Funding for the state of Alabama

[LibraryLady]

From Daily Kos we get to see that an Alabama state senator has started a Go Fund Me webpage to fund Alabama.
[url]
http://tinyurl.com/q4w8ynj[/url]

[Red Oak]

[jellowrestling]

Liberals are too dense to understand that there are a handful of things that most people think are worthy enough of their money to send it voluntarily. Education is #1. Most of the crap that government spends money on, most people would never in a million years voluntarily let loose of their money for.

[jellowrestling]

Liberals are too dense to understand that there are a handful of things that most people think are worthy enough of their money to send it voluntarily. Education is #1. Most of the crap that government spends money on, most people would never in a million years voluntarily let loose of their money for.

I guess that was a thread-killer.

[John in Plano]

Liberals are too dense to understand that there are a handful of things that most people think are worthy enough of their money to send it voluntarily. Education is #1. Most of the crap that government spends money on, most people would never in a million years voluntarily let loose of their money for.

I guess that was a thread-killer.

Carter brought us the DOE I'm not sure how d's could get more intrusive in our lives then by manipulating the education system for 50 states via control in DC .
Bush brought us no child left behind, teach to the test is what we got in TX, not sure how much more dumbing down can happen by the r's

[mayhem]

I think that's right and it needs to be taken seriously -- for all that will come of it.

But there's a different angle that also should be taken seriously. There is no set of
things 'that most people think are worthy enough.' Not saying there isn't a kind of
consensus, but that it is unworkable to ask all 'the people' what they/we feel
good about enough to fund. Thoroughly unworkable.

So what can we do?

So (we'll start this sort with 'so') Let's send a bunch of people to some convenient
site and let them sort through the priorities of the American people and then to
sort thru all the ideas that garnered the most positive responses.

Let's pay those people a per diem related to the progress they make in a reasonable
amount of time.

If they succeed, great. If they come in with mixed results, we'll dock them. If
they can't agree on anything much, let's send them bus fare to come home while
we find someone else to serve in their place. But ... how do we decide if they
are successful?

Then let's allus work on being happy with what they've been able to
accomplish.

Anybody see a flaw in that?

O ... that's right. That's what we're supposed to be doing, right?
Kinda?

"Supposed to ...?"

Sigh.

Liberals are too dense to understand that there are a handful of things that most people think are worthy enough of their money to send it voluntarily. Education is #1. Most of the crap that government spends money on, most people would never in a million years voluntarily let loose of their money for.

[Sangersteve]

Does anyone have a Mayhem to english translation?

I think that's right and it needs to be taken seriously -- for all that will come of it.

But there's a different angle that also should be taken seriously. There is no set of
things 'that most people think are worthy enough.' Not saying there isn't a kind of
consensus, but that it is unworkable to ask all 'the people' what they/we feel
good about enough to fund. Thoroughly unworkable.

So what can we do?

So (we'll start this sort with 'so') Let's send a bunch of people to some convenient
site and let them sort through the priorities of the American people and then to
sort thru all the ideas that garnered the most positive responses.

Let's pay those people a per diem related to the progress they make in a reasonable
amount of time.

If they succeed, great. If they come in with mixed results, we'll dock them. If
they can't agree on anything much, let's send them bus fare to come home while
we find someone else to serve in their place. But ... how do we decide if they
are successful?

Then let's allus work on being happy with what they've been able to
accomplish.

Anybody see a flaw in that?

O ... that's right. That's what we're supposed to be doing, right?
Kinda?

"Supposed to ...?"

Sigh.

Liberals are too dense to understand that there are a handful of things that most people think are worthy enough of their money to send it voluntarily. Education is #1. Most of the crap that government spends money on, most people would never in a million years voluntarily let loose of their money for.

[planosteve]

The purpose of govt. is to provide what people need and can't provide efficiently for themselves. ie: Police, fire protection, basic education, etc. Not what they just happen to want. Taking people's money for taxes and then deciding how to spend it is asinine, wasteful and immoral.

[mayhem]

Jeez, you can't read tongue-in-cheek?? I can't believe it. You sure can write
it with great facility.

I think that's right and it needs to be taken seriously -- for all that will come of it.

But there's a different angle that also should be taken seriously. There is no set of
things 'that most people think are worthy enough.' Not saying there isn't a kind of
consensus, but that it is unworkable to ask all 'the people' what they/we feel
good about enough to fund. Thoroughly unworkable.

So what can we do?

So (we'll start this sort with 'so') Let's send a bunch of people to some convenient
site and let them sort through the priorities of the American people and then to
sort thru all the ideas that garnered the most positive responses.

Let's pay those people a per diem related to the progress they make in a reasonable
amount of time.

If they succeed, great. If they come in with mixed results, we'll dock them. If
they can't agree on anything much, let's send them bus fare to come home while
we find someone else to serve in their place. But ... how do we decide if they
are successful?

Then let's allus work on being happy with what they've been able to
accomplish.

Anybody see a flaw in that?

O ... that's right. That's what we're supposed to be doing, right?
Kinda?

"Supposed to ...?"

Sigh.

Liberals are too dense to understand that there are a handful of things that most people think are worthy enough of their money to send it voluntarily. Education is #1. Most of the crap that government spends money on, most people would never in a million years voluntarily let loose of their money for.

[mayhem]

(So), of course that's complete double talk.

