(08/07) Who would you like to see as the next President of the United States?

[Steve Machol]

As for believing that our Government's first priorty should be the welfare of it's own citizens, I plead guilty to believing that too.
Does this mean that you don't believe that?
I thought I did answer this question... I would judge that- while Americans do have a disproportionate share of the world's wealth- the acquisition of that wealth was by just means. Therefore, the rest of the world has no legitimate claim for redistribution.

I must be stupid. Is that a Yes or a No?

[chip anderson]

A governments first priority should be the protection of it's citizens, but not from themselves.

Chip

[Grubendol]

But according to the Constitution, that isn’t the first priority of our government.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Justice and domestic tranquility are first, then defense, and Welfare (notice the capitalization ;)).

[chip anderson]

Grubendol:
I am quite sure the founding fathers had a much different definition of Welfare than the current concept.
Wouldn't be atall supprised they could see what the concept has turned into if they issured a call to arms.
Chip

[Steve Machol]

A governments first priority should be the protection of it's citizens, but not from themselves.

Chip

Thanks but I was not taking a position on that. However this does bring us back to the orignal question I asked twice and that so far you have not answered. I'm beginning to believe you are purposely avoiding it. ;)

You said:

Steve:

What would you call laws that "protect us from ourselves" if not the government protecting us?

And I asked:

Then I would add laws against drug use and prostitution into that category. Are you against those laws too? If so, then at least you are consistent and I applaud you for that. If not, then there is a fundamental inconsistency in your position that you should be able to recognize.

What the answer? Given your latest quote I can only assume that you are for the legalization of drugs for personal use and of prostitution since that would be the only positition consistent with your your views as stated in your two quotes.

After all what business is it of the government to protect us from our own freely made decisions and choices, right?

[DragonLensmanWV]

Grubendol:
I am quite sure the founding fathers had a much different definition of Welfare than the current concept.
Wouldn't be atall supprised they could see what the concept has turned into if they issured a call to arms.
Chip

So you're willing to admit that the founding fathers had a different definition of many things than the current concept?

[Pete Hanlin]

I must be stupid. Is that a Yes or a No?
Its an established fact that you are not stupid- therefore, I must be failing to communicate at some level.

Your question is- Do I believe government's first priority is the welfare of its own citizens?
My answer is- Assuming government acts justly in doing so- yes.

The irony for me is, there seems to be a substantial group of people who expect our government to a.) take action to preserve the inequity between our economy and the world's less prosperous economies, while at the same time b.) provide greater equity between the economic condition of our own citizens. This strikes me as inconsistent- that's all. If its acceptable for national economies to be inequitable, why is it unacceptable for personal economies to be inequitable?

That's one of the most rational things I've read on Optiboard. I nominate Pete for President!
My dad says even a blind squirrel finds a nut on occasion. I guess I spend so much time talking that something rational is likely to slip out once in a while.

...probably wouldn't want the pay cut and added stress.
The President's annual salary of $400,000 would represent a substantial pay raise (surprisingly, the VP only pulls in $186,300 per year)... still not worth the stress!

[Steve Machol]

The irony for me is, there seems to be a substantial group of people who expect our government to a.) take action to preserve the inequity between our economy and the world's less prosperous economies, while at the same time b.) provide greater equity between the economic condition of our own citizens. This strikes me as inconsistent- that's all. If its acceptable for national economies to be inequitable, why is it unacceptable for personal economies to be inequitable?

Gee, I've never heard of anyone complain so much about people who expect our government to put the welfare of it's own citizens first. Why do you hate America Pete? ;)

But seriously why stop with that? The ironies or inconsistencies certainly don't stop there.

What about all the people complaining that the government has no business telling them whether or not to wear a motorcycle helmet, but have no problem supporting government restrictions on other personal behavior they happen to disapprove of - such as, drug use, prostitution, what consenting adults do in their own bedrooms, etc?

What about the people that believe in the right-to-life but that could care less about the genocide in Dafur or the loss of civilian lives in Iraq?

