>"John B." <johnb...@gmail.com> wrote in message >Air and water pollution were serious problems before the government
>started intervening in the 60s and 70s. Are you actually going to
>argue that the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act were unnecessary?
>Do you remember smog? Do you remember the Cuyahoga River catching
>fire? Do you remember that most urban rivers in the US were polluted?
>Do you have any idea how many polluted and abandoned industrial sites
>there were when the Superfund law was passed? Can you be so naive as
>to think the private sector would have solved all these problems on
>their own if they didn't have to? If they would have, why didn't they?
>- - -
>That's fine John. I actually agree with you on that point that pollution >was to where the government had to do something since that particular issue >wouldn't be able to be resolved by market forces and the tort system >wouldn't be able to address it very well either. As I've said many times >there are legitimate functions for government, this is one. However, as >with all government, enviromental protection has gotten totally out of >control and is now a serious burden. It needs to be scaled back.
>You also said we wouldn't have safe cars, food, drugs, roads, houses etc. I >completely disagree with you there. Those are things that market forces >deliver as they are actual products.
Food?
You have to be kidding. The market may deliver food, but if it
weren't for someone to oversee it we'd have a larger shit full of
problems. Sure, the market would change on its own after it caused
illness or death, but you have to admit that the FDA heads off much of
this.
The same goes for the drug market.
Roads? Not a chance Frank. Where do you know of a market that
builds roads for any community? We live in a semi-rural area and at
one time owned our road, about a mile-and-a-half of problems that you
obviously can't imagine. Thankfully, after several years and
thousands of dollars in legal fees, our county took it over. No more
potholes, flats, washouts and problems getting fire, ambulance and
police to us. Now we even have a couple of fire hydrants that have
already seen use.
>>> On Tue, 15 May 2012 10:32:10 -0400, "Frank Ketchum"
>>> <nos...@thanksanyway.com> wrote:
>>>> "Kenn Smith"<grizzledb...@webtv.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:15788-4FB264A5-30@storefull-3173.bay.webtv.net...
>>>>> I think, I hope, that Frank was just indulging in a bit of far right
>>>>> hyperbole in posting, "I don't want things done.". Think about the
>>>>> ramifications of not getting things done; no Defene Appropriations Act
>>>>> passed for example. So what do we do, just send all of the military
>>>>> home? No Veterans Affairs appropriations passed. So do we close the VA
>>>>> hospitals and toss the patients out on the street? End GI Bill
>>>>> payments
>>>>> for college, end GI Bill home loans? Shut the Coast Guard down and
>>>>> further expose our ports to potential terrorists? Wouldn't our skies
>>>>> be
>>>>> a lot of fun to fly without the FAA and air traffic control!
>>>>> The results of not getting anything done would be far worse than the
>>>>> miserable results we currently get from congress.
>>>> Correct Kenn. Bobby's hyperbole detector has never worked correctly.
>>> It was dead on Frank. The statement was stupid.
>> Getting things done means passing more laws and expanding government power
>> ever deeper into our daily lives. Assuming that I meant that I want no
>> government is the part that is stupid.
> "I don't want things done." -- Frank Ketchum, May 15, 2012
> - - -
> I also clarified it by saying "Getting things done means passing more laws
> and expanding government power ever deeper into our daily lives"
Cutting out context is right from the liberal playbook Frank.
> >>>>> > Actually, Senator Lugar was/is a pretty staunch conservative. I think
> >>>>> > his most recent rate by The American Conservative Union (I think I > >>>>> > have
> >>>>> > that name correct) was a 77. Agreeing with the conservative positon
> >>>>> > more than 3/4 of the time doesn't make him a liberal.
> >>>>> I didn't call him a liberal. However getting it wrong a full 23 percent > >>>>> of
> >>>>> the time is not good enough considering our current situation.
> >>>>> > Where he was different was that he would on occasion reach across the
> >>>>> > isle to negotiate and compromise and was unfailingly civil. He just
> >>>>> > made the fatal mistake of losing touch with the electorate.
> >>>>> There is nothing wrong with being civil. There is plenty wrong with
> >>>>> compromising with the current political left.
> >>>>The "current political left" is not nearly as far to the left as the
> >>>>political left of the 60s and 70s. The Democratic Party has moved
> >>>>measurably toward the center since then. At the same time the GOP has
> >>>>moved well to the right and people like you and Bert say that
> >>>>centrists or moderates are no longer welcome in the party. If you and
> >>>>he had the slightest idea of how things work in Washington, you
> >>>>wouldn't defend people who refuse to compromise with Democrats. Like
> >>>>it or not, that's how things get done here.
> >>>>- - -
> >>>>I understand perfectly well how things get done. I don't want things
> >>>>getting done.
> >>> Please rethink this Frank. You aren't that dumb.
> >>>>>The more Washington does for us the worse off we are. This
> >>>>attitude that government must be always doing SOMETHING is really the > >>>>issue.
> >>>>I want government to stop doing shit and leave us the hell alone.
> >>> That just cannot happen.
> >>>>We already have far too much government and the fact that it is wildy
> >>>>incompetent doesn't help either.
> >>> Granted on both remarks, but NO government is just silly.
