Government Lies: or, Why I Learned to Love the X Filesgreenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread
Okay, I think it's pretty common that most of us here (especially the D&G'ers, from what I can gather) basically picture the Fed Govt as being inept, useless, and a buch of liars.
If the Fed. Gov't is useless, why are some people very concerned about their progress? If they are useless, then if people operate fine without it, why would we try to rebuild it if it crashes? Wouldn't this an opportunity to trim the fat?
-- JAW (firstname.lastname@example.org), June 16, 1999
Why have trolls like JAW been around so much in the past week? The disinfo is getting pretty thick now. The trolls say the news about Y2k is really good right now but their presence here indicates otherwise.
-- (email@example.com), June 16, 1999.
"Wouldn't this (be) an opportunity to trim the fat?"
Careful, JAW, this kind of statement could put you in the Anarchist Militia camp!
-- Mad Monk (firstname.lastname@example.org), June 16, 1999.
53% of the population (men, women and kids incl.) get a check of some kind from the Federal trough every month. I'm not speaking of the tax refund kind of check but rather the welfare..AFDC...Food Stamp...Medicare type of check. This figure also includes indirect payments such as Medicare payments to MD offices and hospitals (which filters down to the nurses, techs and secretaries), crop subsidies to farmers, subsidies to schools (which pays teachers salaries, etc). If the ability of the Federal government to collect and redistribute taxes (good or bad, I won't argue that point) is impaired for very long, there's going to be a lot of hungry people.
Oh, yeah. If the Federal boys bite the dust, how long will the local chaps last? Then who pays the police, fire, EMS etc.? The whole infrastructure that maintains our life (again, good or bad, no debate) could very easily crumble into a state of anarchy. I freely admit that there are a vast number of Federal branches that I could easily do without (FDA, OSHA come immediately to mind). There MUST be some type of overall leadership (not talking about Clinton..there's none there) to direct the country or we will all be speaking Chinese or Korean or ??. I have been in countries in a state of anarchy...and I don't want to go back. It's not any fun at all.
Did I answer your question or did I confuse you?
-- Lobo (email@example.com), June 16, 1999.
"53% of the population (men, women and kids incl.) get a check of some kind from the Federal trough every month."
This a very alarming statistic. I didn't think it was that high. If correct we're in a world of hurt. The number of people on Social Security has been on the rise for some time. More and more people depending on what taxpayers "owe" them is a recipe for disaster regardless of y2k. And like it or not, it's what the doctor ordered (the doctor being those on the left). To cap off this fiscal orgy, they're paying with the sweat of your great grandchildren. uh, depressing....
-- Mike (firstname.lastname@example.org), June 17, 1999.
At the risk of having my fingers whacked off, I must observe that those who would be injured by the loss of DOLE comprise the core of the Clinton constituency.
-- Lisa (email@example.com), June 17, 1999.
I suspect that if we restricted the Feds to what was Constitutionally allowed for them to do, there would be no problem. Fed.gov would be probably 1/4- 1/10th the size it is nowadays, and much less oppressive.
Alot of funding that states receive is their citizen's OWN money, minus the cost of bureaucrats and administration. If that money was never sent to DC, I'm sure that the states and the citizens could find a use for it. :)
Gee, maybe those parasites would perhaps have to get a real, productive job instead of sucking the life blood out of this society.
-- Bill (firstname.lastname@example.org), June 17, 1999.
For Constitutional scholars, the y2k dillema is quite revealing. The vast expansion of claimed "federal powers," bolstered by Executive Orders and agency law making in lieu of Congressional action, gives all the modern appearances of a hierarchial system. Actually, we have a Constitutional "dual sovereignty" of State and federal governments.
Because of years of propaganda, the public thinks of its own government as hierarchial. It looks to the federal Executive for leadership and Congress for law governing public health, safety and welfare. Certainly, the EPA has mouthed this mantra as its "mission" long enough.
