When Gov't Gets Way Too Big

[gallantwarrior]

Didn't monsanto do something like this when they engineered and patented seeds and I don't agree with them at all.

Monsanto is one of the world leaders in GMO and the damages done by that type of genetic engineering.
Top 10 Facts YOU Should Know About Monsanto

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Didn't monsanto do something like this when they engineered and patented seeds and I don't agree with them at all.

Monsanto is one of the world leaders in GMO and the damages done by that type of genetic engineering.
Top 10 Facts YOU Should Know About Monsanto

Thanks. Yeah, that was it.

 

[gallantwarrior]

Oh, and I'm actually thinking of farming my family's homestead in the near future (sustainable, as thanks to big agra, I can't afford to be "certified organic" - that has been polluted by big industrial (not sustainable) organic farms anyway). I want to raise vegetables, chickens (eggs) bees and milk goats, so I follow all of this awful legislation that keeps being voted in closely. It ain't the left behind it. I can assure you that!

I've been considering raising honey bees. I also love the taste of free range chicken eggs.

Honey bees in Alaska are a big job. Due to the climate, unless you want to nurse a hive through the winter, indoors, the swarm will die. People who keep bees here often order a new queen and bees every Spring. It also takes more than one season to get a hive producing anything close to a commercial crop of honey.
Free range chicken, eggs and meat, are great eating. Free range chickens also double as an all-natural pest control method. Buggers eat anything that doesn't move faster than they do. And bugs, etc, are part of a natural chicken diet.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Oh, and I'm actually thinking of farming my family's homestead in the near future (sustainable, as thanks to big agra, I can't afford to be "certified organic" - that has been polluted by big industrial (not sustainable) organic farms anyway). I want to raise vegetables, chickens (eggs) bees and milk goats, so I follow all of this awful legislation that keeps being voted in closely. It ain't the left behind it. I can assure you that!

I've been considering raising honey bees. I also love the taste of free range chicken eggs.

Honey bees in Alaska are a big job. Due to the climate, unless you want to nurse a hive through the winter, indoors, the swarm will die. People who keep bees here often order a new queen and bees every Spring. It also takes more than one season to get a hive producing anything close to a commercial crop of honey.
Free range chicken, eggs and meat, are great eating. Free range chickens also double as an all-natural pest control method. Buggers eat anything that doesn't move faster than they do. And bugs, etc, are part of a natural chicken diet.

Thanks again for the info. That's what I like about cage free chickens that eat bugs, they're eating natural stuff.

Do you have any idea of startup costs for honey bees?

 

[Flopper]

People don't want a large government but they do want Medicare, Social Security, a strong military, environmental protection, social programs for the poor, and a host of other government services.

Speak for yourself. The only thing on that list that is a Constitutional mandate for the Federal government is a strong military. All the rest is eyewash and icing.
Although, I certainly wouldn't mind getting my social security contributions that have been extorted from me for the last 40+ years refunded. Hell, I'll forgo the funds all my employers have paid into that fund on my behalf. I just want MY money back.

Be that as it may, polls have shown over the years that most people favor these large government programs. They want to keep them, but they don't want to pay the taxes nor continue the increasing government debt to support them.

 

[Mr. Peepers]

Sorry, I have a hard time considering a safety net for our most vulnerable citizens "big government". I believe as a first world, enlightened country (and also the wealthiest country) there should be no question that we have something to turn to for folks who fall on hard times - especially in this monopolistic and corrupt capitalist system we have in place. In my eyes, "big government" is really a smokescreen for "big corporate", pulling government strings to benefit their profits like a puppet. Just look at veggie libel laws, for instance. If those aren't an affront to the first amendment, I don't know what is. Funny how you never hear anyone screaming about them, huh. And that the meat industry is not required to tell you where they sold their tainted meat - after not even being required to RECALL tainted meat - there's no way to describe it but criminal... makes my blood boil to see so obviously what these corporations have paid to legislators who then have turned into law. We MUST get lobbyist money out of our legislative and electoral systems if this country is to have a chance.

 

[gallantwarrior]

People don't want a large government but they do want Medicare, Social Security, a strong military, environmental protection, social programs for the poor, and a host of other government services.

Speak for yourself. The only thing on that list that is a Constitutional mandate for the Federal government is a strong military. All the rest is eyewash and icing.
Although, I certainly wouldn't mind getting my social security contributions that have been extorted from me for the last 40+ years refunded. Hell, I'll forgo the funds all my employers have paid into that fund on my behalf. I just want MY money back.

Be that as it may, polls have shown over the years that most people favor these large government programs. They want to keep them, but they don't want to pay the taxes nor continue the increasing government debt to support them.

In the case of both Social Security and Medicare, or course large numbers of people favor those programs and think they should be kept. Most people have had to pay into both funds all their working life. I'm not convinced that the same number of people are in favor of all the other government programs.