What about the people that believe the 2nd Amendment is sacred, yet have no problem restricting other people's rights as specified in the 1st, 4th, 5th and 6th Amendments (i.e., they support the misnamed 'Patriot' Act and the Military Commissions Act of 2006)?

Also there is a basic assumption in your question, one which states we live in a 'zero-sum' world in which whenever someone gains, someone else loses. I personally think it is possible to raise the general standard of living for everyone, and in fact the world has seen such gains through the technological advances of the last two centuries. That's not to say that everyone has gained equally, but as a species our life expectancy and other standard measurements of the quality of life have improved overrall, even with a massive growth in population. (Which has it's own problems for the future, but that's for another topic.)

So while you see an inconsistency (and are undoubtedly right on some levels) there is also the real possibility to do both - maintain or improve the welfare of our own citizens while still helping our fellow citizens of the world. :)

[Pete Hanlin]

I would agree with your list of inconsistencies, with the exception of the last one. Still trying to catch up with your furor over the Patriot Act- I just don't see it as such a big deal... maybe, as you suggest, that's an inconsistency on my part. Of course, I don't get too worked up over the 2nd Amendment one way or the other either.

I can't help but assume you are deliberately missing my main point. To put it in your terms, then- let's say I believe the government should do what it can (which is actually quite insignificant compared to global economic forces) to protect the prosperity of all citizens, poor and rich alike. Maybe we can both agree on that statement.

The old "zero sum" argument doesn't quite apply when it comes to this discussion (nice use of an old GOP line though). While other economies can certainly improve to a point, there are simply not enough resources in the world to support a worldwide economy that is on-par with that of the US.

So my initial observation remains- improvements in other national economies will negatively impact the US economy over the long term. Doesn't make me happy, but its a fact that we might as well accept and go on with trying to personally prosper as best we can.

[Steve Machol]

I would agree with your list of inconsistencies, with the exception of the last one. Still trying to catch up with your furor over the Patriot Act- I just don't see it as such a big deal... maybe, as you suggest, that's an inconsistency on my part. Of course, I don't get too worked up over the 2nd Amendment one way or the other either.

Regardless of what you think about the Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act of 2006 directly suspends habeas corpus for anyone the President delares an 'enemy combatant'. This includes US citizens and precludes you from excercising any legal rights whatsoever.

I can't help but assume you are deliberately missing my main point. To put it in your terms, then- let's say I believe the government should do what it can (which is actually quite insignificant compared to global economic forces) to protect the prosperity of all citizens, poor and rich alike. Maybe we can both agree on that statement.

Yep, although I firmly believe that our giverment is already doing quite a lot for the rich (who after all finance their campaign war chests) and not nearly enough for the poor. :)

The old "zero sum" argument doesn't quite apply when it comes to this discussion (nice use of an old GOP line though). While other economies can certainly improve to a point, there are simply not enough resources in the world to support a worldwide economy that is on-par with that of the US.

Hmmm...I didn't realize that was a GOP line. Believe it or not I came to that terminology on my own. Weird.

As for the world's resources, I alluded to that growing problem previously here:

That's not to say that everyone has gained equally, but as a species our life expectancy and other standard measurements of the quality of life have improved overrall, even with a massive growth in population. (Which has it's own problems for the future, but that's for another topic.)

So my initial observation remains- improvements in other national economies will negatively impact the US economy over the long term. Doesn't make me happy, but its a fact that we might as well accept and go on with trying to personally prosper as best we can.

I think that is certainly the reality in the long-term and don't dispute that at all. The point I was trying to make was that I do believe there are things the government can and should to do protect American jobs when possible. One of the ways to do this is to provide tax incentives to companies that create jobs, and remove tax incentives and progams that encourage companies to move jobs to other countries.

I know you Pete and I can't believe that you actually believe that our goverment should be encouraging aand rewarding companies for exporting jobs.

By the way, here's an interesting quote from Lou Dobbs that I just found:

The Japanese car plants are here because Ronald Reagan -- who many of the so-called free traders hold up as a paragon of free trade -- demanded that those plants be created here if they were going to participate in our economy and enjoy the benefits of the world's largest consumer economy. That wasn't free trade; it was rational, balanced, reciprocal trade -- which is the course we should be pursuing right now, and which all of our trade partners are pursuing. We're the only nation in the world that just mindlessly opens our markets irrespective of the constraints on our own goods and services.

