Lodinews.com

default avatar
Welcome to the site! Login or Signup below.
|
||
Logout|My Dashboard

We should continue where John Stossel left off

Print
Font Size:
Default font size
Larger font size

Posted: Wednesday, February 9, 2011 6:35 am | Updated: 6:35 am, Wed Feb 9, 2011.

On Jan. 26, John Stossel suggested closing down the Federal Departments of Education, Housing and Urban Development and Commerce. He shouldn’t have stopped there. In order for American workers to be free of governmental interference, the Departments of Agriculture and Labor must be closed.

Stossel wants to sell Amtrak. That’s a positive step, but why not free up all methods of transportation by closing the Department of Transportation. While we’re at it, The Departments of Energy and Health and Human Services also have to go. Energy and the nation’s health are too important to leave to the federal government to control.

Finally, the American people need a little happiness in their lives. Therefore, eliminate the Federal Income Tax and replace it with nothing. Now, that ought to be good for a start.

Cliff Shirk

Lodi

Rules of Conduct

  • 1 Use your real name. You must register with your full first and last name before you can comment. (And don’t pretend you’re someone else.)
  • 2 Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually oriented language.
  • 3 Don’t threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
  • 4 Be truthful. Don't lie about anyone or anything. Don't post unsubstantiated allegations, rumors or gossip that could harm the reputation of a person, company or organization.
  • 5 Be nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
  • 6 Stay on topic. Make sure your comments are about the story. Don’t insult each other.
  • 7 Tell us if the discussion is getting out of hand. Use the ‘Report’ link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
  • 8 Share what you know, and ask about what you don't.
  • 9 Don’t be a troll.
  • 10 Don’t reveal personal information about other commenters. You may reveal your own personal information, but we advise you not to do so.
  • 11 We reserve the right, at our discretion, to monitor, delete or choose not to post any comment. This may include removing or monitoring posts that we believe violate the spirit or letter of these rules, or that we otherwise determine at our discretion needs to be monitored, not posted, or deleted.

Welcome to the discussion.

70 comments:

  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 7:43 pm on Sat, Feb 19, 2011.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    I agree... I can choose to follow what you see as truth... or I can choose to see a panoply of views and be more eclectic... hummm... decisions ...decisions. Its always interesting Steve…

     
  • Steve Schmidt posted at 11:57 am on Sat, Feb 19, 2011.

    Steve Schmidt Posts: 2278

    See Darrell, you are really quite fortunate. Most conservatives have no choice but to live in the squalor of base ignorance. Fortunately, you have me to lift the scales from your eyes.

    Now, whether you choose to see is entirely up to you.

     
  • Steve Schmidt posted at 10:54 am on Sat, Feb 19, 2011.

    Steve Schmidt Posts: 2278

    Darrell, how would you know one way or the other?

    :)

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 4:24 am on Sat, Feb 19, 2011.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Right on script Steve... you do msnbc proud. As far as opinion/ fact'... you really think any of the statements you made are fact... interesting opinion... (smile)

     
  • Steve Schmidt posted at 8:42 am on Fri, Feb 18, 2011.

    Steve Schmidt Posts: 2278

    This condition, multiplied millions of times amongst your conservative brethren undoubtedly goes a long way towards explaining how our country came to be in its current sad state.

     
  • Steve Schmidt posted at 8:39 am on Fri, Feb 18, 2011.

    Steve Schmidt Posts: 2278

    Darrell, most of the statements you list are simply my opinions and are presented as such. Some of them are facts and likewise, are presented as such. Your apparent inability to tell the two apart, in spite of much contextual prompting, simply proves my point.

     
  • Cliff Shirk posted at 5:49 pm on Thu, Feb 17, 2011.

    Cliff Shirk Posts: 14

    John Stossel, on Jan. 26, also suggested "pulling our troops out of Germany, Japan, Italy and dozens of other countries". I would add Iraq and Afghanistan. In short; bring every soldier, sailor and airman back to our shores and that includes the Marine guards in our many embassies. By the way, why in the world do we refer to what the military does as national defense. A more appropriate title would be the Department of International Offence. If we would bring all troops home and put a freeze on new military hires, we could come close to being able to end the Federal Income Tax and replacing it with nothing. Now, that would be good for a start.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 4:46 pm on Tue, Feb 15, 2011.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405


    I especially liked number 10 and was looking forward to what I wouldn’t like in changes. You consistently make statements like # 10., but rarely back up what you say with information or facts that you say the left has… I sincerely am interested in the changes, in your opinion, you want to see in the federal government that you think, in your opinion, I would not like.
    Since your posts are a wealth of opinion and little on actual facts, I will not hold my breath. By the way… I appreciate opinion… facts not needed… I’m responding to your assertion that the left has the real facts… so what are they?

    #10 …Oh no, my other brother, I think many changes need to be made to the federal government. I doubt you would like many of them though

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 4:38 pm on Tue, Feb 15, 2011.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Darrell, I am not quite sure that you understand the meaning of the word fact and I believe you may be somewhat confused about the way that facts differ from opinions

    Let’s assume you are right, that I am confused and American conservatives do not know the difference between fact and opinion... please articulate specifics... what facts are you talking about...

