Necessary Government

[radamanthys]

We who dislike the bulk of the federal government often get a bad rap as being uncompassionate and spiteful against all things government by policy. The nay-sayers.

As conservatives, what programs and responsibilities do you think the government has? I'm thinking generally socialist-like programs here. We all know the constitution's provisions and the real responsibilities inherent.

Liberals! Name some unnecessary social programs! Stuff that should be cut! Stuff that doesn't make sense.

Total role-reversal here.

--- Here's mine:
I'm in favor of funding for mental health programs. It's one thing if people have a choice to be fucktards. These people are absolutely helpless unless they are taken care of. The homeless problem is this problem. And many can work when properly treated.

Research into the workings of the brain will eventually find a cure for severe bipolar and schizophrenia. They're just neurochemical wiring problems. I'd love to see a cure. The potential side-benefits of this kind of research are manifold.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/released/
PBS did a decent special on this topic. The sad thing is that where often these types of documentaries are sensationalist, this one was accurate and poignant.

[Back]

Hot and cold running water is a nice perk.

[radamanthys]

Hot and cold running water is a nice perk.

Ooh, we have a "Obviously didn't read the OP and just decided to troll" guy!

Everybody give him a round of applause! Somebody, tell him what he's won!


No, really. Read the OP and give it a shot. It'd be interesting to see the roles reversed, for once.

[Back]

Water is a commodity. Everyone should be charged for how much they use.

[Methais]

Water is a commodity. Everyone should be charged for how much they use.

Off topic: Bottled water is more expensive than gasoline.

This is because people are stupid.

[Warriorbird]

I'm curious how you're pro cutting all special education funding yet in favor of increased funding for mental health issues, Rad.

Stuff I'd cut?

The Department of Homeland Security
Oil and gas subsidies
The DEA
The ATF
"Old war" implements in the military. I'm not sure our needs are the same.
Social Security
Farm subsidies that huge corporations benefit from
Government payments to any American firm that is dodging taxes
A national ID card that is universally used for Health and Human services benefits... with strict requirements to cut Health and Human Services costs

[radamanthys]

I'm curious how you're pro cutting all special education funding yet in favor of increased funding for mental health issues, Rad.

Stuff I'd cut?

The Department of Homeland Security
Oil and gas subsidies
The DEA
The ATF
"Old war" implements in the military. I'm not sure our needs are the same.
Social Security
Farm subsidies that huge corporations benefit from
Government payments to any American firm that is dodging taxes
A national ID card that is universally used for Health and Human services benefits... with strict requirements to cut Health and Human Services costs

I'm totally with you on most of that. Actually, all- I think. Haven't really made up my mind on some of it. Dunno how much of the DHS is necessary, it'd be a tough bureaucracy to take apart while retaining our, well, homeland security. Not that it's worth it, that is.

Special Ed students need daycare, not learning. We spend money on our kids so they can grow up to be successful and economy-stimulating adults. Special education kids will never do that- no matter how much encouragement they receive. It's a cost with no economic return.

Plus, Education is the providence of the state, not the federal. Feel-good programs like special ed should probably be the providence of charity. Donating to which should have more of a tangible benefit- it would allow people to pick and choose their social agenda. *shrug* Plus, those programs that would no longer be needed by the government would free up the funding for the charity benefit.

[Warriorbird]

You're basically imposing their cost of care at home entirely on their parents then. Serious economic ripple effect. By that justification you should just make mentally ill people's families care for them (not that I agree with that, just saying).

[Kuyuk]

<Special Ed students need daycare, not learning. We spend money on our kids so they can grow up to be successful and economy-stimulating adults. Special education kids will never do that- no matter how much encouragement they receive.>

What?

I guess it depends on the severity of special ed kids.. I'd say most people with 'special' needs gain a lot from educational therapy, and only a small portion cannot be taught something.

[Nieninque]

What?


^^^^

[radamanthys]

You're basically imposing their cost of care at home entirely on their parents then. Serious economic ripple effect. By that justification you should just make mentally ill people's families care for them (not that I agree with that, just saying).

That's the daycare part. And families have no capacity to care for the seriously mentally ill.

[Warriorbird]

...and you think they have the capacity to care for the seriously developmentally disabled and hold a job?

[radamanthys]

...and you think they have the capacity to care for the seriously developmentally disabled and hold a job?

No, I do not.

[radamanthys]

<Special Ed students need daycare, not learning. We spend money on our kids so they can grow up to be successful and economy-stimulating adults. Special education kids will never do that- no matter how much encouragement they receive.>

What?

I guess it depends on the severity of special ed kids.. I'd say most people with 'special' needs gain a lot from educational therapy, and only a small portion cannot be taught something.

I don't really feel like formulating an exhaustive treatise. My main point is that it's not the business of the federal education department to provide what equates to daycare. That provision belongs elsewhere.

LD students are a different story altogether. Just by stigma, it should be separated from special ed. Unless anyone thinks that we should group the dyslexics in with the mentally retarded, still.

