tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11148260.post112261593664256588..comments2023-09-06T08:56:14.610-04:00Comments on Eidelblog: Not theirs to investUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11148260.post-1122694067795015382005-07-29T23:27:00.000-04:002005-07-29T23:27:00.000-04:00Heh, I think you and I date the beginning of the p...Heh, I think you and I date the beginning of the path we are currently on to the same time frame, 1861, give or take. <BR/><BR/>An argument could be made that it really dates back to Andrew Jackson. But I think it is clear that large, central government was brought to the table by Lincoln, the Civil War and the 14th Amendment. <BR/><BR/>It can still be fixed, but I don't think even the outrage at <I>Kelo</I> is enough. We're on the central government running everything track. Even Reagan (and he was nowhere near perfect), with all his ability to communicate, was unable to convince the electorate or the oligarchy that it's the wrong direction. <BR/><BR/>I wonder if, 50 years from now, the US won't end up balkanized like the USSR?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11148260.post-1122689194576628222005-07-29T22:06:00.000-04:002005-07-29T22:06:00.000-04:00Very good points, guys.TKC, the only reason I supp...Very good points, guys.<BR/><BR/>TKC, the only reason I support "privatizated" accounts is because we can't get real privatization. For now, only for now, I'll accept "private accounts" as a first step toward dumping the Ponzi scheme completely. No candidate today dares propose abolishing Social Security; everyone knows it's political suicide. I think it was in the 1990s when the Dick Tracy comic strip had a story about Diet Smith being kidnapped and replaced with an impostor. The conspirators wanted to ruin Diet's presidential campaign, and one of the impostor's campaign statements was that he'd "begin by abolishing Social Security." That one frame still lingers in my mind.<BR/><BR/>The vast majority of people will reject a candidate who wants to abolish Social Security, and not strictly because people think government should provide for their retirement. Deep down, some know that no Social Security means they'd have to work more years and save a higher percentage themselves; but under the current system, government will provide more than what they've paid in.<BR/><BR/>For the same reason, people benefiting from subsidized public transportation don't mind the use of tax dollars. So when a liberal once told me, "I don't mind helping people," I knew it wasn't out of a sense of altruism. Inside, he knows others will pay to subsidize things he uses. Part of his taxes subsidize Amtrak, and part of others' taxes subsidize the Long Island commuter railroad that he rides. Then life becomes a rat race to get your piece of government handouts, whether you're Senator Byrd or a regular Joe who's simply eligible for a government program. And as I once wrote, people feel <A HREF="http://eidelblog.blogspot.com/2005/04/entitled.html" REL="nofollow">entitled</A> just because they pay their taxes. They don't consider it immoral to take more than what they pay in.<BR/><BR/>There's a saying in public choice economics, "Concentrated benefits, dispersed costs." Your tax share to subsidize special interests is low enough that it's not worth your time to fight them. But federal pork expenditures, in aggregate, are so bad that it is now worth our time to oppose them -- oppose them all at once. The energy and transportation bills are perhaps the worst pork of all time.<BR/><BR/>As a teenager, Eric, I started to worry that the United States was just too big for one government to handle, and that it would have to split to be governed effectively. That's before I learned that state's rights is the <I>true</I> federalism. A lot of the problem is the federal income tax. Prior to the 14th and 16th Amendments, the only individuals Congress could tax were the relatively few federal citizens. A resident of a state was a citizen of that state, but not a "United States" (federal) citizen when it came to domestic purposes, including taxation. This is why an amendment was needed to declare everyone "United States" citizens, and it wasn't just for giving citizenship to slaves. Congress before couldn't directly tax state citizens, only the states, which was part of the need for a census. If California had 10% of the population, it had to contribute 10% of the federal budget.<BR/><BR/>That was a far superior system because it promotes limited government. When the larger states had to pay the lion's share, they tended to avoid pork. Isn't it amazing how, when you have to pay for exactly how much government you use, you limit your use?Perry Eidelbushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09707615907666584863noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11148260.post-1122673358122466382005-07-29T17:42:00.000-04:002005-07-29T17:42:00.000-04:00tkc, the vast majority of what the government does...tkc, the vast majority of what the government does for us is "screaming for privatization". The last country of 300 million people and 50+ ethnic groups that tried to have the central government mandate and implement education standards collapsed and splintered into about 10 different countries, for example. <BR/><BR/>Doesn't it seem ridiculous that after fighting global socialism/communism for 60 years, and stopping its violent spread, we are now traveling the path that spelled the end for the USSR? Centralized governments/economies on this scale are doomed to collapse from their own sheer inability to accomplish anything.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11148260.post-1122670850924770532005-07-29T17:00:00.000-04:002005-07-29T17:00:00.000-04:00Curiously enough, 'Not yours to invest' is the sam...Curiously enough, 'Not yours to invest' is the same reason I am not too fond of private social security accounts. If they truely are private then why the government middle man? If they are not truely private then the 'Not yours to invest' comment fits perfectly. <BR/><BR/>Just as another aside, if you are paying taxes for mass transit then why do you have to pay to use mass transit. They're trying the same sort of thing here in Montgomery County, Maryland. However, it is with ambulances. The pols now want to charge you to take an ambulance trip. Isn't this why we are paying taxes? You know, for emergency services? If they are going to charge us on top of paying our taxes then this is just screaming for privatization.TKChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00034651417671564654noreply@blogger.com