER walks away from their bill. Tbey take personal responsibility And pay for the serviced renedered.

They are dying And rioting in the streets. Every country that has universal health care has told us that it costs a thousand times more than estimated. Care has suffered And rationing is the norm, were the old are allowed to die. The only ones who get the best care are connected to the government. They have the best hospitals while the rest of the citizens get the hospital I would not take my dog too.

Dr. Econ
Dr. Econ's picture
workingman wrote: Dr. Econ

workingman wrote:

Dr. Econ wrote:

workingman wrote:
The states will still have those agencies like education, enviromental protection, energy and parks.

Fascinating. You just don't want the federal government to have an education department, but you think the states are fine with it?

Is that supposed to make sense? What about a country like Spain, could it have a national education program? France? Germany? Or is it just the US that can't have one?

And if your arguement is that the US is too large to have an education program, what about Russia and China, should they abandon their programs? Do test scores vary with the size of the country?

I think your hypothesis is incredibly arbitrary and based on no facts.

So what you are saying is if the federal government does not run the education of the nation it Will not get done.

No, I did say that. I said that your arbitrary rule against a federal government and not a state one is ridiculous. If you believed the government should not do all these things, then having a state do them seems ridiculous.

workingman wrote:
.. So no one in the u.s. was educated before 1979 when the federal department of education was formed. My arguement is the federal government is too far away from the students to really know what they need.

You think there were no student loans or grants before 1979? The main things the federal government did they did before 1979, under a different department. But now, more kids have graduated (as a percent of the workforce), and more elementry school kids get help with disabilities. Most nations have federal policies or free  or near free education and health systems that take care of disabled kids.

I want the national government to mainly keep doing what it is doing in these areas. That does not mean the local school boards don't run most of the education policy - but you do have to have a national government when it comes to loans, grants and other things.