> >>I'm not saying no government. I am saying that the current government is > >>way too large and needs to be reigned in. I am saying that the government > >>doesn't need to pass new regulations every ten minutes to deal with the > >>every "emergency" that comes along. Enough already. This government is > >>waaaay to large and out of control.
> >I agree wholeheartedly, but when you make statements like " I don't
> >want things getting done". It tends to make one want to read further.
> One thing many who feel the government is too large are overlooking is
> the size of the country. When the Constitution was written, the US
> population was around 4 million and the needs of the citizens were
> relatively few, just like the European nations.
> Today, Los Angeles *County* has over 9 million residents; cars,
> airplanes, space exploration, DNA, and how many other everyday things
> were unthought of in 1790? IMO, it's not the size of government
> nearly so much as the seeming inability and unwillingness to discuss,
> compromise, and create legislation and policies that serve the obvious
> and legitimate needs of the citizens, not the special interests. E.g.,
> where does the Constitution give artificial persons the same rights as
> the living persons being governed?
When speaking of government functions what has really changed since 1790?
>> >>>>> > Actually, Senator Lugar was/is a pretty staunch conservative. I think
>> >>>>> > his most recent rate by The American Conservative Union (I think I >> >>>>> > have
>> >>>>> > that name correct) was a 77. Agreeing with the conservative positon
>> >>>>> > more than 3/4 of the time doesn't make him a liberal.
>> >>>>> I didn't call him a liberal. However getting it wrong a full 23 percent >> >>>>> of
>> >>>>> the time is not good enough considering our current situation.
>> >>>>> > Where he was different was that he would on occasion reach across the
>> >>>>> > isle to negotiate and compromise and was unfailingly civil. He just
>> >>>>> > made the fatal mistake of losing touch with the electorate.
>> >>>>> There is nothing wrong with being civil. There is plenty wrong with
>> >>>>> compromising with the current political left.
>> >>>>The "current political left" is not nearly as far to the left as the
>> >>>>political left of the 60s and 70s. The Democratic Party has moved
>> >>>>measurably toward the center since then. At the same time the GOP has
>> >>>>moved well to the right and people like you and Bert say that
>> >>>>centrists or moderates are no longer welcome in the party. If you and
>> >>>>he had the slightest idea of how things work in Washington, you
>> >>>>wouldn't defend people who refuse to compromise with Democrats. Like
>> >>>>it or not, that's how things get done here.
>> >>>>- - -
>> >>>>I understand perfectly well how things get done. I don't want things
>> >>>>getting done.
>> >>> Please rethink this Frank. You aren't that dumb.
>> >>>>>The more Washington does for us the worse off we are. This
>> >>>>attitude that government must be always doing SOMETHING is really the >> >>>>issue.
>> >>>>I want government to stop doing shit and leave us the hell alone.
>> >>> That just cannot happen.
>> >>>>We already have far too much government and the fact that it is wildy
>> >>>>incompetent doesn't help either.
>> >>> Granted on both remarks, but NO government is just silly.
>> >>I'm not saying no government. I am saying that the current government is >> >>way too large and needs to be reigned in. I am saying that the government >> >>doesn't need to pass new regulations every ten minutes to deal with the >> >>every "emergency" that comes along. Enough already. This government is >> >>waaaay to large and out of control.
>> >I agree wholeheartedly, but when you make statements like " I don't
>> >want things getting done". It tends to make one want to read further.
>> One thing many who feel the government is too large are overlooking is
>> the size of the country. When the Constitution was written, the US
>> population was around 4 million and the needs of the citizens were
>> relatively few, just like the European nations.
>> Today, Los Angeles *County* has over 9 million residents; cars,
>> airplanes, space exploration, DNA, and how many other everyday things
>> were unthought of in 1790? IMO, it's not the size of government
>> nearly so much as the seeming inability and unwillingness to discuss,
>> compromise, and create legislation and policies that serve the obvious
>> and legitimate needs of the citizens, not the special interests. E.g.,
>> where does the Constitution give artificial persons the same rights as
>> the living persons being governed?
>When speaking of government functions what has really changed since >1790?
You can't be serious. But since I never mentioned government
functions I'll let someone who's interested in that point deal with it
(if there is such a person here).
What I wrote about was the relationship between us, the people, the
machinery of our government, and the non-human "persons" that are more
able to exert pressure on our government that we the citizens are.
-- Don Kirkman
dons...@charter.net
>>Air and water pollution were serious problems before the government
>>started intervening in the 60s and 70s. Are you actually going to
>>argue that the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act were unnecessary?
>>Do you remember smog? Do you remember the Cuyahoga River catching
>>fire? Do you remember that most urban rivers in the US were polluted?
>>Do you have any idea how many polluted and abandoned industrial sites
>>there were when the Superfund law was passed? Can you be so naive as
>>to think the private sector would have solved all these problems on
>>their own if they didn't have to? If they would have, why didn't they?
>>- - -
>>That's fine John. I actually agree with you on that point that pollution
>>was to where the government had to do something since that particular >>issue
>>wouldn't be able to be resolved by market forces and the tort system
>>wouldn't be able to address it very well either. As I've said many times
>>there are legitimate functions for government, this is one. However, as
>>with all government, enviromental protection has gotten totally out of
>>control and is now a serious burden. It needs to be scaled back.