    Below are things you have stated in this thread… are these absolute facts or opinions?
    Seems like one opinion after another to me.
    01. Of course, once we eliminate the federal income tax, we will have no choice but to also eliminate the Army, Navy, and Airforce
    02. Perhaps you are thinking about the brief period of time when the US operated under the Articles of Confederation
    03. Abel Upshur was a resolute champion of slavery.
    04. The treatise that you quote from was written principally in defense of the Southern States
    05. I believe that is what Darrell (knowingly or unknowingly) was advocating
    06. Not a day goes by when I don't wonder to myself how people can actually believe the nonsense that erupts hourly from the orifices of the right.
    07. I think it is a sign of the times that what once could only have passed as parody is now a political platform.
    08. Darrell, are you saying that you don't find Representative Lee's actions to be hypocritical
    09. I think this blog has drifted into the twilight zone. Clifford, are you in any way related to our dear friend Mr. Hutchins?
    10. Oh no, my other brother, I think many changes need to be made to the federal government. I doubt you would like many of them though. In my opinion, your positions are the result of a deep and ultimately crippling misunderstanding of the Constitution
    11. Ironically, it would probably be a limited boon to the mainly blue states that pay more in federal taxes than they receive in federal spending
    12. States like Alaska and Texas would have no choice but to impose massive tax increases on their citizens just to maintain basic services.
    13. Brian, let me repeat that slowly so that you can understand. Taken as a whole, blue states PAY more taxes than they receive. Red states, on the other hand RECEIVE more in federal funding than they pay.
    14. Seeing what you personally have to lose, you should be happy that this ridiculous idea doesn't have a thought in Sarah Palin's head's chance of ever being approved.
    15. If we can't laugh at the stars of The Jersey Shore, America's Biggest Loser and Sarah Palin's Alaska, what can we laugh at?
    16. I mean, come on. The woman has her own reality TV show.
    17. In any case, I think it is safe to say that Ms Palin has done a fine job of marginalizing herself
    18. There are probably a million people who think the world is flat and that space aliens faked Elvis Preseley's death.
    19. Brian, do you have any idea what a tiny percentage of government expenditures 2 billion dollars are? No, I suppose you don't
    20. Someone once said that facts have a liberal bias and in this case, I think that is true

     
  • Steve Schmidt posted at 7:11 am on Tue, Feb 15, 2011.

    Steve Schmidt Posts: 2278

    Hmmm.... Darrell, I am not quite sure that you understand the meaning of the word fact and I believe you may be somewhat confused about the way that facts differ from opinions.

    I find this to be a common problem with modern American conservatives.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 6:43 pm on Mon, Feb 14, 2011.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Steve stated...Someone once said that facts have a liberal bias and in this case, I think that is true

    I tend to think that way... especially since over 85% of all media employees stated that that vote for democrats... just like education and union participants, as well as the black vote... I have always wondered how such a high percentage of any group could take one side over the other... its also amazing that anyone would not think there was media bias.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 2:50 pm on Mon, Feb 14, 2011.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Steve... you finally gave me a smile... thanks!
    It helps me to understand your mind set and the motivation behind your comments.
    You have good company on both sides of the isle; unfortunately, it leads to exasperation and animosity which would explain your comment the other day you apologized for. Millions on the right think the left is a marginal group…. Millions on the left, think as you do. I feel sorry for both groups as they are subject to media manipulation with ease. In reality, both republicans and democrats have large numbers of exceptional thinkers and are not marginal at all. My guess is that with your mind set, you would probably think that Palin's followers are sheeple, who follow blindly with no common sense… which is exactly the same thinking from the group on the right about Obama’s followers. Perception is reality.

     
  • Steve Schmidt posted at 4:13 am on Mon, Feb 14, 2011.

    Steve Schmidt Posts: 2278

    Statistically speaking, yes Darrell, they are a marginal group. That is nothing personal, its just what the numbers say.

    Someone once said that facts have a liberal bias and in this case, I think that is true.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 1:20 am on Mon, Feb 14, 2011.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    There are probably a million people who think the world is flat and that space aliens faked Elvis Preseley's death

    So now you want to marginalize anyone who thinks highly of Palin... Steve... you are too much.

     
  • Steve Schmidt posted at 9:43 pm on Sun, Feb 13, 2011.

    Steve Schmidt Posts: 2278

    Brian, do you have any idea what a tiny percentage of government expenditures 2 billion dollars are?

    No, I suppose you don't....

     
  • Steve Schmidt posted at 9:40 pm on Sun, Feb 13, 2011.

    Steve Schmidt Posts: 2278

    Darrell wrote: As far as Palin marginalizing herself, there are millions of people who strongly disagree with you.

    Darrell, you do realize that the population of the United States is 308 million, don't you? There are probably a million people who think the world is flat and that space aliens faked Elvis Preseley's death.

     
  • Brian Dockter posted at 9:26 pm on Sun, Feb 13, 2011.

    Brian Dockter Posts: 2821

    Steve,

    I doubt the majority of these farmers who receive subsidies not to grow crops
    really want it this way. Unlike those in large liberal inner cities who prefer to
    do nothing and receive entitlements, these farmers are forced to accept these subsidies and in return, people like you cast them off as complacent and lazy.

     
  • Brian Dockter posted at 9:19 pm on Sun, Feb 13, 2011.

