Think about it..........

volumen · September 2005

If we had no government the people would have come together and had NO cleared out. Instead the government is actually telling people not to respond until uncle sam says so......the same government who did nothing to prepare while the biggest hurricane ever was heading toward a major city...........the same government who didn't know about the people in the superdome for 2 days.......... The same government who's leader stayed on vacation while people were drowning!!!!!!!!!!!!!!The outpouring from the people has been outstanding, the actions of the government have been pathetic.I love it how they were refering to the scene as anarchy. No.............. anarchy is all the people that were ready to go to action with out the control of the government. What was going on in NO was Democracy at it's best. The government does nothing while people slowly die!!!!!Still a fan of Democracy???????

grandpa_shig · September 2005

i hear what you are saying, but what we have here is not democracy.

Birdman9 · September 2005

If we had no government the people would have come together and had NO cleared out.

Instead the government is actually telling people not to respond until uncle sam says so......the same government who did nothing to prepare while the biggest hurricane ever was heading toward a major city...........the same government who didn't know about the people in the superdome for 2 days.......... The same government who's leader stayed on vacation while people were drowning!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The outpouring from the people has been outstanding, the actions of the government have been pathetic.

I love it how they were refering to the scene as anarchy. No.............. anarchy is all the people that were ready to go to action with out the control of the government. What was going on in NO was Democracy at it's best. The government does nothing while people slowly die!!!!!

Still a fan of Democracy???????

Ok, I think you have taken this to an extreme.

The problem is not that we HAVE government, it is the actual personalities that are IN CHARGE, and the fact that there is no organization or coordination or communication between the parties who say all day long how the people of this great nation are their top priority. We have every right to demand action and not bullshit and excuses.

Yes, I am still a HUGE fan of democracy, and if you think that if people were just left to their own devices (w/no authority or law)that it would all be ok, you are completely HIGH or totally stupid.

No offense, V, but please don't turn what has been a constructive debate and sounding board into pure emotionalism. I know it's tempting, and we should ALL STAY ANGRY to a certain degree, but lowering into the depths of big-upping Anarchy doesn't address the real realities that MUST change.

volumen · September 2005

But what to we need a national government for? The only thing they do is collect taxes and then waste them.

People don't vote because they don't believe in the government, so what's the point of having it.

It's totally used and abused by the rich and powerfull to keep themselves in power.

I think most people thin anarchy is people running wild in the streets. You can still have organizational systems to deal with the things that need to get done.

On_the_Red_Clay · September 2005

Ok, I think you have taken this to an extreme.

welcome to the world of Volumen.

(plaese to count me out)

volumen · September 2005

Ok, I think you have taken this to an extreme.

welcome to the world of Volumen.

(plaese to count me out)

Oh, come on! One thread after another about how this is unacceptable and Bush must go, but you don't actually want to do anything to facilitate that.

Seriously name one good thing that the government has done that the people couldn't have done themselves.

Birdman9 · September 2005

But what to we need a national government for? The only thing they do is collect taxes and then waste them.

People don't vote because they don't believe in the government, so what's the point of having it.

It's totally used and abused by the rich and powerfull to keep themselves in power.

I think most people thin anarchy is people running wild in the streets. You can still have organizational systems to deal with the things that need to get done.

How about The Postal Service? How about the Highway system? How about a FEMA that actually used to work quite effectively at a Federal level before Bush's cronyism degraded it to the joke we saw at work last week? How about a stream of Federal programs that actually DO help the poor and needy in this country?

You sound just like a rich Republican! That's what a lot of people want, is an end to Federalism because people with resources and money will just run shit on a local and state level! Without the Feds Blacks in the South might still be struggling for the LEGAL right to attend schools meant for Whites!

I think you need to think some things through. That idea is just plain lousy.

grandpa_shig · September 2005

But what to we need a national government for? The only thing they do is collect taxes and then waste them.

People don't vote because they don't believe in the government, so what's the point of having it.

It's totally used and abused by the rich and powerfull to keep themselves in power.