>>You also said we wouldn't have safe cars, food, drugs, roads, houses etc. >>I
>>completely disagree with you there. Those are things that market forces
>>deliver as they are actual products.
> Food?
> You have to be kidding. The market may deliver food, but if it
> weren't for someone to oversee it we'd have a larger shit full of
> problems. Sure, the market would change on its own after it caused
> illness or death, but you have to admit that the FDA heads off much of
> this.
> The same goes for the drug market.
> Roads? Not a chance Frank. Where do you know of a market that
> builds roads for any community? We live in a semi-rural area and at
> one time owned our road, about a mile-and-a-half of problems that you
> obviously can't imagine. Thankfully, after several years and
> thousands of dollars in legal fees, our county took it over. No more
> potholes, flats, washouts and problems getting fire, ambulance and
> police to us. Now we even have a couple of fire hydrants that have
> already seen use.
There are privately funded toll roads, bridges and subdivision roads that function fine so why can't the whole thing work that way? Your anecdote does not answer this. I see no reason why roads couldn't be privately funded. Even publicly funded roads rely on the gas tax so I don't see any real reason why this funding mechanism must be funneled through the government to have any chance of working. But in any case, as I have mentioned, when something has to be done by government it should be done at the lowest level possible. So if roads must be built by government then it should be done at the county level wherever possible.
> One thing many who feel the government is too large are overlooking is
> the size of the country. When the Constitution was written, the US
> population was around 4 million and the needs of the citizens were
> relatively few, just like the European nations.
> Today, Los Angeles *County* has over 9 million residents; cars,
> airplanes, space exploration, DNA, and how many other everyday things
> were unthought of in 1790? IMO, it's not the size of government
> nearly so much as the seeming inability and unwillingness to discuss,
> compromise, and create legislation and policies that serve the obvious
> and legitimate needs of the citizens, not the special interests. E.g.,
> where does the Constitution give artificial persons the same rights as
> the living persons being governed?
Incorrect. Off the top we could dump the Dept of Education and Dept of
Energy. Nobody would notice. Government is too large.
>>>"John B." <johnb...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>Air and water pollution were serious problems before the government
>>>started intervening in the 60s and 70s. Are you actually going to
>>>argue that the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act were unnecessary?
>>>Do you remember smog? Do you remember the Cuyahoga River catching
>>>fire? Do you remember that most urban rivers in the US were polluted?
>>>Do you have any idea how many polluted and abandoned industrial sites
>>>there were when the Superfund law was passed? Can you be so naive as
>>>to think the private sector would have solved all these problems on
>>>their own if they didn't have to? If they would have, why didn't they?
>>>- - -
>>>That's fine John. I actually agree with you on that point that pollution
>>>was to where the government had to do something since that particular >>>issue
>>>wouldn't be able to be resolved by market forces and the tort system
>>>wouldn't be able to address it very well either. As I've said many times
>>>there are legitimate functions for government, this is one. However, as
>>>with all government, enviromental protection has gotten totally out of
>>>control and is now a serious burden. It needs to be scaled back.
>>>You also said we wouldn't have safe cars, food, drugs, roads, houses etc. >>>I
>>>completely disagree with you there. Those are things that market forces
>>>deliver as they are actual products.
>> Food?
>> You have to be kidding. The market may deliver food, but if it
>> weren't for someone to oversee it we'd have a larger shit full of
>> problems. Sure, the market would change on its own after it caused
>> illness or death, but you have to admit that the FDA heads off much of
>> this.
>> The same goes for the drug market.
>> Roads? Not a chance Frank. Where do you know of a market that
>> builds roads for any community? We live in a semi-rural area and at
>> one time owned our road, about a mile-and-a-half of problems that you
>> obviously can't imagine. Thankfully, after several years and
>> thousands of dollars in legal fees, our county took it over. No more
>> potholes, flats, washouts and problems getting fire, ambulance and
>> police to us. Now we even have a couple of fire hydrants that have
>> already seen use.
>There are privately funded toll roads, bridges and subdivision roads that >function fine so why can't the whole thing work that way?
Think about that for a moment. The millions of miles in the U.S.
privately funded and maintained? The subdivisions are one thing, and
paid for by the builders...and then taxes take over for the upkeep. I
guess there may be some privately funded toll roads and bridges, but
we don't entrepreneurs clamoring to fund them on a large scale.
> Your anecdote does not answer this.
I think it does. From what were told there were no private parties
that could possibly build and maintain our road for anything that came
close to being reasonable. Way too expensive.
> I see no reason why roads couldn't be privately >funded. Even publicly funded roads rely on the gas tax so I don't see any >real reason why this funding mechanism must be funneled through the >government to have any chance of working. But in any case, as I have >mentioned, when something has to be done by government it should be done at >the lowest level possible. So if roads must be built by government then it >should be done at the county level wherever possible.
>> One thing many who feel the government is too large are overlooking is
>> the size of the country. When the Constitution was written, the US
>> population was around 4 million and the needs of the citizens were
>> relatively few, just like the European nations.
>> Today, Los Angeles *County* has over 9 million residents; cars,
>> airplanes, space exploration, DNA, and how many other everyday things
>> were unthought of in 1790? IMO, it's not the size of government
>> nearly so much as the seeming inability and unwillingness to discuss,
>> compromise, and create legislation and policies that serve the obvious
>> and legitimate needs of the citizens, not the special interests. E.g.,
>> where does the Constitution give artificial persons the same rights as
>> the living persons being governed?
