Are you Liberal or Conservative?

[antifoil]

yeah but what does it mean to provide for the general welfare?

[Facepunch]

yeah but what does it mean to provide for the general welfare?

That is a very good question. My opinion is that general welfare would be unemployment and disability(which is paid for through deductions), as is Social Security (when not used as a piggy bank). If you look at things like libraries and all of the services you enjoy in your community It would fall upon municipalities states or private organizations.

I do not think that general welfare encompasses the huge costs that our Senate and congress run up in lodging expenses pensions and wages.

I do not think that general welfare encompasses cell phones and luxury items for welfare recipiants.

I do not think that the general welfare encompasses the "war" on drugs.

I do not think that the general welfare encompasses "preemptive" war.

There are soooooo many that you hear about all the time.

every single piece of pork to build bridges for beavers or study the sex habits of turtles or cocaine on monkeys is not GENERAL enough for me.

The only thing that I think may be worth the money is NASA.

Those are just my opinions, obviously the word general has lent itself to a very liberal interpretation.

[N.O.S.]

Lincoln Republican here.

[antifoil]

i can agree with all of that and i think most reasonable people would. but how do you think providing for the general welfare should be applied to provide for lets say the FDA, FAA, SEC (or if there should be an SEC) including FASB, which sets standards for accounting principles, or do you prefer the laissez faire approach where the country doesn't need any regulation on business because the market will sort it self out. lets start with these three.

i went back and read what you wrote again and you gave some examples education and energy. i am sure as a quasi-libertarian with an understanding of the market system similar to business some states will fail at providing these items efficiently and some state will be run better. as with business, these states will fail to provide these items properly and people will move to other states potentially creating only a few states with sold infrastructure and the rest of the country a wasteland. in this situation, would you be in favor of the rich and prosperous states "buying out" the wasteland states also similar to businesses?

disclaimer: i was recently accused by a poster of asking questions with so called logical traps and that my questions are intended to be rhetorical. i can assure you this is not the case. i prefer to engage in a conversational or dialogue type exchange to tease out and give both me and perhaps you a better understand rather than ranting in long soliloquies.

[jram68]

I think, therefore I am...a Conservative

[Facepunch]

i can agree with all of that and i think most reasonable people would. but how do you think providing for the general welfare should be applied to provide for lets say the FDA, FAA, SEC (or if there should be an SEC) including FASB, which sets standards for accounting principles, or do you prefer the laissez faire approach where the country doesn't need any regulation on business because the market will sort it self out. lets start with these three.

i went back and read what you wrote again and you gave some examples education and energy. i am sure as a quasi-libertarian with an understanding of the market system similar to business some states will fail at providing these items efficiently and some state will be run better. as with business, these states will fail to provide these items properly and people will move to other states potentially creating only a few states with sold infrastructure and the rest of the country a wasteland. in this situation, would you be in favor of the rich and prosperous states "buying out" the wasteland states also similar to businesses?

disclaimer: i was recently accused by a poster of asking questions with so called logical traps and that my questions are intended to be rhetorical. i can assure you this is not the case. i prefer to engage in a conversational or dialogue type exchange to tease out and give both me and perhaps you a better understand rather than ranting in long soliloquies.

I am not a traditional laissez faire economist, and do not believe in Adam Smith's supposed "guiding hand" theory, I am however a very strict anti-interventionist. I think that the FDA in many ways is good, but over funded and too totalitarian for my liking, not to mention the entangling alliances that it has with many food and drug companies. The SEC is a joke as is any endeavor which attempts to pass laws to regulate itself, if business is given the ability to write laws they will write laws to give themselves unfair advantages, this is not an anti business view, it is a pro reality view and a wake up and look around you view . Some great examples are the health care legislation written by the insurance giants, the banking reforms written by Goldman Sachs, and any other legislation that purely serves to perpetuate corporate cronyism.
I do not think that these sectors can be fixed the way they currently stand. The corruption that is caused by political means has completely transformed them from watchdogs to profit hounds.

