AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

I remain firm in my conviction that government should not be doing ANYTHING that cannot be accomplished more efficiently/effectively/economically by the private sector however.

Well, in most countries the post is done privately (actually, the first 'national' post which ever existed in modern times was privately run [from 16th century onwards]). Yet, the US Postal Service is a stronghold of of government ownership ...

2 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

Well, obviously the private sector has failed miserably in efficiency, effectiveness and economy but succeeded in bumbling bad behavior.

1 Reply

@Lightwizard,

Foxie remains blinded by her own misguided belief system. I still find it curious that her final exam in economics asked about government revenue and expenditures, because I find such a question as an oxymoron.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

I didn't say a word about revenues and expenditures on my final exam. Perhaps if you actually read what is said, you might not be so curious.

0 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

I remain firm in my conviction that government should not be doing ANYTHING that cannot be accomplished more efficiently/effectively/economically by the private sector however.

Well, in most countries the post is done privately (actually, the first 'national' post which ever existed in modern times was privately run [from 16th century onwards]). Yet, the US Postal Service is a stronghold of of government ownership ...

I can put something in the mail here targeted for some little burg in Texas and it can take two weeks or more to get there. If I have to go to the postoffice to mail it, I can stand in line up to an hour waiting for service.

If I use one of the private services to deliver the same item, they pick it up at my door, I can be pretty darn sure that it will be delivered within five business days plus I can track its progress all along the way from my own computer.

The US Post Office has much to commend it but it also has much to condemn it. Whether it is better than yours or anybody else's is open to debate and would depend on how bad yours might be I suppose.

But delivery of the mail is one way of promoting the general welfare and I don't have any problem with that being a government run service and it is functionally dependable and reliable. I have long suspected that if you turned it over to a really good businessman with a big picture perspective, however, it would probably be run more efficiently and probably more economically.

1 Reply

Your quote:

Quote:

A simplistic maxim we were required to memorize in beginning college economics--it was on the final exam--was: If the government wants something to increase, subsidize it. If the government wants something to decrease, tax it.

Oxymoron all the way. Taxes do not influence the purchase of anything. It's based on supply and demand.

1 Reply

The conservative will defend the status quo long past the time when the quo has lost its status.

- Laurence J. Peter

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

Your quote:
Quote:
A simplistic maxim we were required to memorize in beginning college economics--it was on the final exam--was: If the government wants something to increase, subsidize it. If the government wants something to decrease, tax it.

Oxymoron all the way. Taxes do not influence the purchase of anything. It's based on supply and demand.

Try again CI. You got a little closer on that shot, but you still don't have a clue what the maxim means.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

It's because the maxim is an oxymoron.

0 Replies

@Lightwizard,

Lightwizard wrote:

The conservative will defend the status quo long past the time when the quo has lost its status.

- Laurence J. Peter

Oh well if you want a pissing match with quotations:“One difference between a liberal and a pickpocket is that if you demand your money back from a pickpocket, he won't question your motives”--unknown

Or equal opportunity:
"The Democrats seem to be basically nicer people, but they have demonstrated time and again that they have the management skills of celery. They're the kind of people who'd stop to help you change a flat, but would somehow manage to set your car on fire. I would be reluctant to entrust them with a Cuisinart, let alone the economy. The Republicans, on the other hand, would know how to fix your tire, but they wouldn't bother to stop because they'd want to be on time for Ugly Pants Night at the country club."--Dave Barry

2 Replies

@Foxfyre,

If the author is 'unknown,' it's not a quotation. Just an insult.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

well , laurence j. peter had a little more going for him than dave barry - though dave barry might be good for a laugh - now and then .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laurence_J._Peter

Quote:

Works by laurence j. peters (he also was born in canada - should count for some bonus points <GRIN> )

The Peter Pyramid or will we ever get the point? (1986)
Why things go wrong
Peter's Almanac
Peter's People
Peter's Quotations (previously under the title 5,000 Gems of Wit & Wisdom (originally entitled Quotations for Our Time))
The Peter Plan
Individual Instruction
Classroom Instruction
Therapeutic Instruction
Teacher Education
The Peter Prescription
The Peter Principle (with Raymond Hull) (1968)
The Laughter Prescription (1982)
Prescriptive Teaching

he could really be quite funny :

He proposed an award for the race, titled "The Golden Dinosaur Award" which has been handed out every year since to the first sculptural machine to utterly break down immediately after the start.

something to think about !!!