>Incorrect. Off the top we could dump the Dept of Education and Dept of
>Energy. Nobody would notice. Government is too large.
Right. Then you can whine about the loss of so many jobs. :-)
>>> One thing many who feel the government is too large are overlooking is
>>> the size of the country. When the Constitution was written, the US
>>> population was around 4 million and the needs of the citizens were
>>> relatively few, just like the European nations.
>>> Today, Los Angeles *County* has over 9 million residents; cars,
>>> airplanes, space exploration, DNA, and how many other everyday things
>>> were unthought of in 1790? IMO, it's not the size of government
>>> nearly so much as the seeming inability and unwillingness to discuss,
>>> compromise, and create legislation and policies that serve the obvious
>>> and legitimate needs of the citizens, not the special interests. E.g.,
>>> where does the Constitution give artificial persons the same rights as
>>> the living persons being governed?
>> Incorrect. Off the top we could dump the Dept of Education and Dept of
>> Energy. Nobody would notice. Government is too large.
> Right. Then you can whine about the loss of so many jobs. :-)
Not at all. I would lay them off myself if I could.
On Tue, 15 May 2012 12:58:24 -0500, MNMikeW wrote:
> John B. wrote:
>> On May 9, 2:56 pm, MNMikeW<mnmiik...@aol.com> wrote:
>>> bkni...@conramp.net wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 09 May 2012 11:21:36 -0500, MNMikeW<mnmiik...@aol.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> bkni...@conramp.net wrote:
On Tue, 15 May 2012 10:02:56 -0400, Frank Ketchum wrote:
> I'm not saying no government. I am saying that the current government
> is way too large and needs to be reigned in. I am saying that the
> government doesn't need to pass new regulations every ten minutes to
> deal with the every "emergency" that comes along. Enough already.
> This government is waaaay to large and out of control.
> On Tue, 15 May 2012 10:02:56 -0400, Frank Ketchum wrote:
>> I'm not saying no government. I am saying that the current government
>> is way too large and needs to be reigned in. I am saying that the
>> government doesn't need to pass new regulations every ten minutes to
>> deal with the every "emergency" that comes along. Enough already.
>> This government is waaaay to large and out of control.
The Environmental Protection Agency has said new greenhouse gas regulations, as proposed, may be "absurd" in application and "impossible to administer" by its self-imposed 2016 deadline. But the agency is still asking for taxpayers to shoulder the burden of up to 230,000 new bureaucrats - at a cost of $21 billion - to attempt to implement the rules.
The EPA aims to regulate greenhouse gas emissions through the Clean Air Act, even though the law doesn't give the EPA explicit power to do so. The agency's authority to move forward is being challenged in court by petitioners who argue that such a decision should be left for Congress to make.
The proposed regulations would set greenhouse gas emission thresholds above which businesses must file for an EPA permit and complete extra paperwork in order to continue operating. If the EPA wins its court battle and fully rolls out the greenhouse gas regulations, the number of businesses forced into this regulatory regime would grow tremendously - from approximately 14,000 now to as many as 6.1 million.
These new regulatory efforts are not likely to succeed, the EPA admits, but it has decided to move forward regardless. "While EPA acknowledges that come 2016, the administrative burdens may still be so great that compliance . may still be absurd or impossible to administer at that time, that does not mean that the Agency is not moving toward the statutory thresholds," the EPA wrote in a September 16 court briefing.
The EPA is asking taxpayers to fund up to 230,000 new government workers to process all the extra paperwork, at an estimated cost of $21 billion. That cost does not include the economic impact of the regulations themselves.
"Hiring the 230,000 full-time employees necessary to produce the 1.4 billion work hours required to address the actual increase in permitting functions would result in an increase in Title V administration costs of $21 billion per year," the EPA wrote in the court brief.
The petitioner suing the EPA is the Coalition for Responsible Regulation, a trade group reportedly linked to domestic chemical companies.
On Tue, 15 May 2012 20:40:34 -0400, Frank Ketchum wrote:
> "Carbon" <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:pan.2012.05.15.23.47.48@nospam.tampabay.rr.com...
>> On Tue, 15 May 2012 10:02:56 -0400, Frank Ketchum wrote:
>>> I'm not saying no government. I am saying that the current
>>> government is way too large and needs to be reigned in. I am saying
>>> that the government doesn't need to pass new regulations every ten
>>> minutes to deal with the every "emergency" that comes along. Enough
>>> already. This government is waaaay to large and out of control.
> The Environmental Protection Agency has said new greenhouse gas
> regulations, as proposed, may be "absurd" in application and
> "impossible to administer" by its self-imposed 2016 deadline. But the
> agency is still asking for taxpayers to shoulder the burden of up to
> 230,000 new bureaucrats - at a cost of $21 billion - to attempt to
> implement the rules. The EPA aims to regulate greenhouse gas
> emissions through the Clean Air Act, even though the law doesn't give
> the EPA explicit power to do so. The agency's authority to move
> forward is being challenged in court by petitioners who argue that
> such a decision should be left for Congress to make.