The first sentence below is heart-stoppingly close to saying something. Certainly the government in all its manifestations should be dealing seriously and directly with what people want. "They" are, in fact, "there" to sort out 'what they happen to want.' Otherwise we'd all be sending in ballots every day to declare what 'they (we) just happen to want.'

The second sentence is a howler. Totally inconceivable and unworkable. (Not to mention being other than what people apparently want. Otherwise a splinter sub group from the right wing nuts would have run the country since about 1944.)

Knowing ahead of time how you will likely respond to this, let me simply and with great sympathy say: you are wrong ... it's your opinion. But it is wrong and could never ever work. Inotherwords: if you don't like the way the government is spending money now, then vote for a likeminded politician or two.

The purpose of govt. is to provide what people need and can't provide efficiently for themselves. ie: Police, fire protection, basic education, etc. Not what they just happen to want. Taking people's money for taxes and then deciding how to spend it is asinine, wasteful and immoral.

[planosteve]

It's called Limited Govt. Failure to limit govt. always ends in disaster as govt. becomes more and more oppressive. The biggest mistakes were letting the govt. convert gold and silver receipts to fiat money, factionalized banking and the FED which Wilson sold as "banking reform" HA! So, we will pay the price at some point and it will be heavy. Solving the problem by electing different people doesn't work. I think anyone can see that. The limits have to be built into the system which is now completely broken.

[Red Oak]

I agree Plan-0 !

[mayhem]

Economics ain't my strong suit but I know that the gold thing doesn't leave room
to maneuver and therefore no room for mistakes.

Won't the inability to tinker with inflation spell disaster?

ATDW

PS I'm playing nice. I would appreciate a thoughtful answer. I don't know what
I could do with some extra snide at the moment.

It's called Limited Govt. Failure to limit govt. always ends in disaster as govt. becomes more and more oppressive. The biggest mistakes were letting the govt. convert gold and silver receipts to fiat money, factionalized banking and the FED which Wilson sold as "banking reform" HA! So, we will pay the price at some point and it will be heavy. Solving the problem by electing different people doesn't work. I think anyone can see that. The limits have to be built into the system which is now completely broken.

[planosteve]

PS I'm playing nice. I would appreciate a thoughtful answer. I don't know what
I could do with some extra snide at the moment.

I'd give you one if I knew what the question was. Do you want to try again? I expect you are not a supporter of the gold standard. But, the fiat money standard has left us 18 trillion in debt and still increasing. At some point the system will collapse and I have yet to hear of anyone with a plan to prevent that.

[jellowrestling]

It's called Limited Govt. Failure to limit govt. always ends in disaster as govt. becomes more and more oppressive. The biggest mistakes were letting the govt. convert gold and silver receipts to fiat money, factionalized banking and the FED which Wilson sold as "banking reform" HA! So, we will pay the price at some point and it will be heavy. Solving the problem by electing different people doesn't work. I think anyone can see that. The limits have to be built into the system which is now completely broken.

Limits were built into the system. "Progressives" ignore them.

[GFB]

PS I'm playing nice. I would appreciate a thoughtful answer. I don't know what
I could do with some extra snide at the moment.

I'd give you one if I knew what the question was. Do you want to try again? I expect you are not a supporter of the gold standard. But, the fiat money standard has left us 18 trillion in debt and still increasing. At some point the system will collapse and I have yet to hear of anyone with a plan to prevent that.

The debt is from excessive spending. That can happen with any currency.

But one thing pretty much all economists agree on..if the deficit remains at 3% of GDP or less..the debt can be serviced forever.

So, if you're hoping for a collapse..you'll have to find a new route.

[GFB]

With our 18 Trillion dollar economy..a 500 Billion dollar deficit is thoroughly manageable ad infinitum.

As the economy grows larger..so can the deficit.

I don't like that it does..but it can.

Obama is the only President that put this ratio totally out of whack..having presided over 4 years of Trillion dollar plus deficits.

[jellowrestling]

With our 18 Trillion dollar economy..a 500 Billion dollar deficit is thoroughly manageable ad infinitum.

As the economy grows larger..so can the deficit.

I don't like that it does..but it can.

Obama is the only President that put this ratio totally out of whack..having presided over 4 years of Trillion dollar plus deficits.

GFB nails it.

[John in Plano]

With our 18 Trillion dollar economy..a 500 Billion dollar deficit is thoroughly manageable ad infinitum.

As the economy grows larger..so can the deficit.

I don't like that it does..but it can.

Obama is the only President that put this ratio totally out of whack..having presided over 4 years of Trillion dollar plus deficits.

National debt is over 100% of gdp, last time that happened was 45-47, we can parse the reasons why etc, not interested just have a frank question.

What change in our economy do you see spurring growth in this country sufficient to reduce the national debt to less than 100% of gdp ?



http://useconomy.about.com/od/usdebtand ... y-Year.htm

[Mark]

It's called Limited Govt. Failure to limit govt. always ends in disaster as govt. becomes more and more oppressive. The biggest mistakes were letting the govt. convert gold and silver receipts to fiat money, factionalized banking and the FED which Wilson sold as "banking reform" HA! So, we will pay the price at some point and it will be heavy. Solving the problem by electing different people doesn't work. I think anyone can see that. The limits have to be built into the system which is now completely broken.

Limits were built into the system. "Progressives" ignore them.

Progressives from both political parties