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

But delivery of the mail is one way of promoting the general welfare and I don't have any problem with that being a government run service...

That's exactly what I wanted to know: an example of "general welfare".

Public transport isn't 'general welfare'. But mail is. Why?

(Since our post was privatised it became worse. [Smaller] Letters can be -that'll change soon as well- only delivered by other private services regionally. Larger letter, small parcels, parcels etc can be delivered by all and everyone - any post service can be tracked.)

2 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

Dave Berry did win the Pulitzer Prize for journalistic comedy in 1988. I think he could have second thoughts on the description of a conservative Republican today (and he was hardly flattering to begin with):

The Republicans, on the other hand, would know how to fix your tire, but they wouldn't bother to stop because they'd want to be on time for Ugly Pants Night at the country club. They also sold you the retread that went flat as a new tire.

0 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

But delivery of the mail is one way of promoting the general welfare and I don't have any problem with that being a government run service...

That's exactly what I wanted to know: an example of "general welfare".

Public transport isn't 'general welfare'. But mail is. Why?

(Since our post was privatised it became worse. [Smaller] Letters can be -that'll change soon as well- only delivered by other private services regionally. Larger letter, small parcels, parcels etc can be delivered by all and everyone - any post service can be tracked.)

Because mail generally needs to go everywhere in the country and all citizens sooner or later need the mail service. It is considered a necessity of life to deal with government, to do business, and for private communications. It is a universal network that benefits all.

A public transportation system in New York City benefits New Yorkers but for the most part does not benefit anybody else. People living in Stinnett TX or Maljamar NM might never visit New York but do need to focus resources on dealing with wind, hail, soil erosion, prairie fires, and bindweed that rarely, if ever, bother New Yorkers. People in West Texas or Eastern New Mexico should not have to provide transportation for New Yorkers, nor should New Yorkers have to figure out how to eradicate bindweed in West Texas or Eastern New Mexico.

For the government to force one citizen to take care of the needs of another might be fine if such concern could be equitably distributed and everybody could be mutually benefitted. It is, however, far too tempting for politicians to focus concern on those who can provide the biggest campaign contributions or deliver the most votes.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Your plan is for nobody to focus on anyone's specific needs at all?

I note that you didn't respond to my post last page or two outlining that 'special interests' are, in fact, part of promoting the general welfare.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Foxie always seems to get herself into these traps where her position becomes not only laughable but a contradiction. It'll be fun to watch her squirm out of this one. LOL

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Public transportation is beneficial to all, even those who still want to get places in their personal vehicle. There's also AmTrack. We're attached to our cars as an appendage and riding in public transportation has been stigmatized as damaging our personal image. Many thousands of Americans have switched to public transportation to get to and from work which means they can use the money saved for other necessities.

1 Reply

@Lightwizard,

LW, I'm well aware of why public transportation helps people who do not reside in any city where they are offered. In all my travels, I have used public transportation not only in the US, but also abroad. Places like NYC requires public transportation, because without it the vehicle traffic will stay at a stand-still. I can't imagine places like London, Washington DC, Tokyo, and Europe without public transportation.

Foxie's assumption that a person living in Texas does not benefit from the public transportation system in NYC is dead wrong in many respects. I betcha Foxie wouldn't be able to figure that one out.

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

ican,

We might also question why, via congressional fiat, taxpayers have the choice to voluntarily contribute to the presidential election fund whereas the same congress mandates the legal plunder of those taxpayers and consequent redistribution of those questionable receipts to those who either don't work or those who do and don't pay taxes. Surely, the former works more towards the General Welfare than does the latter. So why is the former taxpayer contribution voluntary while the latter is mandatory?

Since everyone knows it is better to teach a man to fish then to require him to be dependant on others for his livelihood ad infinitum. I can only see two reasons for this. The first is for the politicians to be able to have a large number of citizens dependant on their every action. That then results in that group having only one choice when it comes to electing public officials; that being those politicians that have no problems raiding the public treasury for their own survival.

JM

0 Replies

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know