> The proposed regulations would set greenhouse gas emission thresholds
> above which businesses must file for an EPA permit and complete extra
> paperwork in order to continue operating. If the EPA wins its court
> battle and fully rolls out the greenhouse gas regulations, the number
> of businesses forced into this regulatory regime would grow
> tremendously - from approximately 14,000 now to as many as 6.1
> million.
> These new regulatory efforts are not likely to succeed, the EPA
> admits, but it has decided to move forward regardless. "While EPA
> acknowledges that come 2016, the administrative burdens may still be
> so great that compliance . may still be absurd or impossible to
> administer at that time, that does not mean that the Agency is not
> moving toward the statutory thresholds," the EPA wrote in a September
> 16 court briefing.
> The EPA is asking taxpayers to fund up to 230,000 new government
> workers to process all the extra paperwork, at an estimated cost of
> $21 billion. That cost does not include the economic impact of the
> regulations themselves.
> "Hiring the 230,000 full-time employees necessary to produce the 1.4
> billion work hours required to address the actual increase in
> permitting functions would result in an increase in Title V
> administration costs of $21 billion per year," the EPA wrote in the
> court brief.
> The petitioner suing the EPA is the Coalition for Responsible
> Regulation, a trade group reportedly linked to domestic chemical
> companies.
You're right. The 2007 global financial crisis is completely irrelevant.
What was I thinking?
>> One thing many who feel the government is too large are overlooking is
>> the size of the country. When the Constitution was written, the US
>> population was around 4 million and the needs of the citizens were
>> relatively few, just like the European nations.
>> Today, Los Angeles *County* has over 9 million residents; cars,
>> airplanes, space exploration, DNA, and how many other everyday things
>> were unthought of in 1790? IMO, it's not the size of government
>> nearly so much as the seeming inability and unwillingness to discuss,
>> compromise, and create legislation and policies that serve the obvious
>> and legitimate needs of the citizens, not the special interests. E.g.,
>> where does the Constitution give artificial persons the same rights as
>> the living persons being governed?
>Incorrect. Off the top we could dump the Dept of Education and Dept of
>Energy. Nobody would notice. Government is too large.
I didn't argue against slimming down the government (I thought I made
that clear in my writing), but it would be very foolish to wipe out
entire government departments if that means all the current programs,
funding, and operations would disappear. A thorough reworking and
updating would be welcome, but I doubt I'll live to see it happen.
-- Don Kirkman
dons...@charter.net
>>> One thing many who feel the government is too large are overlooking is
>>> the size of the country. When the Constitution was written, the US
>>> population was around 4 million and the needs of the citizens were
>>> relatively few, just like the European nations.
>>> Today, Los Angeles *County* has over 9 million residents; cars,
>>> airplanes, space exploration, DNA, and how many other everyday things
>>> were unthought of in 1790? IMO, it's not the size of government
>>> nearly so much as the seeming inability and unwillingness to discuss,
>>> compromise, and create legislation and policies that serve the obvious
>>> and legitimate needs of the citizens, not the special interests. E.g.,
>>> where does the Constitution give artificial persons the same rights as
>>> the living persons being governed?
>> Incorrect. Off the top we could dump the Dept of Education and Dept of
>> Energy. Nobody would notice. Government is too large.
> I didn't argue against slimming down the government (I thought I made
> that clear in my writing), but it would be very foolish to wipe out
> entire government departments if that means all the current programs,
> funding, and operations would disappear. A thorough reworking and
> updating would be welcome, but I doubt I'll live to see it happen.
What? You wrote the size of government was not an issue. I disagree. You
want to continue programs that are expensive with no net improvements. I
disagree.
> >>"John B." <johnb...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >>Air and water pollution were serious problems before the government
> >>started intervening in the 60s and 70s. Are you actually going to
> >>argue that the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act were unnecessary?
> >>Do you remember smog? Do you remember the Cuyahoga River catching
> >>fire? Do you remember that most urban rivers in the US were polluted?
> >>Do you have any idea how many polluted and abandoned industrial sites
> >>there were when the Superfund law was passed? Can you be so naive as
> >>to think the private sector would have solved all these problems on
> >>their own if they didn't have to? If they would have, why didn't they?
> >>- - -
> >>That's fine John. I actually agree with you on that point that pollution
> >>was to where the government had to do something since that particular > >>issue
> >>wouldn't be able to be resolved by market forces and the tort system
> >>wouldn't be able to address it very well either. As I've said many times
> >>there are legitimate functions for government, this is one. However, as
> >>with all government, enviromental protection has gotten totally out of
> >>control and is now a serious burden. It needs to be scaled back.
> >>You also said we wouldn't have safe cars, food, drugs, roads, houses etc. > >>I
> >>completely disagree with you there. Those are things that market forces
> >>deliver as they are actual products.
> > Food?
> > You have to be kidding. The market may deliver food, but if it
> > weren't for someone to oversee it we'd have a larger shit full of
> > problems. Sure, the market would change on its own after it caused
> > illness or death, but you have to admit that the FDA heads off much of
> > this.
> > The same goes for the drug market.
> > Roads? Not a chance Frank. Where do you know of a market that
> > builds roads for any community? We live in a semi-rural area and at
> > one time owned our road, about a mile-and-a-half of problems that you
> > obviously can't imagine. Thankfully, after several years and
> > thousands of dollars in legal fees, our county took it over. No more
> > potholes, flats, washouts and problems getting fire, ambulance and
> > police to us. Now we even have a couple of fire hydrants that have
> > already seen use.