I have to admit that I never knew that.

[chip anderson]

While I do not condone conditions in Darfur, Sumalliand and a large portion of the earth. And would under many conditions support military or other intervention to correct such conditions if I thought this would actually rectify the conditions for a lasting period time. These places are not the United States. We have never elected anyone president or congressman or anything else of the world. Genocide of infants in the United States is the business of our government and citizenry, these God forsaken hellholes outside the U.S. are not the responsiblilty of the US unless they present a danger to the US, it's Constiution (as written), or it's citizenry.
Even if we were to intervien in many foriegn places the conditions would revert to thier former state (this is what's wrong in the middle east) very shortly after we left (which is why we are still in Germany, and Korea) and are these places really important enough to US to stay there if we interviened?

Does the Welfare of the Citizens of the US include subsidising the lazy with the resources of the industrious? I think not. Now in the even of catastropic desaster, epidemic, etc. Perhaps aid is indicated, but just because people sit home, get fat and have babies are they entitled to two cars, color television, food, clothing, healthcare, etc. I think not.

If someone is left without the provider for a family perhaps aid is needed until someone in the family can be made sufficent, but forever (and no I am not talking about the elderly or infirm) no!

Chip

[Pete Hanlin]

...the Military Commissions Act of 2006 directly suspends habeas corpus for anyone the President delares an 'enemy combatant'. This includes US citizens and precludes you from excercising any legal rights whatsoever.
Perhaps there have actually been a whole slew of Americans who have been denied their legal rights (maybe if someone can provide real examples of this happening I'd feel a little more strongly about the Patriot Act). Thus far, all I see is a rallying issue for those who don't like the administration. I'm not suggesting the Patriot Act is a great thing- or a bad thing. To me personally, its an irrelevent thing (because I don't plan on participating in any behavior that could even remotely suggest that I'm an enemy combatant against the US).

Hmmm...I didn't realize that was a GOP line.
Yep, claiming the economy isn't a "zero sum" game is a customary Republican response when Democrats try to stir up socio-economic class division. I'm pretty sure Reagan used the line a few times. Its a true-statement... generation of wealth is not a zero sum equation.

The point I was trying to make was that I do believe there are things the government can and should to do protect American jobs when possible. One of the ways to do this is to provide tax incentives to companies that create jobs, and remove tax incentives and progams that encourage companies to move jobs to other countries.
I get the point- and agree the government should do all it can (within reason) to look after the intrests of American industry. Personally, compared to global economic forces, there probably isn't much our government can do, but it should at least try to protect industry from unfair trade and intellectual rights practices (oddly enough, these actions will probably primarily benefit the wealthy- but the middle class will benefit from retained jobs... I guess the benefits just sort of "trickle down" :^).
I know you Pete and I can't believe that you actually believe that our goverment should be encouraging and rewarding companies for exporting jobs.
In a completely laizzez-faire (sp?) system, the government shouldn't be punishing or rewarding any kind of behavior on the part of industry and commerce. I'll agree with you to the point that government shouldn't be rewarding the exportation of jobs.

Just to be clear, I would like to see everyone in America prosper (heck, it would be great if the whole world could prosper). As I get older, I'm becoming far more cynical and pragmatic about the realities of life.

As a starting point- life isn't fair. Everyone is not born with the same opportunities. For example, I happened to be born into a family where my dad and mom stayed married and agreed to pay for 4 years of college... pretty rare these days & I'm thankful for that blessing. Others are born into families that are less "organized" and are provided with less resources. My hope lies in the fact that- at some level- it still comes down to personal effort. There are those who were born more fortunate than I who have accomplished close to zip. There are those born into conditions much worse than I who own companies and are far more successful than I.

As a concluding point- society (including government) cannot "make life fair." While I'll agree there should be at least a minimal level of opportunity provided for all (e.g., a public education, assistance where absolutely needed), personal effort (and a bit of luck) is going to determine one's fortune.

