RoR: Forum

Here's a quote pulled from the New York Times:

Progress does not compel us to settle centuries-old debates about the role of government for all time — but it does require us to act in our time. For now decisions are upon us, and we cannot afford delay. We cannot mistake absolutism for principle or substitute spectacle for politics or treat name-calling as reasoned debate.

This don't-ask-if-the-government-is-too-big-ask-if-it-works mentality is pressured when he says it's a false choice to care for current citizens who built the country and invest in future citizens at the same time.

He's not "investing" in future citizens though, they are being born now with over $200,000 of public debt hanging over each of their individual heads.

Ed

Post 1

Tuesday, January 22, 2013 - 4:36am

He's not "investing" in future citizens though, they are being born now with over $200,000 of public debt hanging over each of their individual heads.

It is a lot but not that much ... yet. It is about $65,000 without unfunded liabilities of Social Security and Medicare, and $124,000 with them.
(Edited by Merlin Jetton on 1/22, 6:11pm)

Post 2

Tuesday, January 22, 2013 - 6:13am

Historical Views on the Inauguration, a 'Holy Day in Our Civic Religion'

The theocrats are coming out of hiding.

civic religion: "S"ociety = God, and the state is its proper church.

Sing it, Comerade Brothers.

Or else.

regards,
Fred

Post 3

Tuesday, January 22, 2013 - 1:29pm

You were not going to like anything he said, anyway. Over in Dissent, I posted some of his comments about not trusting government, and about the importance of individual achievement. The speech was centerist, not revolutionary. We speak of the Reagan Revolution, but President Obama is in the tradition of the Bush administrations, Ford, Nixon, and Eisenhower. We have to step back in time to understand Kennedy as a conservative who was recast as a liberal after his death. The point being that this speech was very nice and not scary.

As for Inauguration Day, the root is augur. Look it up: the Etruscan priests looked for good fortune when Romans were sworn into their elected offices. This is, indeed, our civic religion. Religion is not myth. What is a ligature? It is a bond, a tie. Religion in Rome was not so much about the gods, granted that they received their due, but about gravitas, pietas, civitas, and the other virtues of citizenship. Ambition literally means "walking around." Men who walked around seeking votes were prosecuted for ambition. You were supposed to be called to duty. What does candid mean? Candidates for office wore white to symbolize their willingness to answer honestly for their past.

Every generation interprets the founders of our republic, but if you want to understand them in their own terms, you need the read the works they did. Contemporary busts draped them in togas for good reason. We call George Washington "the father of his country." Literally, in Latin, that is Pater Patriae, an inscription known on hundreds upon hundreds of types of Roman denarii. We think of it as an "empire." It never was. It was always a republic. The title "imperator" meant only commander of the army, and was granted by the Senate, as our constitution makes the president the commander in chief, while also laying upon the Senate the power to advise and consent to his appointments.

Myself, I love history because it explains the present.

Post 4

Tuesday, January 22, 2013 - 5:37pm

Merlin,

Thanks for keeping me honest. I got the number from listening to Sean Hannity and I'm not sure how he calculated it. According to a webpage I found, unfunded liabilities are $84 Trillion. If you take that number and divide it by 300 million -- then you arrive at a figure that is $280,000 per capita. If you assume that, by the time newborns reach adult age, that the population has not increased by third, then these little rascals will indeed be stuck with $200,000 hanging over each of their heads. One can imagine a time when the entire earnings of a citizen's life are taken up by the individual choices of a single zealot with regard to his or her pet public projects carried out under the arrogant presumption that it is what it is that is in everyone's best interests ...

A good outcome

4-year old: Mommy, I want to be a fireman when I grow up.

Mommy: No problem. You can be whatever you want to be, as long as you can become good at it. You see, back when you were born, I invested in you, and you will be awarded $10 million dollars on your 18th birthday.

4-year old: $10 million dollars? That sounds like a lot. I'm going to buy a lot of toys when I get that money! [happily runs off with a future to look forward to]

A poor outcome

4-year old: Mommy, I want to be a fireman when I grow up.

Mommy: Oh, I'm sorry son, but you were born after the Great American Leap Forward. Instead of following your hopes and dreams, when you grow up, you will have to be in 100% servitude to the almighty State. You will have to do the job they pick for you. You see, they "invested" in you. They invested in your future you know. And ... well ... your share of the debt will take up the earnings of your whole adult life. But ... keep your fingers crossed though, because the State might make you work as a fireman if you are lucky!

4-year old: That doesn't sound fair.

Mommy: Well, no, it doesn't.

4-year old: What did they call it when they were telling the people how they were going to start doing things like this?

Mommy: They called it "freedom."

Post 5

Tuesday, January 22, 2013 - 6:19pm

Ed, I got my info from this page. The big difference is probably what is meant by "unfunded liability."
1. Present value of future benefits minus current assets.
2. Present value of future benefits minus present value of future taxes minus current assets.
Clearly #1 is the larger amount, but #2 is the usual meaning of "unfunded liability."

(Edited by Merlin Jetton on 1/23, 3:29am)

Post 6

Wednesday, January 23, 2013 - 7:50am

Michael:

His words speak freedom, his actions speak forced association.

His words are a political tactic. I'm buying only his actions.

Free vs. forced association is not an ethical filter that I've yet been convinced to throw away.

regards,
Fred

Post 7

Wednesday, January 23, 2013 - 8:12am

Michael:

Examples:

The "National Affordable Health Care Act."

By what reasoning is this a totalitarian/national act, justifying forced association on a national level? 50 states are perfectly able (and large enough entities) to accommodate 50 experiments in parallel in getting it right.

Gun control:

Personally directed firearms --even the most lethal personally directed firearm we can imagine -- are by definition a local issue. Consider storage requirements, or carry permits. By definition, firearms are stored and carried locally, not 'nationally.' What is the basis for rural Lancaster County and San Francisco being forcefully aligned -- ie, by application of the force of the state on a national level -- to be aligned as the result of a national steel cage death match struggle for domination?

If I were Nero(and you can thank your lucky stars I'm not)there would be a hurdle to jump at every level of government, as follows:

Reasonable freedom loving people would ask:

Does this issue justify forced association at a local level?

Does this issue justify forced association at a county level?

Does this issue justify forced association at a state level?

And by far, the biggest hurdle of all: does this issue justify forced association at a national level?

As an example: the most pressing national responsibility is national defense, an external facing facet, a reason for establishing a national government. And for that pressing national responsibility, we presently, and for decades, do not justify forced association. We staff our military fully with volunteers, and augment it with those who participate in commerce, as contractors.

So, what pressing -national- goal beyond defense yet justifies forced association on a national level?

It is exactly the rush to turn every issue of public policy into a OneSizeFitsAll national solution that is dividing the nation against itself. Politics has become a steel cage death match struggle to national domination. It is neither necessary or desirable in a free nation. It is the very definition of Totalitarianism, that which this free nation used to unite itself against. It is what is driving the nation insane.

Beyond that, it is an absolutely terrible system design concept, which is why such systems always fail; always.

regards,
Fred

Post 8

Wednesday, January 23, 2013 - 4:37pm

He can recommend all he wants. Executive Orders do give him more power, perhaps extraordinary authority. Laws come from Congress, with funding bills originating in the House of Representatives. He can veto them, or not; and they can override, or not. That is the extent of the president's legislative powers.

Article. II.
Section. 2.
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

Section. 3.
He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.

That's all they wrote.

Post 9

Wednesday, January 23, 2013 - 11:03pm