As far as the states, I do not see it that way. I think if you eliminate much of the federal serfdom that exists, with the states and the people bowing down to almighty Washington, I think that you would see prosperity on an unprecedented level.

Here is an example, Currently the department of energy and the environmental protection agency have ganged up against the coal industry in my state of West Virginia. They have made it so that the state actually runs a deficit every year to provide coal for the entire nation. I understand the need for environmental security and safety but paying fees to a department that is not in the state to support a needless bureaucracy in Washington is madness, when our state has the type of crippling unemployment that it does. The money would be better spent within the state to hire West Virginians to actually tackle the problem of pollution and runoff.

[azgrabi1]

conservative

[guitarjosh]

I would consider myself a classical liberal.

[flyingillini]

I could never vote anything but Republican.

[antifoil]

I am not a traditional laissez faire economist, and do not believe in Adam Smith's supposed "guiding hand" theory, I am however a very strict anti-interventionist. I think that the FDA in many ways is good, but over funded and too totalitarian for my liking, not to mention the entangling alliances that it has with many food and drug companies. The SEC is a joke as is any endeavor which attempts to pass laws to regulate itself, if business is given the ability to write laws they will write laws to give themselves unfair advantages, this is not an anti business view, it is a pro reality view and a wake up and look around you view . Some great examples are the health care legislation written by the insurance giants, the banking reforms written by Goldman Sachs, and any other legislation that purely serves to perpetuate corporate cronyism. I do not think that these sectors can be fixed the way they currently stand. The corruption that is caused by political means has completely transformed them from watchdogs to profit hounds. As far as the states, I do not see it that way. I think if you eliminate much of the federal serfdom that exists, with the states and the people bowing down to almighty Washington, I think that you would see prosperity on an unprecedented level. Here is an example, Currently the department of energy and the environmental protection agency have ganged up against the coal industry in my state of West Virginia. They have made it so that the state actually runs a deficit every year to provide coal for the entire nation. I understand the need for environmental security and safety but paying fees to a department that is not in the state to support a needless bureaucracy in Washington is madness, when our state has the type of crippling unemployment that it does. The money would be better spent within the state to hire West Virginians to actually tackle the problem of pollution and runoff.

i disagree. if states are independent in make regulations some states will make the regulations successfully and some will make them where they will fail. some states will do a poor job taxing the populace. some states will tax using a state income tax, others will use a sales tax method. probably though most states would be forced to institute some level of state income tax to fund all of the departments and programs removed from the federal governments control, but there would be less of a federal income tax. of course a sales tax more burdensome on poorer families than wealthy families.
why do you not think that if states are run like a business with all separate departments some will fail and some will be successful? i guess another example could be mexico failed as a country so its citizens are coming to america.

under this idea, do you think states should be forced to have a balanced budget? and if not should the federal government bailout states with deficits because it will happen. what would happen if some states don't receive enough income to

if you dont like the sec how should business be regulated? by each state individually? which realistically would be impossible since this a is a global economy with increasing international funding. international money is not going to invest in a company when each state has different accounting standards.

[muldoon]

I could never vote anything but Republican.

Says the guy with Hebrew as his sig mentioning Mossad.

[infamousbacardi]

It's a wonderful night for America. Sleep easy my friends.

[McBa1n]

I don't make a million dollars a year, so that makes my decision really easy:
Not Republican.

[LVHerbie]

Neither, I'm a combination anarchist-libertarian-right wing-leftist. And you can quote me on that

Damn Willly didn't realize that you and I shared a political ideology... You got these bumper stickers on your beater truck as well Mr. Willie Bee?

[N.O.S.]

I don't make a million dollars a year, so that makes my decision really easy:
Not Republican.

You don't have to make mil. of $$$ to be a republican. If you're a pro-family- you are republican. Liberals already ruined France, Germany, Holland, Belgium and other european nations.

[Cap dat 4ss]

I think that it is a big msitake to label yourself a Liberal or Conservative. I am certainly a fiscal Conservative. I am also a Conservative...