    Brian Dockter Posts: 2821

    http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1477

    It’s Time to End Farm Subsidies

    -Steve,
    A good majority of the food grown in America comes from Red states. This is partially why these states get so much federal funding.

    A clip:

    Many farm subsidies drive food prices up, not down. “Conservation” subsidies pay farmers not to cultivate land. For example, from 1995 to 2002 the U.S. government paid out approximately $2 billion annually in these subsidies. Since they decrease the supply of food, they push prices up.

    Quotas and other barriers to imports are another form of subsidy given to U.S. farmers, although this type of subsidy doesn’t come out of the federal budget. These trade barriers restrict the amount of foreign crops that can enter the U.S. and drive up prices. For example, sugar quotas in the U.S. roughly double the price of sugar for consumers.

    Subsidies are not a big help to small farmers either. A 2003 Department of Agriculture study found that 30 percent of subsidies go directly to only the largest 6 percent of growers. In the case of the sugar quotas, 42 percent of the benefits go to just 1 percent of producers.

    Even when the subsidies go to small farmers, they are not necessarily the beneficiaries, because many don’t own the land they farm. Subsidies make the land more valuable because anyone farming it could receive them. So landlords raise rents and farmers who don’t own land, regardless of their size, end up no better off. Ferd Hoefner, from the Sustainable Agriculture Coalition, uses Department of Agriculture data to show that farm subsidies increase land values by 15 percent to 20 percent.

    Ending farm subsidies in America would also aid impoverished parts of the world. The International Monetary Fund estimates that abolishing farm subsidies in rich countries would add $100 billion to global income. And, some of those gains would accrue to poor countries with a comparative advantage in farming.

    An end to farm subsidies would not mean an end to farming in the U.S. Prices of farmland would decline, allowing some farmers to remain in business, and we would reshuffle production to those crops that American farmers most efficiently produce.


     
  • Cliff Shirk posted at 8:51 pm on Sun, Feb 13, 2011.

    Cliff Shirk Posts: 14

    Congress passed legislation in the late nineteenth century which was directed at problems in the labor market, but in 1913 federal intervention increased with the creation of the Dept. of Labor. The first Secretary of Labor just happened to be a former labor union official. Initially, the department directed its efforts at fair wages for workers and safety in the workplace. When employers were compelled to increase the cost of hiring new employees and providing safer facilities, they had to limit new hires. This, of course increased the percentage of the workforce who were unemployed, This became a serious problem during the depression in the 1930s. The Labor Dept. has broadened its scope since its creation so nearly everyone is affected by various labor laws and administrative pronouncements. Apparently officials in the Labor Dept. don't trust business owners and employees to contract with each other in a fair manner, so big daddy has to intervene. I've been an employee and an employer and I know that is nonsense. Dismantle the Department of Labor.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 7:47 pm on Sun, Feb 13, 2011.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    As far as Palin marginalizing herself, there are millions of people who strongly disagree with you. In reality, 1% of what she talks about is amplified and focused on by her opponents… then a “Tina Fay” is pulled to discount and marginalize the vast balance of thought and ideas.

    As far as your Gore comment... of course jokes are made about well know people... but that is minor... In Gores case , it was funny… and if Palin had been joked about for 2 or three things like Gore, it would have been funny as well… Palin however, had “Tina Fay” lampoons and has been the center of jokes, parities on an ongoing basis non- stop… for years now…they have for a long time now been attempts to destroy her politically not jokes at all … its why it was difficult to believe it was a simple innocent joke from you.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 7:35 pm on Sun, Feb 13, 2011.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    • Steve Schmidt posted at 5:16 pm… Darrell, I just went back and reread your post word for word, carefully, seeking to divine every intended meaning and I still see absolutely no reference to the issue of the national debt.
    I guess we ALL SEE WHAT WE WANT TO SEE… Steve…. If you asked me what colors I see in a rainbow… and I responded “ it is like white light”… does that mean I did not answer your question because I did not mention exact colors of the rainbow? Does one need to spell it out exactly as requested to honestly answer a question? I think not.
    From my view, the “ nation debt “ question was addressed … even your direct question was answered in a way that respects you , me, and the question you asked in my original post. I do not seek confrontation, disagreement or unpleasantness… just truth. I especially do not think of you as a liar.
    Maybe you are making “jokes” as it seems humorous to you. However, if you do not see the “truth” as I explained, that the specific thoughts, ideas and reality Palin expresses are completely ignored and marginalized through humor like yours, then there is a serious comprehension problem here. You may not intentionally be doing what I say is happening, but maybe this is an example of unintended consequences to actions taken that are so often referenced.

     
  • Steve Schmidt posted at 6:16 pm on Sun, Feb 13, 2011.

    Steve Schmidt Posts: 2278

    In any case, I think it is safe to say that Ms Palin has done a fine job of marginalizing herself. After all, that is where extremists with an 80+ disapproval rating like Palin live, on the margins.

     
  • Steve Schmidt posted at 5:19 pm on Sun, Feb 13, 2011.

    Steve Schmidt Posts: 2278

    Darrell, I have no doubt that some people on the right and on the left spend great amounts of time trying to employ humor to make their opponents look stupid. If you want an example of this you need look no farther than the whole Gore Internet myth. Come to think of it, I believe I have even seen you reference that fiction on an occasion or two.

    That said, I give you my word that I was simply trying to make a topical joke on a thread about the extremes of conservatism.