I think most people thin anarchy is people running wild in the streets. You can still have organizational systems to deal with the things that need to get done.

i used to feel this way. hell, to an extent i still do. i romanticized the idea of moving to the southern tip of baja and living in a shack expat stylee. then i moved to another country and lived there for a year and that cleared all that shit right up.

i do think this country is real fucked up and has a lot of problems. but it aint a superpower for no reason and there are freedoms and liberties here that i cherish. the way this system of government works is not ideal. i mean, it is based on a 2000+ year old dead dudes writings that has been formatted and reformatted throughout the years to give you what we have today. but if you really want to "think about it" we all would be nowhere without it. i think that sucks, but i also think that if we just up and threw it out the window, youd prolly be dead. my friends would prolly be dead. and i would most definately be dead and that would leave all these women and gay dudes up in arms.

seriously, i do not think anarchy is people running wild in the streets. i know my bakunin and proudhin. can distinguish anarcho-syndicalism from communism. but i think you are speaking in hypotheticals without considering the end results. but i do understand your frustration and anger.

Birdman9 · September 2005

The Federal Government should be there as a service and a tool for the people it serves, it's citizens. If you examine a system like the Post Office, and how enormous it is and how efficient and amazingly on point it is every fucking day of the year, it should give you an idea what a good idea can be in the hands of a federal government. It CAN serve it's people effectively, but along the way, so many people have maligned it from inside and out, that it does need some reform, no doubt. But if you think it would aid people at the bottom to dismantle it, you are blinded by an entitlement attitude that knows little bounds.

grandpa_shig · September 2005

The Federal Government should be there as a service and a tool for the people it serves, it's citizens. If you examine a system like the Post Office, and how enormous it is and how efficient and amazingly on point it is every fucking day of the year, it should give you an idea what a good idea can be in the hands of a federal government. It CAN serve it's people effectively, but along the way, so many people have maligned it from inside and out, that it does need some reform, no doubt. But if you think it would aid people at the bottom to dismantle it, you are blinded by an entitlement attitude that knows little bounds.

who me? i think im agreeing with you but maybe not.

volumen · September 2005

But what to we need a national government for? The only thing they do is collect taxes and then waste them.

People don't vote because they don't believe in the government, so what's the point of having it.

It's totally used and abused by the rich and powerfull to keep themselves in power.

I think most people thin anarchy is people running wild in the streets. You can still have organizational systems to deal with the things that need to get done.

How about The Postal Service? How about the Highway system? How about a FEMA that actually used to work quite effectively at a Federal level before Bush's cronyism degraded it to the joke we saw at work last week? How about a stream of Federal programs that actually DO help the poor and needy in this country?

You sound just like a rich Republican! That's what a lot of people want, is an end to Federalism because people with resources and money will just run shit on a local and state level! Without the Feds Blacks in the South might still be struggling for the LEGAL right to attend schools meant for Whites!

I think you need to think some things through. That idea is just plain lousy.

I'm not talking about the Republicans plan......I'm talking about radical restructuring of all government and economic systems. I'm fully aware that it's a Plato's Utopia vision that won't happen, I'm just saying think about it........

The republicans use the power to the people guise so they can live in state with no minorities while they roll around in big piles of money, that's not what I'm talking about and you know it.

If all the government did was pick up the trash, deliver the mail and build roads that would be great. But they have slowly grabbed more and more power and are now fully out of control.

Really.....UPS gets packages all over the world with out being a government agency, so the post office is not dependant on a big govenrment.

The highway system is not that amazing. Plus, the government is constantly using the threat of pulling highway funds to get the states to do things. You know people used to haul salt on the backs of camels 100's of miles across a desert with out a paved highway or a government.

FEMA is useless if it can be stripped in a few years by one president. This just backs up my point. Every pres just does what ever is good for him and his party.

We wouldn't need social service programs if the governement and big business hadn't run the country into the ground. Social services are there because people aren't being taken care of in the first place, so they are not a good thing. They are the result of everything else being so fucked.

Yea, thank god for the government so nobody is racist anymore.

Birdman9 · September 2005

But what to we need a national government for? The only thing they do is collect taxes and then waste them.

People don't vote because they don't believe in the government, so what's the point of having it.

It's totally used and abused by the rich and powerfull to keep themselves in power.

I think most people thin anarchy is people running wild in the streets. You can still have organizational systems to deal with the things that need to get done.

How about The Postal Service? How about the Highway system? How about a FEMA that actually used to work quite effectively at a Federal level before Bush's cronyism degraded it to the joke we saw at work last week? How about a stream of Federal programs that actually DO help the poor and needy in this country?