(I would add that man may choose his steps, but God determines his path, but that raises all sorts of questions regarding why some succeed and others fail that I'll admit I cannot answer after all these years. Let's just leave it that I don't know why God has allowed me to prosper to the level I have, but I surely appreciate it.)

[Grubendol]

...the Military Commissions Act of 2006 directly suspends habeas corpus for anyone the President delares an 'enemy combatant'. This includes US citizens and precludes you from excercising any legal rights whatsoever.
Perhaps there have actually been a whole slew of Americans who have been denied their legal rights (maybe if someone can provide real examples of this happening I'd feel a little more strongly about the Patriot Act). Thus far, all I see is a rallying issue for those who don't like the administration. I'm not suggesting the Patriot Act is a great thing- or a bad thing. To me personally, its an irrelevent thing (because I don't plan on participating in any behavior that could even remotely suggest that I'm an enemy combatant against the US).

Pete, I realize this doesn’t effect you directly and as of yet it has not effected me directly, but the question is really not about that. The question is how much of our Constitutional Rights are we willing to let go in the fight against enemy which wants to attack our way of life. By denying ourselves Constitutional Rights we are giving the enemy exactly what they want….The point of terror is use very few to create an atmosphere of fear which leads to changing the behavior of the larger group.

This is precisely what we are doing. Obviously the technology of weapons have changed dramatically over the past 200 years, but in 1812 when our nation was invaded by the English and they burned down the White House we didn’t give up these Constitutional Rights. During the Civil War there was sadly a brief limitation on some of these rights, but Abraham Lincoln publicly regretted it, and it was grandfathered.

This Administration has chipped away at our rights, and our knowledge of their behavior at every opportunity they have had. The only way we can rationally make proper choices through our vote is by having access to information on the behavior and decision making process of the Administration. This was the system created by the Founding Fathers and it has been slowly dismantled over the last 6 years.

[Steve Machol]

Perhaps there have actually been a whole slew of Americans who have been denied their legal rights (maybe if someone can provide real examples of this happening I'd feel a little more strongly about the Patriot Act).

Well, the point is that we wouldn't necessarily know.

Thus far, all I see is a rallying issue for those who don't like the administration.

You can believe what you want but you'd be wrong. I'd be against the stripping of our rights guaranteed under the Bill of Rights regardless of who was doing it. In fact, the tipping point for me in NOT supporting Al Gore in 2000 was his support of the FBI's Carnivore project, which was very similar to what the Patriot Act became.

What does amaze me is that anyone - particularly Conservatives who are supposed to believe in limited government and the strict interpretation of the Constitution - would so meekly accept the loss of these rights just as long as (a) it's an alleged 'Conservative' Administation that does this, and (b) you can't prove that anyone has lost their rights yet.

This is not Conservatism. It's Authoritarianism.

[GOS_Queen]

What does amaze me is that anyone - particularly Conservatives who are supposed to believe in limited government and the strict interpretation of the Constitution - would so meekly accept the loss of these rights just as long as (a) it's an alleged 'Conservative' Administation that does this, and (b) you can't prove that anyone has lost their rights yet.

This is not Conservatism. It's Authoritarianism.

Good point, Steve -

"Freedom is not a concept in which people can do anything they want, be anything they can be. Freedom is about authority. Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do." - Rudolf Giuliani



"No matter how well intentioned, an authoritarian government always abuses its powers" -Ron Paul

[chip anderson]

Rudy is a full of it as the apostle Paul was when he said: "Any government is a lawful goverment and should be obeyed "(or words to that effect.)
Freedom is the ability to chose between right and wrong. Does not mean exemption from the consequences when the wrong choices are made, but it does mean having the option.
You should have the option of behaving badly. Should this cause harm or loss to anyone else you should have to pay the consequences. Government should not have the option of restricting your behavior prior to the offence. And yes Steve, I do understand the need for screening passengers and luggage at airports and such (although not perhaps is the same ways presently conducted.

We should all have the option of haveing guns, knives, motor vehicles, etc. Now if we miss-use them there should be consequences to bear.

Chip