    You can either take my word or call me a liar. The choice is yours.

     
  • Steve Schmidt posted at 5:16 pm on Sun, Feb 13, 2011.

    Steve Schmidt Posts: 2278

    Darrell, I just went back and reread your post word for word, carefully, seeking to divine every intended meaning and I still see absolutely no reference to the issue of the national debt.

    Let me ask you a direct question. If you were to eliminate federal income tax, how would you pay off the enormous existing national debt while still maintaining an effective national defense?

     
  • Steve Schmidt posted at 5:13 pm on Sun, Feb 13, 2011.

    Steve Schmidt Posts: 2278

    Darrell, you will just have to believe me when I say I was making a joke.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 4:59 pm on Sun, Feb 13, 2011.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Joanne Bobin posted at 2:50… pronouncements are synonomous…

    If I had posted this, Ms Bobin would have responded to my poor education… an appropriate thing to do is think… who cares… everyone knows the intent of ms Bobin’s post… which was to marginalize Palin… its not important if she spelled synonymous “synonomous”… I think her intensions are more important the actual correct spelling.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 4:46 pm on Sun, Feb 13, 2011.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Joanne Bobin posted at 2:50...Maybe it is because ill-thought out ideas and pronouncements are synonomous with Sarah Palin.
    It wouldn't be far-fetched to believe that in the future someone may say, in reply to a ridiculous idea, "You really pulled a Sarah Palin this time!"

    You see Steve... another example of intentional strategy to marginalize instead of deal with specific objections… so intellectually dishonest and lazy. Maybe the readers could now, not in the future, say that people who marginalize to achieve selfish political ends at the expense of others, are pulling a “Tina Fay”.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 4:39 pm on Sun, Feb 13, 2011.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Steve Schmidt posted at 7:59… I notice that you are still avoiding the subject of paying off the existing debt.
    Steve… I was attempting to treat you seriously and that you genuinely were attempting to seek truth… sorry I misunderstood. If you read my post with intent to comprehend, you would not have made this post. I was not avoiding the subject at all... just the opposite is true. It is clear that you have no desire for any change. If you did, you would have made some type of articulation that illustrates specifics. Instead, all you have stated is why everyone else is wrong with no positive possibilities from you.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 4:30 pm on Sun, Feb 13, 2011.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Gary stated… Steve just couldn't help himself and had to expose his dysfunctional obsession he has with anything Palin, kinda sad really.
    Steve responded… Gary, it was a joke. You folks are just so humorless. I mean, come on. The woman has her own reality TV show. If we can't laugh at the stars of The Jersey Shore, America's Biggest Loser and Sarah Palin's Alaska, what can we laugh at…
    Steve, Im not sure of your intentions, but you “appear” to be disingenuous in your response. I do not see your comment as a joke at all. In fact, I think you make a serious and concerted effort, (this post and others) many I have seen do the same thing, which is to label and classify Palin, and other right wing pundits as a joke, radical, crazy, light thinkers who have a low IQ, etc… by marginalizing these people, you never have to do that which you find difficult or impossible to do, which is actually prove their ideas and statements wrong.
    Tina Fay in doing “jokes” about Palin significantly hurt Palin politically. I think many who dislike the “Palin types”, saw how successful it was politically to make “jokes” about them… I see your comments as a continuation of that thinking. For you to link Sarah Palin with The Jersey Shore, America's Biggest Loser… is obvious support for my conclusions. She is a serious presidential contender… but to you by making a joke of her… in your mind, intentional strategy to diminish her chances… I think you are far too intelligent for this not to be as I describe.

     
  • Joanne Bobin posted at 2:50 pm on Sun, Feb 13, 2011.

    Joanne Bobin Posts: 4488

    Maybe it is because ill-thought out ideas and pronouncements are synonomous with Sarah Palin.

    It wouldn't be far-fetched to believe that in the future someone may say, in reply to a ridiculous idea, "You really pulled a Sarah Palin this time!" Only thing that may discourage that, though, is that Ms. Palin might charge a fee since her name will be trademarked.

     
  • Steve Schmidt posted at 2:50 pm on Sun, Feb 13, 2011.

    Steve Schmidt Posts: 2278

    I mean, come on. The woman has her own reality TV show.

    If we can't laugh at the stars of The Jersey Shore, America's Biggest Loser and Sarah Palin's Alaska, what can we laugh at?

     
  • Steve Schmidt posted at 2:47 pm on Sun, Feb 13, 2011.

    Steve Schmidt Posts: 2278

    Gary, it was a joke. You folks are just so humorless.

    :(

     
  • Gary Musto posted at 1:43 pm on Sun, Feb 13, 2011.

    Gary Musto Posts: 506

    Having read most of the post today it seemed like there was some good give and take on both sides of the discussion, lots of good information exchanged, most stayed on point, then out of the blue, Steve just couldn't help himself and had to expose his dysfunctional obsession he has with anything Palin, kinda sad really.

     
  • Steve Schmidt posted at 11:26 am on Sun, Feb 13, 2011.

    Steve Schmidt Posts: 2278

    In other words, blue states could fund whatever they wanted, including local versions of the NEA while red states like your own would have to slash local programs such as welfare and free health care for the indigent, programs that you yourself have benefited from in the past.