Ironically, this is the one time that the federal government admits to its lack of power to "fix" things on the State and local level. Matters of health, safety and welfare (the so-called "police" or "municipal" powers,) are the domain of the State, not federal government. In some "home rule" States, counties and municipalities have a quasi-sovereignty. In California, the counties and municipalities are hierarchial extensions of the State.
Case in point - municipal water systems. The federal government has leveraged its power under the Commerce Clause to meddle in matters that affect the navigability of interstate commercially navigable streams. This is the Constitutional nexus for the Clean Water and Safe Drinking Water Acts. It "buys" the rest of its alleged power from the States by making federal grant funds contigent upon certain conditions. It has no real authority over your drinking water. It has power over sewers only insofar as the effluent affects navigability. (There is even a suit underway right now challenging the EPA's authority to establish discharge standards.)
You are supposed to be the government, not Bill Clinton, not the Senate, not the bureaucrats. Local people must take the problem into their own hands and govern themselves, but everyone is floundering around looking for someone "in charge." We have abdicated our own self-government. We are supposed to be "in charge." We are the government. We are the one to whom bureaucrats, administrators and legislators are accountable and we are the ones upon which government is supposed to be dependent. Not the other way around.
The federal government has focussed on the computer systems of its bureaucracy. Its prime directive has become perpetuating and extending its bureaucracy. That is what is important to the federal government. Its "report card" rings hollow to people who want to know about their food, water, sewer, electricity, telephone, automobile. The "essential" services of the federal government aren't so essential to many of us. The Emperor has no clothes in the new millennium. Unfortunately, it looks like it will take a crash remedial course in our Constitutionl frame before people will understand that y2k is not only a computer problem, it is a problem of self-government. We cannot retain liberty with apathy and citizenship is a great responsibility that takes time and commitment. I don't forsee that this problem will be "fixed" in time to "fix" the other problem.
-- marsh (email@example.com), June 18, 1999.
Thanks for the honest answers, even though I'm not sure how my questions has "disinformation" in it (in reference to the first reply). It's not often one is both a Pollyanna AND an anarchist in the same thread.
So in a nutshell you guys are saying that those who get a gov't check of some kind will riot if the gov't doesn't send them money?
The local guys should get paid by local municipalities, there is SOME reliance of the fed gov't, but I think paychecks etc. are done by local agencies and such. Some municipalities have more reliance on fed grants and such than others, but I would think the EMS and hospital folks would still get paid.
Let's think about the gov't shutdown a while back when gingrich and clinton were fighting over the budget. I know Wall street got a little nervous because they were afraid that the gov't data they rely on for economic forcasts wouldn't be around (unemployment, cost of living etc.).
But on a local level, as far as I know, there really wasn't much of an impact.
I'd really like to hear what Milne has to say about this. He rails on Koskinnen a lot and I'd like a bit more info on why. I'd figure he'd be glad the gov't might go down the tubes.
But on a note of reality, I did read a blurb that a republican congressman in California (I don't recall his name) doesn't think that Medicare or Medicade won't be ready for Y2k.
"The "essential" services of the federal government aren't so essential to many of us. " -- from Marsh
-- JAW (firstname.lastname@example.org), June 19, 1999.
"This figure also includes indirect payments such as Medicare payments to MD offices and hospitals (which filters down to the nurses, techs and secretaries), crop subsidies to farmers, subsidies to schools (which pays teachers salaries, etc). " -- Lobo
My father is in the medical profession, and get reimbursed by Medicare-caid. But I can tell you that for the hospital AND him, these payments aren't bread and butter. Private insurance is. The hospitals and doctors that really rely on MC-Mcaid are pretty much in trouble anyway, because the gov't pays they all what the gov't wants to pay and when they want to pay it.
So the upshot is, from my father's prospective and the hospital, it wouldn't matter much if MC-Mcaid didn't pay them for a couple of months, even. They would still get service and care.
But for my dad and the hospital, hell, it'd be business as usual for the gov't.
-- JAW (email@example.com), June 19, 1999.