2012 Presidential Election Thread! Let's kick it off early! - Zilvia.net Forums | Nissan 240SX (Silvia) and Z (Fairlady) Car Forum

KA24DESOneThree · 10-18-2012, 01:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JimCrom

I can see that you are averse to accepting direct government-financed handouts and subsidies.

But how do you feel about indirect?

Part of our taxes go into services like ambulances, cops, fire departments, and college scholarships.

Part of our taxes also go into providing subsidies to oil companies. Do you use gas in your 240SX? If so you are benefiting from a government subsidy.

Do you eat food with corn or corn byproducts? What about soy or soy byproducts? A lot of tax revenue goes into subsidizing mid-western, god-fearing, shot-gun-totting, salt-of-the-earth farmers.

You mentioned insurance as one way to shake our dependence on government-run fire departments. The insurance industry also receives subsidies from the government.

I think the observation still holds weight that those arguing that government could go away tomorrow, and they would be fine, fail to recognize how interconnected all facets of our society have become.

How do I feel about indirect handouts? I despise them as much as, and sometimes more than, direct handouts. They're the equivalent of a backroom handshake followed by the placement of an envelope of cash in a coat pocket. They are, however, nearly impossible to get around currently but the argument that the various industries would collapse without the handouts is absurd.

I do not believe in government fire, EMT or scholarship programs and services. As I said in one of my previous posts, I have not figured out how to make private policing work without serious concerns about corruption and cost. The government wants the monopoly; it allows them to tax us and to justify the cost of living under the umbrella of the State.

Fuel does not have to be subsidized. It is an extremely necessary commodity, and as such there will always be demand. Only the corrupt would actually help those companies make more money. However, we could deregulate and lower costs to the consumer, solving the problem of oil subsidies to help the poor. We could deregulate and actually reduce emissions and our impact on the environment. Isn't that the goal, to lower costs, reduce emissions, reduce our impact on the environment and reduce our dependence on foreign oil? Why is our government preventing that? Why don't we have higher octane fuel or higher cetane diesel so we can make engines with higher volumetric efficiency?

Government does not need to subsidize crops. The cost increase must be borne by the consumer; the government subsidizes them to suppress the fact that purchasing power goes down due to the inflation inherent in a fiat money supply. The government also drives up the cost of corn by requiring its use as an automotive fuel; it's cleaner but less efficient than gasoline. Does it make sense to fund something that's essentially a green wash with government subsidies that end up costing taxpayers more than just their taxes by increasing the cost of living?

The insurance companies may receive subsidies- but that is due to the corruption of politicians as well as a broken legal system and sub-par contractors, consumer electronics, home care, drivers, doctors, education, etc. The confluence of factors have broken the system and have made efficiency nigh impossible.

The very problem is that everything is so interconnected. The leviathan has its tentacles in every aspect of daily life. The leviathan has increased prices in certain areas and decreased them in others; we have no idea what anything honestly costs.

We have to start cutting off those tentacles. Mittens ain't gonna do it, and the Obamanator ain't gonna do it (Estimates place increases in federal deficit at $4.9t and $5.9t respectively). Once again, our choices are a giant douche and a turd sandwich ("Douche and Turd" Episode 8, Season 8, South Park). Our choices are always going to be between a giant douche and a turd sandwich as long as politics can be a career choice and as long as we refuse to participate and keep track of what's going on in our state capitals, as well as our national one.

The vast majority of people I talk to are disenfranchised with the government but have no interest in paying attention to the decisions with which they disagree. They have no intentions of caring about their fellow man while they're busy making ends meet. If only we could have "Dancing with the Electorate," in which politicians have to duck and weave through intelligent discourse with their educated constituents. The politician who can ignore the most rational arguments and convince the most people that he's actually there for them gets hit by a passing bus. The one who actually concedes points and drafts proper petitions and bills gets a 10% raise and a box full of puppies.

ineedone · 10-18-2012, 04:20 PM