    Seeing what you personally have to lose, you should be happy that this ridiculous idea doesn't have a thought in Sarah Palin's head's chance of ever being approved.

     
  • Steve Schmidt posted at 11:23 am on Sun, Feb 13, 2011.

    Steve Schmidt Posts: 2278

    Brian, let me repeat that slowly so that you can understand. Taken as a whole, blue states PAY more taxes than they receive. Red states, on the other hand RECEIVE more in federal funding than they pay.

    Consequently, if we eliminated federal taxes today, taken as a whole, people in blue states would find themselves with more money on hand while people in red states would have less.

     
  • Brian Dockter posted at 10:27 am on Sun, Feb 13, 2011.

    Brian Dockter Posts: 2821

    Republicans tend to be pro State and Local government programs because we have seen how Fed programs like the NEA and so many others end up harming more than helping. Let's help to keep the programs local and at the state level. So many times we have seen where the Feds don't have a clue what goes on at these levels. Yet they want to control every aspect of our lives. A perfect example of the clueless Feds is at the AZ- Mexican border.

     
  • Brian Dockter posted at 9:34 am on Sun, Feb 13, 2011.

    Brian Dockter Posts: 2821

    Steve wrote:

    it would probably be a limited boon to the mainly blue states that pay more in federal taxes than they receive in federal spending.

    -Chuckle,

    Most blue states are pro-entitlement programs via the Feds.And when they ask most of the time they receive. Perhaps they receive less in Federal spending. But, the whole point is they have higher taxes to make sure they always have money to get from the Feds. You can't blame Texas and Alaska for tapping into Fed programs. And I really doubt they would have to raise taxes to provide basic services. Nice try with your fear-mongering Steve.

     
  • Steve Schmidt posted at 8:02 am on Sun, Feb 13, 2011.

    Steve Schmidt Posts: 2278

    One thing to consider about this proposal is the way it would effect different states. Ironically, it would probably be a limited boon to the mainly blue states that pay more in federal taxes than they receive in federal spending. It would, however, be a crippling blow for the mainly red states that receive far more federal aid than they pay in federal taxes. States like Alaska and Texas would have no choice but to impose massive tax increases on their citizens just to maintain basic services.

     
  • Steve Schmidt posted at 7:59 am on Sun, Feb 13, 2011.

    Steve Schmidt Posts: 2278

    I notice that you are still avoiding the subject of paying off the existing debt.

     
  • Steve Schmidt posted at 7:54 am on Sun, Feb 13, 2011.

    Steve Schmidt Posts: 2278

    Oh no, my other brother, I think many changes need to be made to the federal government. I doubt you would like many of them though.

    In my opinion, your positions are the result of a deep and ultimately crippling misunderstanding of the Constitution.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 11:05 pm on Sat, Feb 12, 2011.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Steves posted...My other brother, I am still waiting to hear how you would fund national defense and the national debt without income tax…

    Steve, lets assume that you are correct, and we need to have Federal control of national defense. Maybe a compromise should be considered where Federal Income Taxation is allowed to exist, but the only revenue that can be collected must be spent and national defense. It has been decades in the federal government gaining control and power of revenue through income taxation and other tax revenue. I couldn’t possibly correct or suggest many solutions just as you cannot. However, the direction needs to change course and I assume it would take decades to undue what has been done. Reducing the power of the federal government is the right direction. Reducing the federal control of taxes and giving more local power to decide how funds are spent seems appropriate… are you suggesting that the federal government should stay as is and that Federal control is appropriate, or are you saying that you just do not have answers to reverse the direction?

     
  • Steve Schmidt posted at 7:40 pm on Sat, Feb 12, 2011.

    Steve Schmidt Posts: 2278

    My other brother, I am still waiting to hear how you would fund national defense and the national debt without income tax. Would you send tariffs through the roof, would you junk the Constitution and return to the Articles of Confederation (as you suggested earlier) or do you have some brilliant but as yet unheard of scheme that avoids all of these pitfalls?

     
  • Steve Schmidt posted at 6:15 pm on Sat, Feb 12, 2011.

    Steve Schmidt Posts: 2278

    I think this blog has drifted into the twilight zone. Clifford, are you in any way related to our dear friend Mr. Hutchins?

     
  • Cliff Shirk posted at 5:37 pm on Sat, Feb 12, 2011.

    Cliff Shirk Posts: 14

    It was 1945, the war in Europe was over and troops were beginning to return to the states. There was no longer any need to send large shipments of food to troops in Europe, so something had to be done with tons of potatoes which would have been consumed by those troops. They could have been given to the poor, but that would have caused the price of potatoes to plummet. Hundreds of people, including this kid, lined State Highway #2 in Massachusetts as 1,000 tons of potatoes were transported by truck convoy to Boston where they were loaded onto ships and dumped into the Atlantic. Some potatoes fell from the trucks and people picked them up. They looked unusual, so they were cut in half. The potatoes were blue. It seems that they were sprayed with an iodine solution to make them inedible. Isn't the Department of Agriculture wonderful?

     
  • Cliff Shirk posted at 4:59 pm on Sat, Feb 12, 2011.

    Cliff Shirk Posts: 14

    Both the House and the Senate had Agriculture committees when Abraham Lincoln created the non-cabinet level Department of Agriculture in 1862. Like most government agencies, it grew quickly and was soon a cabinet level department.