You sound just like a rich Republican! That's what a lot of people want, is an end to Federalism because people with resources and money will just run shit on a local and state level! Without the Feds Blacks in the South might still be struggling for the LEGAL right to attend schools meant for Whites!

I think you need to think some things through. That idea is just plain lousy.

I'm not talking about the Republicans plan......I'm talking about radical restructuring of all government and economic systems. I'm fully aware that it's a Plato's Utopia vision that won't happen, I'm just saying think about it........

The republicans use the power to the people guise so they can live in state with no minorities while they roll around in big piles of money, that's not what I'm talking about and you know it.

If all the government did was pick up the trash, deliver the mail and build roads that would be great. But they have slowly grabbed more and more power and are now fully out of control.

Really.....UPS gets packages all over the world with out being a government agency, so the post office is not dependant on a big govenrment.

The highway system is not that amazing. Plus, the government is constantly using the threat of pulling highway funds to get the states to do things. You know people used to haul salt on the backs of camels 100's of miles across a desert with out a paved highway or a government.

FEMA is useless if it can be stripped in a few years by one president. This just backs up my point. Every pres just does what ever is good for him and his party.

We wouldn't need social service programs if the governement and big business hadn't run the country into the ground. Social services are there because people aren't being taken care of in the first place, so they are not a good thing. They are the result of everything else being so fucked.

Yea, thank god for the government so nobody is racist anymore.

Dude, go read a book for Christ's sake! There is not one iota of you are saying that has not been spouted by knuckleheads on Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh every day for the last ten years. YOU ARE REPEATING FAR RIGHT TALKING POINTS LIKE THEY ARE SOME NEW LIBERAL IDEA. They are not, it is far right posturing and you are embarrassing yourself. please stop.

volumen · September 2005

The Federal Government should be there as a service and a tool for the people it serves, it's citizens. If you examine a system like the Post Office, and how enormous it is and how efficient and amazingly on point it is every fucking day of the year, it should give you an idea what a good idea can be in the hands of a federal government. It CAN serve it's people effectively, but along the way, so many people have maligned it from inside and out, that it does need some reform, no doubt. But if you think it would aid people at the bottom to dismantle it, you are blinded by an entitlement attitude that knows little bounds.

What are you talking about with "entitlement"?

Yea, I'm entitled to keep the money I work my ass off for and not give to to a government whose going to waste it.

I actually donate a lot every year and would donate more if so much of my check wasn't being taken for god knows what.

The outpooring of the people in the last 2 weeks shows that the people can take care of eachother.

Birdman9 · September 2005

The Federal Government should be there as a service and a tool for the people it serves, it's citizens. If you examine a system like the Post Office, and how enormous it is and how efficient and amazingly on point it is every fucking day of the year, it should give you an idea what a good idea can be in the hands of a federal government. It CAN serve it's people effectively, but along the way, so many people have maligned it from inside and out, that it does need some reform, no doubt. But if you think it would aid people at the bottom to dismantle it, you are blinded by an entitlement attitude that knows little bounds.

What are you talking about with "entitlement"?

Yea, I'm entitled to keep the money I work my ass off for and not give to to a government whose going to waste it.

I actually donate a lot every year and would donate more if so much of my check wasn't being taken for god knows what.

The outpooring of the people in the last 2 weeks shows that the people can take care of eachother.

Dude. please. stop.

grandpa_shig · September 2005

whoa. this is like a ttlab/kanye deja vu on a different plane.

anyways, i dont see how you can talk about a restructuring of the government and still have the tenets of capitalism still in place. as that seems like it should more or less be the focus of your rage besides the actual democratic systems.

volumen · September 2005

But what to we need a national government for? The only thing they do is collect taxes and then waste them.

People don't vote because they don't believe in the government, so what's the point of having it.

It's totally used and abused by the rich and powerfull to keep themselves in power.

I think most people thin anarchy is people running wild in the streets. You can still have organizational systems to deal with the things that need to get done.

How about The Postal Service? How about the Highway system? How about a FEMA that actually used to work quite effectively at a Federal level before Bush's cronyism degraded it to the joke we saw at work last week? How about a stream of Federal programs that actually DO help the poor and needy in this country?