> There are privately funded toll roads, bridges and subdivision roads that > function fine so why can't the whole thing work that way? Your anecdote > does not answer this. I see no reason why roads couldn't be privately > funded. Even publicly funded roads rely on the gas tax so I don't see any > real reason why this funding mechanism must be funneled through the > government to have any chance of working. But in any case, as I have > mentioned, when something has to be done by government it should be done at > the lowest level possible. So if roads must be built by government then it > should be done at the county level wherever possible.
The Dulles Greenway is a privately owned 14-mile toll road that connects Washington Dulles International Airport with Leesburg, Virginia. The Greenway is the first private toll road in Virginia since 1816.
> >> One thing many who feel the government is too large are overlooking is
> >> the size of the country. When the Constitution was written, the US
> >> population was around 4 million and the needs of the citizens were
> >> relatively few, just like the European nations.
> >> Today, Los Angeles *County* has over 9 million residents; cars,
> >> airplanes, space exploration, DNA, and how many other everyday things
> >> were unthought of in 1790? IMO, it's not the size of government
> >> nearly so much as the seeming inability and unwillingness to discuss,
> >> compromise, and create legislation and policies that serve the obvious
> >> and legitimate needs of the citizens, not the special interests. E.g.,
> >> where does the Constitution give artificial persons the same rights as
> >> the living persons being governed?
> >Incorrect. Off the top we could dump the Dept of Education and Dept of
> >Energy. Nobody would notice. Government is too large.
> I didn't argue against slimming down the government (I thought I made
> that clear in my writing), but it would be very foolish to wipe out
> entire government departments if that means all the current programs,
> funding, and operations would disappear. A thorough reworking and
> updating would be welcome, but I doubt I'll live to see it happen.
Why should the failed, failing and useless programs continue to live? It the program fails to achieve its goals then the program should be killed. This happens in the Pentagon all of the time, why can't the killing of failed, failing and useless programs move into the civilian agencies?
>>> One thing many who feel the government is too large are overlooking is
>>> the size of the country. When the Constitution was written, the US
>>> population was around 4 million and the needs of the citizens were
>>> relatively few, just like the European nations.
>>> Today, Los Angeles *County* has over 9 million residents; cars,
>>> airplanes, space exploration, DNA, and how many other everyday things
>>> were unthought of in 1790? IMO, it's not the size of government
>>> nearly so much as the seeming inability and unwillingness to discuss,
>>> compromise, and create legislation and policies that serve the obvious
>>> and legitimate needs of the citizens, not the special interests. E.g.,
>>> where does the Constitution give artificial persons the same rights as
>>> the living persons being governed?
>>Incorrect. Off the top we could dump the Dept of Education and Dept of
>>Energy. Nobody would notice. Government is too large.
> I didn't argue against slimming down the government (I thought I made
> that clear in my writing), but it would be very foolish to wipe out
> entire government departments if that means all the current programs,
> funding, and operations would disappear. A thorough reworking and
> updating would be welcome, but I doubt I'll live to see it happen.
It will require more than a slimming down as you mention. I am not sure a reworking and updating is enough. Large portions of this behemoth must be removed.
In 2011 the government spent about 3.8 trillion dollars. There are around 310 million people in our country. That comes out to 12 thousand dollars spent per person or to look at it another way a family of four's portion would be 48 thousand dollars. That does not include state government and local government expenditures.
> > >>>>> > Actually, Senator Lugar was/is a pretty staunch conservative. I think
> > >>>>> > his most recent rate by The American Conservative Union (I think I
> > >>>>> > have
> > >>>>> > that name correct) was a 77. Agreeing with the conservative positon
> > >>>>> > more than 3/4 of the time doesn't make him a liberal.
> > >>>>> I didn't call him a liberal. However getting it wrong a full 23 percent
> > >>>>> of
> > >>>>> the time is not good enough considering our current situation.
> > >>>>> > Where he was different was that he would on occasion reach across the
> > >>>>> > isle to negotiate and compromise and was unfailingly civil. He just
> > >>>>> > made the fatal mistake of losing touch with the electorate.
> > >>>>> There is nothing wrong with being civil. There is plenty wrong with
> > >>>>> compromising with the current political left.
> > >>>>The "current political left" is not nearly as far to the left as the
> > >>>>political left of the 60s and 70s. The Democratic Party has moved
> > >>>>measurably toward the center since then. At the same time the GOP has
> > >>>>moved well to the right and people like you and Bert say that
> > >>>>centrists or moderates are no longer welcome in the party. If you and
> > >>>>he had the slightest idea of how things work in Washington, you
> > >>>>wouldn't defend people who refuse to compromise with Democrats. Like
> > >>>>it or not, that's how things get done here.
> > >>>>- - -
> > >>>>I understand perfectly well how things get done. I don't want things
> > >>>>getting done.
> > >>> Please rethink this Frank. You aren't that dumb.
> > >>>>>The more Washington does for us the worse off we are. This
> > >>>>attitude that government must be always doing SOMETHING is really the
> > >>>>issue.
> > >>>>I want government to stop doing shit and leave us the hell alone.