[Warriorbird]

The states sure as heck won't do it. There's a reason such things shifted to the feds. I think it is similar to mental health in that sense. The economic damage of shifting a fair portion of America out of the work force would be as much harm as what you saved.

Innocent burdens (and they don't necessarily have to be) on society don't go away just when you stop paying for them.

[radamanthys]

The states sure as heck won't do it. There's a reason such things shifted to the feds. I think it is similar to mental health in that sense. The economic damage of shifting a fair portion of America out of the work force would be as much harm as what you saved.

Innocent burdens (and they don't necessarily have to be) on society don't go away just when you stop paying for them.

If you don't feed them, they do.

Mental Health care is all state-level. It can't be federal. As well, so is a majority of the care for the developmentally disabled. That's not the issue I'm addressing.

In the end, providing this care is and always will be up to the states. The federal government is trying to get its grubby mitts in things it doesn't belong in. Education is one of them. Allowing states to dictate curriculum is good. Even if it's idiot curriculum (see Texas). It represents the ideas of the people within that jurisdiction. It's the entire principle of our nation. We're not homogenous.

The fed doesn't do things correctly; The fed does things expensively. And you know how I feel about no-return federal deficit spending (it's one of the most fucktarded ideas on the planet).

BTW- Get off the idea that "If the federal government doesn't do it, it won't be done". It's patently untrue.

[Warriorbird]

Taking a partial Devil's Advocate role...

...exactly how well did the Articles of Confederation work?

Familiarize yourself with early 20th century progressive Republican activism. Mental health was one of the things addressed and heroically dealt with by the party. Then you've eventually got Reagan hitting and dumping thousands of mentally ill homeless onto the streets.

[Sean of the Thread]

Off topic: Bottled water is more expensive than gasoline.

This is because people are stupid.


That and because tap water tastes like shit and is full of lead.

That's why I used a Brita filtered container.

[radamanthys]

Taking a partial Devil's Advocate role...

...exactly how well did the Articles of Confederation work?

Familiarize yourself with early 20th century progressive Republican activism. Mental health was one of the things addressed and heroically dealt with by the party. Then you've eventually got Reagan hitting and dumping thousands of mentally ill homeless onto the streets.

That was psychotropics, not Reagan. Before that, everyone was thrown into asylums. Physicians gave people a prescription for treatment and sent them on their way. It was the first step in the trend towards outpatient care. It's convenient to blame a certain administration for certain things, but you're falling into a trap that you oft accuse others of. There's a word for that, I think.

The old asylums were beautiful, and the provision of care was both progressive and draconian. They are unnecessary today. Heroic? Eh.

The articles of confederation did not work. I can't really give an exact figure for how well they 'exactly' did not work. Unless you only put that 'exactly' word in for the added 'oomph'.

There's a constitution, now. Of which I am a strong supporter. I'm sure you can find a link to it somewhere. If you can find "Provide Education" within this fundamental charter we've laid out for the federal government, I'll relent.

(Unless you wanna try and stick an "implied powers" boot up my ass. I'll just hit you with a 10th amendment stick. Then you have a sore noggin and I have a boot up my ass. Doesn't get us too far.)

I'm aware that you think the federal government can't do wrong. We limit centralization of power for a reason. If you think this 'progressive' country is immune to the errors of history, you're dead wrong. Centralize education and you have a single administration in charge of what children learn. Would you have approved if the "Texas Ideal" was put into play on a federal level? I wholeheartedly doubt it.

[Warriorbird]

It's convenient to avoid assigning any fault to every conservative's favorite spend epic amounts on some shit and slash everything else President.

I certainly don't believe that the federal government is perfect... but it has a fair degree of value at protecting our individual liberties, believe it or not. If the Articles had been a successful model we would have stuck with them. As it was, even Jefferson (one of my political heroes) ended up making use of federalism. Your 10th amendment notion doesn't really deal terribly well with cooperative federalism.

I'd much rather have a federal government do things like integrate schools than Kansas or Texas demand the teaching of creationism.

[radamanthys]

It's convenient to avoid assigning any fault to every conservative's favorite spend epic amounts on some shit and slash everything else President.

I certainly don't believe that the federal government is perfect... but it has a fair degree of value at protecting our individual liberties, believe it or not. If the Articles had been a successful model we would have stuck with them. As it was, even Jefferson (one of my political heroes) ended up making use of federalism. Your 10th amendment notion doesn't really deal terribly well with cooperative federalism.

I'd much rather have a federal government do things like integrate schools than Kansas or Texas demand the teaching of creationism.

Yes. Reagan had a vendetta against the Mentally Ill. You're totally right. It had nothing to do with his advisors in the field showing him the trend towards outpatient care with the introduction of psychopharmacology.

Government, any government, restricts liberty. That's what it does. Provision of law enforcement or enforcement of equality is a restriction on people's freedom. It has zero value in protecting individual liberties. It protects inherent rights. Protecting my right to life removes someone's freedom to kill me. Your definition of freedom is wrong.

The 10th amendment notion is the 10th amendment to the bill of rights. It's important. Cooperative federalism is not.