You sound just like a rich Republican! That's what a lot of people want, is an end to Federalism because people with resources and money will just run shit on a local and state level! Without the Feds Blacks in the South might still be struggling for the LEGAL right to attend schools meant for Whites!

I think you need to think some things through. That idea is just plain lousy.

I'm not talking about the Republicans plan......I'm talking about radical restructuring of all government and economic systems. I'm fully aware that it's a Plato's Utopia vision that won't happen, I'm just saying think about it........

The republicans use the power to the people guise so they can live in state with no minorities while they roll around in big piles of money, that's not what I'm talking about and you know it.

If all the government did was pick up the trash, deliver the mail and build roads that would be great. But they have slowly grabbed more and more power and are now fully out of control.

Really.....UPS gets packages all over the world with out being a government agency, so the post office is not dependant on a big govenrment.

The highway system is not that amazing. Plus, the government is constantly using the threat of pulling highway funds to get the states to do things. You know people used to haul salt on the backs of camels 100's of miles across a desert with out a paved highway or a government.

FEMA is useless if it can be stripped in a few years by one president. This just backs up my point. Every pres just does what ever is good for him and his party.

We wouldn't need social service programs if the governement and big business hadn't run the country into the ground. Social services are there because people aren't being taken care of in the first place, so they are not a good thing. They are the result of everything else being so fucked.

Yea, thank god for the government so nobody is racist anymore.

Dude, go read a book for Christ's sake! There is not one iota of you are saying that has not been spouted by knuckleheads on Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh every day for the last ten years. YOU ARE REPEATING FAR RIGHT TALKING POINTS LIKE THEY ARE SOME NEW LIBERAL IDEA. They are not, it is far right posturing and you are embarrassing yourself. please stop.

Telling me to stop and not question? Hmmmmm now who sounds like far right talking points?

Your clearly missing the point. The far right spouts a lot of this stuff to act like they care about the people when they really just want to get everything in the hands of the companies they own/work for. Once again, that's not what I'm suggesting and you know it. Don't tell me I need to read a book just because you don't agree. This is not some new liberal idea, this is the kind of stuff forward minded people have talked about for 100's of years.

Jonny_Paycheck · September 2005

American highway system could use work but is a lot better than most places.

UPS is a private company - private companies... Haliburton or Verizon, are good examples of private companies that run shit just as much as the government. Monopoly money,,,,,,,When they fuck you over a barrel all you can say is "more lube plaese"

That is all

grandpa_shig · September 2005

oh, and for the record, i know you 2 are having your own private bonerfest over this, but i do NOT advocate the reading of books.

SPlDEY · September 2005

Hate to be another ESSAY poster, but this article is toooooo good not to cite. Believe it or not it's from FOX news.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,168732,00.html

When the Catastrophe Is Government

Wednesday, September 07, 2005

By Radley Balko

In a few days, we'll observe the fourth anniversary of Sept. 11, at the time the most catastrophic failure of our government in my lifetime.

What's odd is that just after our government failed in its duty to protect us, the public's faith in the president, the Congress, and government in general soared. Congress indemnified the airlines and private security firms for their failures; in effect removing any market punishment for them; and put airport security under federal control (with predictable results).

Our elected officials responded to the bureaucratic failings of our various intelligence agencies by creating the Department of Homeland Security, the largest bureaucracy we've ever seen. Federal spending skyrocketed. We created new cabinet-level positions. We handed over a number of our civil liberties, because our government told us doing so was necessary to protect our freedom.

Sept. 11 is no longer the most catastrophic failure of government in my lifetime. Its response to Hurricane Katrina is. Government at all levels, run by both parties, regardless of race, inexcusably failed to secure the safety of the people of New Orleans. The lesson here is not the failure of one party or the other. The lesson here is the failure of government.

Despite decades of knowing what a Category 4 or 5 hurricane could do to New Orleans, for example, local officials failed to have an adequate evacuation plan in place. The dispossessed were shuffled off to the Superdome with no security, and little food or water. There was no effort at organization, dissemination of information, or order. The state government failed to amass state resources to aid in the evacuation of people with no means to get out. Inexcusably, both state and local officials made the exact same mistakes they made in response to Hurricane Ivan, just a year earlier. And they'd made similar mistakes in 1998, with Hurricane Georges.