> > >>> That just cannot happen.
> > >>>>We already have far too much government and the fact that it is wildy
> > >>>>incompetent doesn't help either.
> > >>> Granted on both remarks, but NO government is just silly.
> > >>I'm not saying no government. I am saying that the current government is
> > >>way too large and needs to be reigned in. I am saying that the government
> > >>doesn't need to pass new regulations every ten minutes to deal with the
> > >>every "emergency" that comes along. Enough already. This government is
> > >>waaaay to large and out of control.
> > >I agree wholeheartedly, but when you make statements like " I don't
> > >want things getting done". It tends to make one want to read further.
> > One thing many who feel the government is too large are overlooking is
> > the size of the country. When the Constitution was written, the US
> > population was around 4 million and the needs of the citizens were
> > relatively few, just like the European nations.
> > Today, Los Angeles *County* has over 9 million residents; cars,
> > airplanes, space exploration, DNA, and how many other everyday things
> > were unthought of in 1790? IMO, it's not the size of government
> > nearly so much as the seeming inability and unwillingness to discuss,
> > compromise, and create legislation and policies that serve the obvious
> > and legitimate needs of the citizens, not the special interests. E.g.,
> > where does the Constitution give artificial persons the same rights as
> > the living persons being governed?
> When speaking of government functions what has really changed since
> 1790?
>> >>"John B." <johnb...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> >>Air and water pollution were serious problems before the government
>> >>started intervening in the 60s and 70s. Are you actually going to
>> >>argue that the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act were unnecessary?
>> >>Do you remember smog? Do you remember the Cuyahoga River catching
>> >>fire? Do you remember that most urban rivers in the US were polluted?
>> >>Do you have any idea how many polluted and abandoned industrial sites
>> >>there were when the Superfund law was passed? Can you be so naive as
>> >>to think the private sector would have solved all these problems on
>> >>their own if they didn't have to? If they would have, why didn't they?
>> >>- - -
>> >>That's fine John. I actually agree with you on that point that pollution
>> >>was to where the government had to do something since that particular >> >>issue
>> >>wouldn't be able to be resolved by market forces and the tort system
>> >>wouldn't be able to address it very well either. As I've said many times
>> >>there are legitimate functions for government, this is one. However, as
>> >>with all government, enviromental protection has gotten totally out of
>> >>control and is now a serious burden. It needs to be scaled back.
>> >>You also said we wouldn't have safe cars, food, drugs, roads, houses etc. >> >>I
>> >>completely disagree with you there. Those are things that market forces
>> >>deliver as they are actual products.
>> > Food?
>> > You have to be kidding. The market may deliver food, but if it
>> > weren't for someone to oversee it we'd have a larger shit full of
>> > problems. Sure, the market would change on its own after it caused
>> > illness or death, but you have to admit that the FDA heads off much of
>> > this.
>> > The same goes for the drug market.
>> > Roads? Not a chance Frank. Where do you know of a market that
>> > builds roads for any community? We live in a semi-rural area and at
>> > one time owned our road, about a mile-and-a-half of problems that you
>> > obviously can't imagine. Thankfully, after several years and
>> > thousands of dollars in legal fees, our county took it over. No more
>> > potholes, flats, washouts and problems getting fire, ambulance and
>> > police to us. Now we even have a couple of fire hydrants that have
>> > already seen use.
>> There are privately funded toll roads, bridges and subdivision roads that >> function fine so why can't the whole thing work that way? Your anecdote >> does not answer this. I see no reason why roads couldn't be privately >> funded. Even publicly funded roads rely on the gas tax so I don't see any >> real reason why this funding mechanism must be funneled through the >> government to have any chance of working. But in any case, as I have >> mentioned, when something has to be done by government it should be done at >> the lowest level possible. So if roads must be built by government then it >> should be done at the county level wherever possible.
>The Dulles Greenway is a privately owned 14-mile toll road that connects >Washington Dulles International Airport with Leesburg, Virginia. The >Greenway is the first private toll road in Virginia since 1816.
So there's really a big, big, flourishing market after all. :-)
>>> >>"John B." <johnb...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> >>Air and water pollution were serious problems before the government
>>> >>started intervening in the 60s and 70s. Are you actually going to
>>> >>argue that the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act were unnecessary?
>>> >>Do you remember smog? Do you remember the Cuyahoga River catching
>>> >>fire? Do you remember that most urban rivers in the US were polluted?
>>> >>Do you have any idea how many polluted and abandoned industrial sites
>>> >>there were when the Superfund law was passed? Can you be so naive as
>>> >>to think the private sector would have solved all these problems on
>>> >>their own if they didn't have to? If they would have, why didn't they?
>>> >>- - -
>>> >>That's fine John. I actually agree with you on that point that >>> >>pollution
>>> >>was to where the government had to do something since that particular
>>> >>issue
>>> >>wouldn't be able to be resolved by market forces and the tort system
>>> >>wouldn't be able to address it very well either. As I've said many >>> >>times
>>> >>there are legitimate functions for government, this is one. However, >>> >>as
>>> >>with all government, enviromental protection has gotten totally out of
>>> >>control and is now a serious burden. It needs to be scaled back.
>>> >>You also said we wouldn't have safe cars, food, drugs, roads, houses >>> >>etc.