 

[gallantwarrior]

Sorry, I have a hard time considering a safety net for our most vulnerable citizens "big government". I believe as a first world, enlightened country (and also the wealthiest country) there should be no question that we have something to turn to for folks who fall on hard times - especially in this monopolistic and corrupt capitalist system we have in place. In my eyes, "big government" is really a smokescreen for "big corporate", pulling government strings to benefit their profits like a puppet. Just look at veggie libel laws, for instance. If those aren't an affront to the first amendment, I don't know what is. Funny how you never hear anyone screaming about them, huh. And that the meat industry is not required to tell you where they sold their tainted meat - after not even being required to RECALL tainted meat - there's no way to describe it but criminal... makes my blood boil to see so obviously what these corporations have paid to legislators who then have turned into law. We MUST get lobbyist money out of our legislative and electoral systems if this country is to have a chance.

You illustrate my point exactly. Liberals tend to feel that big government spending favoring their happy-happy-feel-good pet programs is all fine. Of course , the accusation stands that big government bought by big business is all that conservatives favor.

 

[Douger]

Sorry, I have a hard time considering a safety net for our most vulnerable citizens "big government". I believe as a first world, enlightened country (and also the wealthiest country) there should be no question that we have something to turn to for folks who fall on hard times - especially in this monopolistic and corrupt capitalist system we have in place. In my eyes, "big government" is really a smokescreen for "big corporate", pulling government strings to benefit their profits like a puppet. Just look at veggie libel laws, for instance. If those aren't an affront to the first amendment, I don't know what is. Funny how you never hear anyone screaming about them, huh. And that the meat industry is not required to tell you where they sold their tainted meat - after not even being required to RECALL tainted meat - there's no way to describe it but criminal... makes my blood boil to see so obviously what these corporations have paid to legislators who then have turned into law. We MUST get lobbyist money out of our legislative and electoral systems if this country is to have a chance.

It's not going to happen. Look at who your fellow brain damaged, fluoride drinking citizens look up to. All the way from Hollyweird to music to the clowns your masters offer up to allow you to choose from in the polls. Find another country and let the criminals have that one.

 

[Mr. Peepers]

You illustrate my point exactly. Liberals tend to feel that big government spending favoring their happy-happy-feel-good pet programs is all fine.

A societal safety net is happy-happy-feel-good pet program? I see it as a necessity for a healthy and productive America. Do you really think you have the stomach to live in sink or swim society? Seriously, do you realize what a mean, awful country this would become? I don't believe the majority of people in this country would like to see this happen to any of their fellow citizens. SS and welfare is for the benefit and welfare for the "commons". I would much rather my taxes go to these programs and other pro-societal programs than one red cent to have gone to the MIC lining their pockets in Iraq or corn subsidies.

I guess you have to ask yourself this... do I want my tax dollars going to aid / propel American citizens and our infrastructure / defense (as in border protection, not wars for profit) or to multinational corporations who already make billions and care not a whit what they do to this country or its citizenry. Not a hard choice to make for me.

 

[KevinWestern]

Sorry, I have a hard time considering a safety net for our most vulnerable citizens "big government". I believe as a first world, enlightened country (and also the wealthiest country) there should be no question that we have something to turn to for folks who fall on hard times - especially in this monopolistic and corrupt capitalist system we have in place. In my eyes, "big government" is really a smokescreen for "big corporate", pulling government strings to benefit their profits like a puppet. Just look at veggie libel laws, for instance. If those aren't an affront to the first amendment, I don't know what is. Funny how you never hear anyone screaming about them, huh. And that the meat industry is not required to tell you where they sold their tainted meat - after not even being required to RECALL tainted meat - there's no way to describe it but criminal... makes my blood boil to see so obviously what these corporations have paid to legislators who then have turned into law. We MUST get lobbyist money out of our legislative and electoral systems if this country is to have a chance.

Personally, I don’t see a problem with social safety nets, as long as they’re well designed, and are not encouraging perverse incentives that actually work to harm society (which can happen very easily). Sometimes good intentions (like certain forms welfare) actually can do more harm than good; sometimes we create a program that seems pretty straightforward, but in actual practice it produces some very nasty and counterproductive side effects.

Although slightly unrelated, here’s a real life example. I read once that a few years back there was a problem on airplanes with parents holding their infant children on their lap. The problem was that if heavy turbulence hit, a baby once in a while would slip out of the hands and collide with the ceiling (and on a few occasions cause serious injury and death). To remedy the government made it mandatory that children needed to purchase/sit in their own seat. What happened? Travel became more expensive, parents opted to take cars vs. airplanes, and a greater number of babies ended up getting injured and dying anyways because driving is much more dangerous per mile than flying.

How does this apply to welfare? Well, I'm not totally sure, but what I think I'm trying to say is that are you absolutely sure the safety nets you set up are resulting in a net benefit for society?

 

[gallantwarrior]

You illustrate my point exactly. Liberals tend to feel that big government spending favoring their happy-happy-feel-good pet programs is all fine.

A societal safety net is happy-happy-feel-good pet program? I see it as a necessity for a healthy and productive America. Do you really think have the stomach to live in sink or swim society? Seriously, do you realize what a mean, awful country this would become? I don't believe the majority of people in this country would like to see this happen to any of their fellow citizens. SS and welfare is for the benefit and welfare for the "commons". I would much rather my taxes go to these programs and other pro-societal programs than one red cent to have gone to the MIC lining their pockets in Iraq or corn subsidies.