    This department undercuts the free market and dictates what crops farmers can grow and how many acres they are allowed to plant.

    The biggest problem with the Ag. Dept. though is the many types of subsidies. Direct payments are made to producers of certain crops which the Dept. determines, and of course, there are favored producers. There are marketing loans, which is a price support for the abovementioned crops to the same favored producers and which guarantees a minimum price. Farmers are paid to grow certain crops on non-productive land while at the same time other farmers are paid not to grow crops on otherwise productive land. (Figure that one out). The Dept. provides paid insurance to protect farmers from bad weather, pests and low market prices. There are export subsides which aid farmers in their foreign sales.

    These sublidies are a wealth distribution scheme which benefits large farm corporations at the expence of taxpayers and small farmers. This damages the farm economy by driving many small family farmers out of business. The subsides also damage trade relations with other nations and are the cause of trade barriers being erected. The amount of fraud and corruption in this department entitle it to be placed upon the chopping block. The Agriculture Department and its programs must go.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 5:18 am on Sat, Feb 12, 2011.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Cliff stated...I didn't write the response to John Stossel's column in jest

    Since it is I that used the word jest, I will respond…
    Cliff, I read your article and enjoyed it. Thought you made good points. My jest comment was only in reference to one item… …eliminating federal income tax just to create happiness… not the entire letter .Personally, I would love to see the Federal Income tax eliminated , and I do not say that in jest… but it would be to significantly reduce federal control and power…and just for happiness.

    Ms Bobin stated … Once again Mr. Baumbach has made a fool of himself. I really implore you, Mr. Baumbach, to read what you write before posting it and again after posting it. But I sincerely doubt that you would realize how often your own comments to other posters are insulting, belittling, narcissistic

    Why Ms Bobin, you must be in a good mood today… coming from you… that is wonderful flattery. Maybe I am growing on you and you are wanting of my attention. The only thing that you could have done to make it any better would have been to call me an idiot… I feel left out as you said you save that word for special occasions. Sorry Ms Bobin, you are not my type you will have to flatter someone else for what you intend.

     
  • Joanne Bobin posted at 12:05 am on Sat, Feb 12, 2011.

    Joanne Bobin Posts: 4488

    Mr. Shirk...it is better to write a letter with substance that explains your position than to make comments that seem, on the surface, comical in nature, i.e. WHY do you think all of these agencies should be eliminated? Illuminate us.

     
  • Joanne Bobin posted at 12:01 am on Sat, Feb 12, 2011.

    Joanne Bobin Posts: 4488

    Once again Mr. Baumbach has made a fool of himself. I really implore you, Mr. Baumbach, to read what you write before posting it and again after posting it. But I sincerely doubt that you would realize how often your own comments to other posters are insulting, belittling, narcissistic, self-important, selfaggrandizing, pompous, conceited, haughty...should I go on?

    The fact that you have posted over 1800 comments only bolsters the above...or shows that you have nothing better to do, which I'm sure is not true.

     
  • Cliff Shirk posted at 3:08 pm on Fri, Feb 11, 2011.

    Cliff Shirk Posts: 14

    I didn't write the response to John Stossel's column in jest, nor did I intend my letter to be sarcastic. When I re-read my own letter I understand how one could interpret it as such.

    I try to be brief in my writings, but this time I covered too much material in too few word, thus the misunderstanding. I generally agree with Mr. Stossel.

    In order to clarify my beliefs re: the Federal Government, I will cover each point seperately.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 1:12 pm on Fri, Feb 11, 2011.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Steve stated as a response to Darrell...Darrell, are you saying that you don't find Representative Lee's actions to be hypocritical

    Darrells statement...all media outlets on the left and right slant things and take things out of context. An intelligent man like yourself should be able to see the same BS from the left as you do the right…

    My response… Steve, absolutely it is hypocritical… but I find it equally troubling that someone would be concerned about hypocrisy but only as it applies to certain people. My point was that you should see just as much or more hypocrisy on the left as the right. If I actually looked, I could find hypocrisy on the left on an hourly basis not just daily. So for you to only single out obvious hypocrisy (like Lee), and then say that really bothers you… but left wing hypocrisy never bothers you ( never seen a post from you decrying the antics and hypocrisy of the left) , then to me, not very consistent of you.
    For example, the left says they are for the poor and back legislation for them… but there are more wealthy democrats in the house and senate than republicans.
    The democrats say they want to improve health care for all, but exempt themselves from what they give everyone else… I could write a book on hypocrisy on the left…just as you could write a book on the right… that was my original point… I just ignore it rather than spend one minute wasting my time since it is so obvious and frequent.

     
  • Steve Schmidt posted at 11:38 am on Fri, Feb 11, 2011.

    Steve Schmidt Posts: 2278

    Darrell, are you saying that you don't find Representative Lee's actions to be hypocritical?

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 8:07 pm on Thu, Feb 10, 2011.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Ms Bobin stated…Another "family values" man on the right caught with his shorts down…

    Ms Bobin… The readers of LNS are treated to catching you with your shorts down on almost a daily basis… I do not see much difference between a hypocrite on the “right” as you described , and the hypocrisy that flows from you consistently… well… one difference is that you seem to enjoy it so much as you stated…“And describing himself as "classy" to boot! “”What fun””...