>>> >>I
>>> >>completely disagree with you there. Those are things that market >>> >>forces
>>> >>deliver as they are actual products.
>>> > Food?
>>> > You have to be kidding. The market may deliver food, but if it
>>> > weren't for someone to oversee it we'd have a larger shit full of
>>> > problems. Sure, the market would change on its own after it caused
>>> > illness or death, but you have to admit that the FDA heads off much of
>>> > this.
>>> > The same goes for the drug market.
>>> > Roads? Not a chance Frank. Where do you know of a market that
>>> > builds roads for any community? We live in a semi-rural area and at
>>> > one time owned our road, about a mile-and-a-half of problems that you
>>> > obviously can't imagine. Thankfully, after several years and
>>> > thousands of dollars in legal fees, our county took it over. No more
>>> > potholes, flats, washouts and problems getting fire, ambulance and
>>> > police to us. Now we even have a couple of fire hydrants that have
>>> > already seen use.
>>> There are privately funded toll roads, bridges and subdivision roads >>> that
>>> function fine so why can't the whole thing work that way? Your anecdote
>>> does not answer this. I see no reason why roads couldn't be privately
>>> funded. Even publicly funded roads rely on the gas tax so I don't see >>> any
>>> real reason why this funding mechanism must be funneled through the
>>> government to have any chance of working. But in any case, as I have
>>> mentioned, when something has to be done by government it should be done >>> at
>>> the lowest level possible. So if roads must be built by government then >>> it
>>> should be done at the county level wherever possible.
>>The Dulles Greenway is a privately owned 14-mile toll road that connects
>>Washington Dulles International Airport with Leesburg, Virginia. The
>>Greenway is the first private toll road in Virginia since 1816.
> So there's really a big, big, flourishing market after all. :-)
No it's virtually non existent because the government is building the roads.
You seem to conflate the way things are with the way things could be.
On Wed, 16 May 2012 09:26:39 -0400, Frank Ketchum wrote:
> <bkni...@conramp.net> wrote in message
> news:l8a7r71vt269i299ohectn6q1ndi2f4ugd@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 16 May 2012 08:20:22 -0400, BAR <sc...@you.com> wrote:
>>> In article <NCAsr.2192$9Q6.1...@newsfe18.iad>,
>>> nos...@thanksanyway.com says...
>>>> There are privately funded toll roads, bridges and subdivision
>>>> roads that function fine so why can't the whole thing work that
>>>> way? Your anecdote does not answer this. I see no reason why
>>>> roads couldn't be privately funded. Even publicly funded roads
>>>> rely on the gas tax so I don't see any real reason why this funding
>>>> mechanism must be funneled through the government to have any
>>>> chance of working. But in any case, as I have mentioned, when
>>>> something has to be done by government it should be done at the
>>>> lowest level possible. So if roads must be built by government
>>>> then it should be done at the county level wherever possible.
>>> The Dulles Greenway is a privately owned 14-mile toll road that
>>> connects Washington Dulles International Airport with Leesburg,
>>> Virginia. The Greenway is the first private toll road in Virginia
>>> since 1816.
>> So there's really a big, big, flourishing market after all. :-)
> No it's virtually non existent because the government is building the
> roads.
> You seem to conflate the way things are with the way things could be.
The way things could be.
So you rip out any national standards and let these county-level
entities each go their own way, each with their own construction
standards, billing mechanisms, etc. Sounds efficient!
Toll roads can be useful in relievng urban traffic congestion but would
be grossly impractical for a national transportation system. Imagine
I-10 which stretches from Florida to California chopped into a series of
privately owned toll roads. What would that add to transit time and
cost to a load of watermelons going from Arizona to Los Angeles? How
many different levels of maintenance would one encounter in that
stretch? How would tolls be set and governed?
Cities, counties and even states cannot afford to build highways on
their own, it takes federal gas tax money to do that. Our small city
has a major US highway running through it and traffic congestion is
terrible during the morning and evening rush hours. Businesses along
the corridor are hurt because no one wants to get off f the road to shop
then fight to get back on. We need a bypass and are getting one, a 6.5
mile stretch which will route through traffic around town.
But we're getting it the hard way. We borrowed about $42M then loaned
it to the state to fund the construction. The state will pay us back
out of federal highway funds over several years, the first payback of
about $11M is due later this year. Our total cost will still be around
$7M but we look at that as an investment in growth and development.
Don't forget, Frank, that the interstate system was conceived under a
Republican president. Patterned afer the German autobahn system it was
sold to congress as a national defense measure for rapid deployment of
forces throughout the continent. Do you know how the minimum height for
interstate overpasses was originally set? It was to allow an Atlas
missile on its transporter to clear them. The system has evolved, of
course, into the backbone of interstate commerce (stand alongside almost
any intrstate and count the number of 18 wheelers going past in an hour)
and promoting and regulating interstate commerce is a legitimate
function of national government.
While I agree that government at national and state levels should be
reduced in size I think that the scope of such reductions should be
very, very carefully considered. In Texas we are feeling the negative
effects of our legislature taking a broadsword to reductions rather than
a scalpel. Teachers are being laid off by the hundreds, Medicaid
reductions have eliminated even basic health services to many of the
poorest and the state is pushing more and more costs to counties and
cities without offering any revenue solutions.