[Warriorbird]

Why? It is constitutional and incentive based. Interpretations of the 10th aren't quite so direct as you'd like them to be. A fair portion of the judicial history of our country stands against the strictest interpretation.

Expressly was not ultimately included in the phrasing. The desire was there but it was not ratified that way.

The amendment states but a truism that all is retained which has not been surrendered. There is nothing in the history of its adoption to suggest that it was more than declaratory of the relationship between the national and state governments as it had been established by the Constitution before the amendment or that its purpose was other than to allay fears that the new national government might seek to exercise powers not granted, and that the states might not be able to exercise fully their reserved powers.

United States v. Darby, 312 U.S. 100, 124 (1941)

As I said before... I'm not entirely against your point of view. There's a reason people find Ron Paul et al a bit nutty.

[radamanthys]

Why? It is constitutional and incentive based. Interpretations of the 10th aren't quite so direct as you'd like them to be. A fair portion of the judicial history of our country stands against the strictest interpretation.

Expressly was not ultimately included in the phrasing. The desire was there but it was not ratified that way.

The amendment states but a truism that all is retained which has not been surrendered. There is nothing in the history of its adoption to suggest that it was more than declaratory of the relationship between the national and state governments as it had been established by the Constitution before the amendment or that its purpose was other than to allay fears that the new national government might seek to exercise powers not granted, and that the states might not be able to exercise fully their reserved powers.

United States v. Darby, 312 U.S. 100, 124 (1941)

As I said before... I'm not entirely against your point of view. There's a reason people find Ron Paul et al a bit nutty.

Lets just take that one out, then. I guess we don't need it anymore.

[Warriorbird]

I understand how some folks like ignoring jurisprudence (like Libertarians with taxes) but there's an entire branch of government that would beg to differ.

The discussion of the amendment featured a debate over whether it should be 'expressly.' or not. It didn't make the cut. People like to fantasize the Founders as this uniform body... but they hardly were.

[radamanthys]

I understand how some folks like ignoring jurisprudence (like Libertarians with taxes) but there's an entire branch of government that would beg to differ.

The discussion of the amendment featured a debate over whether it should be 'expressly.' or not. It didn't make the cut. People like to fantasize the Founders as this uniform body... but they hardly were.

Whatever, I'm gonna have my kicks before the whole shithouse goes up in flames.

I doubt it'll be able to last another generation under these circumstances.

[Warriorbird]

Federalism certainly has issues... I won't deny... there are just some reasons behind its continued existence.

I believe America will survive for a long time.

[Kuyuk]

<The old asylums were beautiful, and the provision of care was both progressive and draconian>


Yeah..

Why dont we just round up all the special ed people and "clean" them, and save the billions of dollars of daycare/care?

Oh, and on the same note - in 7th grade in our bio class, when the topic of HIV/AIDS was addressed, I brought up the idea of putting every infected person on an island and nuke em..

But seriously, special ed people are still people, and still need more than daycare. Without going into personal experiences, I feel your take on special ed people is a bit out of whack.



Going along with special ed: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pfFRv_1XdDM

[Sean of the Thread]

just do a search for Retarded Policeman on youtube and you'll be entertained.

Also how long before they add youtube to the English dictionary?

[Methais]

This is what happens when you let special ed kids watch TV and learn about things like rap:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VY-JOD3P_Bw

[Methais]

That and because tap water tastes like shit and is full of lead.

That's why I used a Brita filtered container.

My water is sparkling crystal clear and pure and tastes...like clean water.

I'm on a well though, but the city water here is fine too.

[Latrinsorm]

We all know the constitution's provisions and the real responsibilities inherent.I think this deserves further discussion. As Jon Stewart pointed out, the Founders chose not to write the Constitution in stone - there were plenty of masons back then. The document has changed significantly and been reinterpreted significantly since 1787, what specifically do you consider the "real" bits of it?
what programs and responsibilities do you think the government has?The government is responsible for representing both the people and their best interest. This second part is the fundamental disagreement you and I will have that leads to you championing states' rights and me finding it ridiculous. We are not a democracy and haven't been for hundreds of years, the idea that we should let a particular state or district be ruled by the ideas of idiots because they make up the majority is foreign to American governmental philosophy, and always has been.

Addressing programs: a program being inefficient is not relevant to whether it is the responsibility of the federal or any other government. Any republican program or office is and must be inefficient to some extent, no one finds this a credible argument for anarchy. Specifically, education: does the concept of education not greatly promote the general welfare? Do you see how this is the fundamental question, not whether states will do the job or will do it more cheaply or whether the federal government has done a poor job of it in the past?
We spend money on our kids so they can grow up to be successful and economy-stimulating adults.This is demonstrably false: idealists have kids too. :)

[Bhuryn]

On the Federal level It's probably easier to list what I'm in favor of keeping.

Basically if it protects my personal liberties or my property it's ok, minus the Homeland Security.

Here's my short list though:
Most of the Department of Energy
Department of Education
Department of Homeland Security
Parts of the Department of Health
Social Security
The IRS and Federal Income Tax
Non-private farm subsidies
Welfare
Withdraw from NAFTA