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 7:58 pm on Thu, Feb 10, 2011.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Steve Schmidt posted at 2:59 pm… Not a day goes by when I don't wonder to myself how people can actually believe the nonsense that erupts hourly from the orifices of the right…

    Steve… maybe you watch too much TV or listen to too much radio… Most people who are busy like yourself tend to listen to media outlets that summarize content and tell the story as they want you to hear it, in a way that results in comments like yours, which drives up ratings and profit. Personally, I rarely watch news or listen to radio as I did in years past. I draw that conclusion since you only focused on the “right” in a derogatory slant. In my view, all media outlets on the left and right slant things and take things out of context. An intelligent man like yourself should be able to see the same BS from the left as you do the right. CSPAN is the only TV source for information that I depend on as you see more of the whole story and not summaries. Not trying to criticize… I’m just thinking out loud.

     
  • Joanne Bobin posted at 3:52 pm on Thu, Feb 10, 2011.

    Joanne Bobin Posts: 4488

    Right on, Steve!

    PS: Another "family values" man on the right caught with his shorts down...or was that his shirt off? Apparently he didn't get that far before his would-be paramore outed him. And describing himself as "classy" to boot! What fun....

     
  • Steve Schmidt posted at 2:59 pm on Thu, Feb 10, 2011.

    Steve Schmidt Posts: 2278

    I think it is a sign of the times that what once could only have passed as parody is now a political platform.

    Not a day goes by when I don't wonder to myself how people can actually believe the nonsense that erupts hourly from the orifices of the right.

     
  • Joanne Bobin posted at 11:51 am on Thu, Feb 10, 2011.

    Joanne Bobin Posts: 4488

    Apparently, I am the only idiot who took Mr. Shirk's letter as a sarcastic response to John Stossel's column.

    Whatever happened to the days when Stossel was a friendly consumer advocate? Now he's a mad-dog right-wing Libertarian with dumb ideas. Why else would he frequently appear on the O'Reilly Factor?

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 9:00 am on Thu, Feb 10, 2011.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405


    Steve,,,In reference to your apology about the tone… I appreciate the tone now and thank you… but my concern was more about the content and specific references you made that were troubling and confusing…however…if you are juggling two crews you are one busy man and have your hands full…

     
  • Steve Schmidt posted at 6:12 am on Thu, Feb 10, 2011.

    Steve Schmidt Posts: 2278

    I do apologize for the negative tone of my post. I had just been reading an article about the antics of our new GOP majority in Congress and I am afraid I took a little bit of my disgust out on you.

    Again, my apologies and I do thank you for pointing it out to me.

     
  • Steve Schmidt posted at 6:07 am on Thu, Feb 10, 2011.

    Steve Schmidt Posts: 2278

    My other brother, I believe we cross posted. I had not yet read your most recent posts when I said that you seemed to be advocating a return to the Articles of Confederation.

    I've got two crews going out this morning so I don't have time to read your post thoroughly, I will try to get to it once they are on the road.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 5:37 am on Thu, Feb 10, 2011.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    darrell stated...Steve… help me out… please specifically with as much detail as possible lay out each and every aspect my logic and history that I am deficient in.

    Steve Responded ...I believe that is what Darrell (knowingly or unknowingly) was advocating.

    hummm.... double hummm... uhh? .... what does making a derogatory comment about me "my logic and history that I am deficient in. " have to do with what I was advocating? ( and just what was I advocating from your perspective)... sorry Steve.. I am clueless as to what you are actually saying and why... Please be more specific... your response was very very vague.

     
  • Steve Schmidt posted at 4:33 am on Thu, Feb 10, 2011.

    Steve Schmidt Posts: 2278

    I believe that is what Darrell (knowingly or unknowingly) was advocating.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 4:27 am on Thu, Feb 10, 2011.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Steve… help me out… please specifically with as much detail as possible lay out each and every aspect my logic and history that I am deficient in.

    • Manuel… please help me as well…. Can you specifically list each item I posted that would make you post your sarcastic comment about going back to the Articles of Confederation.... which in my view is counterproductive in this discussion.
    Steve, in addition, why turn a friendly conversation into something closer into animosity.
    I was only referring to the dramatic increase in power of the Federal government due to the authority it gained through income taxation. The Stossel article and comment about eliminating the income tax from my view was in jest, from my perspective, and not serious… I was also lightly participating and not serious about the topic. You suggested a national defense catastrophe if income taxation was eliminated… I countered that in that the states could collect income tax and pay for national defense. Obviously, there are obstacles in changing the current system, but my focus was supporting the contention that the states should have more and the Federal government less in the control of how tax dollars are spent.
    Unfortunately, all your comments are in focus of your distain for my presentation and what I see as facts. If you would prefer, assume that everything you stated is accurate… but then, actually focus on the real points generated by this article… or would you rather just be negative.

     
  • Manuel Martinez posted at 10:49 pm on Wed, Feb 9, 2011.

    Manuel Martinez Posts: 641

    While we're at it, lets just scrap the constitution and go back to the Articles of Confederation....

     
  • Steve Schmidt posted at 5:20 pm on Wed, Feb 9, 2011.

    Steve Schmidt Posts: 2278

    In any case, Abel Upshur (the Judge to whom you referred) was both a slave owner and a resolute champion of slavery. The treatise that you quote from was written principally in defense of the Southern States efforts to continue that institution so any comments he may have made about liberty should be understood in that context.