I guess you have to ask yourself this... do I want my tax dollars going to aid / propel American citizens and our infrastructure / defense (as in border protection, not wars for profit) or to multinational corporations who already make billions and care not a whit what they do to this country or its citizenry. Not a hard choice to make for me.

If you think I disagree with withdrawing our support of countries and peoples who despise us and rather see us dead, think again. I gag on my gorge every time someone makes the argument that we just couldn't pull out of the ME because of the damage that would do to their fragile " democracy", or how many " innocents" might suffer. Those people have been murdering each other for generations. They only tolerate us because our government pumps so much money into the pockets of their corrupt politicians.
Would I rather see Americans take care of each other, certainly! I would rather that people be allowed to make their own effort at helping one another. As you observe, most Americans would not see their fellows suffer. Why cheapen individual efforts by using government mandates to extort charity from the individual so that largesse may be redistributed as government sees fit?
Additionally, I would prefer programs designed to help people become self-sufficient. Too many of these government feel-good programs treat recipients more like pet animals than people.

 

[Flopper]

Sorry, I have a hard time considering a safety net for our most vulnerable citizens "big government". I believe as a first world, enlightened country (and also the wealthiest country) there should be no question that we have something to turn to for folks who fall on hard times - especially in this monopolistic and corrupt capitalist system we have in place. In my eyes, "big government" is really a smokescreen for "big corporate", pulling government strings to benefit their profits like a puppet. Just look at veggie libel laws, for instance. If those aren't an affront to the first amendment, I don't know what is. Funny how you never hear anyone screaming about them, huh. And that the meat industry is not required to tell you where they sold their tainted meat - after not even being required to RECALL tainted meat - there's no way to describe it but criminal... makes my blood boil to see so obviously what these corporations have paid to legislators who then have turned into law. We MUST get lobbyist money out of our legislative and electoral systems if this country is to have a chance.

Personally, I don’t see a problem with social safety nets, as long as they’re well designed, and are not encouraging perverse incentives that actually work to harm society (which can happen very easily). Sometimes good intentions (like certain forms welfare) actually can do more harm than good; sometimes we create a program that seems pretty straightforward, but in actual practice it produces some very nasty and counterproductive side effects.

Although slightly unrelated, here’s a real life example. I read once that a few years back there was a problem on airplanes with parents holding their infant children on their lap. The problem was that If heavy turbulence hit, a baby once in a while would slip out of the hands and collide with the ceiling (and on a few occasions cause serious injury and death). To remedy the government made it mandatory that children needed to purchase/sit in their own seat. What happened? Travel became more expensive, parents opted to take cars vs. airplanes, and a greater number of babies ended up getting injured and dying anyways because driving is much more dangers per mile than flying.

How does this apply to welfare? Well, I'm not totally sure, but what I think I'm trying to say is that are you absolutely sure the safety nets you set up are resulting in a net benefit for society?

There are so many misconception about our safety nets, that it is difficult to carry on anything resembling an intelligence discussion on this board. For example:

There isn't a day that passes that someone on this board is not raving about the huge problems caused by illegal immigrants on welfare programs. They totally disregard the fact that it is illegal to use federal welfare program funds to pay benefits to undocumented immigrants. Some states allocate state moneys for undocumented immigrants. There are cases where undocumented immigrants using forged documents have received welfare moneys, but these are the exceptions.

To this day, the far right spreads the fantasy that vast numbers of people live a life of luxury from cradle to grave on welfare. They maintain that millions of women have children so they can collect welfare throughout their life. They ignore the welfare reform act of 1996 which limits aid to dependent children to 5 years. They also ignore the fact that 50% of the those on welfare receive benefits for less than a year. 70% are off welfare in 2 years and 90% are off in 5 years.

Then what can only be described as a conspiracy theory, is concocted claiming that illegals swarm across our boards to live their lives on welfare.

The facts are that welfare programs are limited and provide a bare subsistence. Since benefits and qualifications are determined by each state, the amount of the benefits in some states is almost nothing. Few realize just how low welfare payments are in some states. For example in Mississippi the monthly payment for 6 kids is $242/mo. for a maximum 60 months and that's providing you qualify.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I know a lot of people on the left have good intentions for a big government...

Actually you don’t know – liberals don’t think of government in terms of ‘big’ or ‘small,’ nor do they consider government’s ‘intent,’ good or bad.

Liberals are pragmatists, they ‘believe’ in what works, or what’s likely to work based on facts and evidence, not partisan dogma. Things which government does well it should address; things the government does poorly should be left to the private sector. In most cases liberals have learned that a blend of both public and private sectors works best.

…but just note that sometimes these regulations/government authority can spiral out of control.

And should that happen the people could find remedy in the legislative process or the courts. It’s incumbent upon citizens to address government excess, and compel a correction when needed. This inane notion of the ‘helpless citizen’ is the problem, not ‘big government.’

I don't want to wind up living in a police state…

Which won’t happen provided you and others do something about it.

…and this idea has always kept me from drifting too far left of center.

A ‘police state’ is much more likely a consequence of drifting too far right of center