     
  • Steve Schmidt posted at 5:02 pm on Wed, Feb 9, 2011.

    Steve Schmidt Posts: 2278

    Darrell, I take it that your knowledge of logic is as deficient as your knowledge of history so I ask that you just believe me when I tell you that one cannot prove a negative.

    That said, no, levies from the state did not constitute a significant portion of the federal budget before the imposition of federal income tax.

    Perhaps you are thinking about the brief period of time when the US operated under the Articles of Confederation?

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 4:48 pm on Wed, Feb 9, 2011.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Steve stated…History may sometimes be inconvenient but you can't just make it up to serve your political whim.
    Steve… whim? You have evidence that the various taxes that were collected by states did not filter to the Federal level… if so please direct me to the source… maybe I have a incorrect understanding… thanks for the info…
    As far as the intent of the conversation, obviously there is a concern of the power and control of the Federal government and the fact that its power and influence is derived from the taxes it now has the power to collect. I thought the author was addressing that issue in making a comment about eliminating the income tax… I read this article below… thought it related to the attempted thought the author was addressing…
    o Link
    Each of the ratifying States was a party to a contract/compact/agreement that we call the Constitution. The States and the people existed before the Federal government. The Federal government was not a party to its own creation.

    It is a mere agent, entrusted with limited powers for certain specific objects; which powers and objects are enumerated in the Constitution.

    thirteen original States made a new thing, the Federal government, to act as their agent, and delegated to it very specific tasks/powers. Specifically, the numbered, listed, limited powers of Article I Section 8 of the Constitution…

    A State was a party to the compact known as the Constitution; the federal agency was not. Each State was equal in legal stature to each other State. No one state could decide whether a law was Constitutional for another State; each retained it's Sovereignty by the Tenth Amendment. The Federal Supremacy clause in the Constitution could only logically apply to Constitutional Laws related to the Enumerated Powers of Article I Section 8. Any question of constitutionality was therefore decided by a State legislature or judiciary, not by the Federal government…
    the Federal executive, judiciary, or legislature could decide what it's own limits were, what would you get? A gigantic central power that continually grows in leaps and bounds outside its original intent…
    You get the monstrosity that we have today. You have a government teetering on the brink of a totalitarian shift. We are the frog put in the pot when the water was lukewarm, but now it is approaching a boiling point. The people are starting to get uncomfortable...

    This was written in 1840 by a judge who was concerned with the consequence of too much power in a branch of the federal government…

     
  • Steve Schmidt posted at 3:22 pm on Wed, Feb 9, 2011.

    Steve Schmidt Posts: 2278

    All of this ignores the national debt which was borrowed in good faith and needs to be paid back, with interest.

     
  • Steve Schmidt posted at 2:57 pm on Wed, Feb 9, 2011.

    Steve Schmidt Posts: 2278

    One problem there my other brother. That is not how national defense was ever funded.

    Before the imposition of the permanent income tax, the vast majority of federal revenue was collected from tariffs and excise taxes. Unless you want to start a trade war by imposing massive 19th century style tariffs, you aren't going to mount a meaningful national defense relying solely on cigarette and whiskey taxes.

    History may sometimes be inconvenient but you can't just make it up to serve your political whim.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 1:51 pm on Wed, Feb 9, 2011.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Great idea... No federal Income tax... three cheers... go back to the way it was... each state taxes and then contributes to the federal government for national defence purposes to address Steves concerns... then, when we elect a president whose main responsibility would be defending our country, we might get a better commander in Chief... thanks for the idea Steve.

     
  • Steve Schmidt posted at 1:14 pm on Wed, Feb 9, 2011.

    Steve Schmidt Posts: 2278

    Of course, once we eliminate the federal income tax, we will have no choice but to also eliminate the Army, Navy, and Airforce (along with the Marine Corps). Tanks, submarines and bombers don't grow on trees, after all.

    With the country essentially left defenseless, we can then quickly eliminate every other branch of government as our nation is divided amongst foreign invaders.

    Great plan, Clifford!

     

Recent Comments

Posted 12 hours ago by Thomas Heuer.

article: Letter: Thanks for the discussion on th…

Ms Kaur Thank you again

More...

Posted 12 hours ago by Ed Walters.

article: Letter: We must deal with Islamic State…

Schmidt: Lets look at the reason Clinton was popular, first and foremost the country was not in a shoot war during his reign, second and a…

More...

Posted 12 hours ago by Thomas Heuer.

article: Letter: We should not look to governmen…

Mr Baumbach really did himself a disservice here by taking a womans plea for empathy and turning it into a political construct without trul…

More...

Posted 13 hours ago by Walter Chang.

Posted 13 hours ago by Walter Chang.

article: Letter: We must deal with Islamic State…

"Corvette to impress - not so much" [lol]

More...

Video

Popular Stories

Poll

Loading…

Your News

News for the community, by the community.

Mailing List

Subscribe to a mailing list to have daily news sent directly to your inbox.

  • Breaking News

    Would you like to receive breaking news alerts? Sign up now!

  • News Updates

    Would you like to receive our daily news headlines? Sign up now!

  • Sports Updates

    Would you like to receive our daily sports headlines? Sign up now!

Manage Your Lists