The federal government's shortcomings have been widely reported. They include the symbolic: After the storm hit, President Bush strummed a guitar at a fundraiser, invoking comparisons to Nero. He couldn't cut the last few days of his five-week vacation. Vice President Cheney returned from his vacation six days after the storm hit.

They include cronyism: FEMA Director Michael Brown was brought into the organization after having been fired from his previous job directing horse shows. He had no emergency management experience, and seems to have been hired because he was the college buddy of President Bush's pal Joe Allbaugh (who now runs a firm that consults companies on how to win contracts from FEMA and other federal agencies).

And of course they include incompetence: The inexcusable ignorance of FEMA and DHS officials about events that had been in the news for days. And have a look at this chart. It's the power structure of the federal government's emergency response system. Is it any wonder why it took days to get help to people stranded in floodwaters?

Much of that chart was in direct response to Sept. 11. And many of the changes in response to Sept. 11; including moving FEMA under the auspices of DHS; exacerbated the government failure last week. If after four years of preparation, this is the DHS response to a disaster that was foreseeable for years, and that it had days to prepare for, one shudders to think how the agency will respond to a surprise terrorist attack.

The Army Corps of Engineers began the task of shoring up Lake Ponchartrain decades ago. Administrations and Congresses controlled by both parties had ample opportunity to ensure the task was completed. They had other priorities. When the federal government took over the responsibility to protect New Orleans, it effectively shut out any private or local efforts that may have emerged to upgrade the levee system.

If a consortium of corporations and businesses with assets in New Orleans had gotten together in the 1960s and hired a private firm to protect their investments from a flood, the project would have been completed in a matter of years, at most. Don't believe me? Look at the past week. Private ingenuity has flourished where government response has failed.

By Wednesday of last week, the Hyatt company had sent food and supplies from its Atlanta and Houston hotels to its hotel in New Orleans. The New Orleans Hyatt is less than half a mile from the convention center, an area of the city local and federal government officials said was inaccessible. Oil companies had sent crews in to begin repairs of rigs and refineries on Monday. Television reporters, news crews, even Harry Connick, Jr. managed to navigate through a city the government said was too perilous for relief efforts.

The New Orleans Times-Picayune noted that by Thursday, WalMart had delivered thirteen trucks of supplies while government bureaucrats were still ringing their hands. By the time the federal government finally marched into New Orleans, the Red Cross had sheltered over 130,000 people, and delivered more than 2.5 million meals. By the time military brigades began rescuing people from rooftops, ordinary citizens had saved thousands with private boats.

While government bureaucrats dawdled, politicians covered their rumps, and partisans played the blame game, civil society; private entities; got to the business of helping people. What's worse, in some cases, government prevented the private dissemination of aid. Wal-Mart had three water trucks in New Orleans almost immediately after the hurricane hit. FEMA turned them away. The Red Cross reported on its website that federal and local officials had barred the organization from actually entering New Orleans. Same with the Salvation Army.

One doctor told the Associated Press, "There are entire hospitals that are contacting me, saying, 'We need to take on patients,' but they can't get through the bureaucracy. The crime of this story is, you've got millions of dollars in assets and it's not deployed. We mount a better response in a Third World country."

There should certainly be accountability here. The bureaucrats who failed should be fired. The political appointees who didn't live up to their responsibilities should be dismissed. And one can only hope that the negligent politicians will be punished at the ballot box. But more fundamentally, we need to recognize that this is not so much a failure of individuals as it was a fundamental failure of government; at its most basic and important responsibility, no less. The last time government failed on so large a scale, we reinvigorated our trust in that same government to protect us. We do so again at our peril.

Last week, a blogger named Nicholas Weininger put it best, in words I wish I had written. Observing the tales of individual heroism, private initiative, and generosity coming out of the hurricane-damaged areas, Weininger wrote:

"Rarely has it been so clear how much we, the ordinary people of this country, are better than our rulers. I hope that lesson is not lost on anyone, of any political persuasion.

Radley Balko

Birdman9 · September 2005

But what to we need a national government for? The only thing they do is collect taxes and then waste them.

People don't vote because they don't believe in the government, so what's the point of having it.

It's totally used and abused by the rich and powerfull to keep themselves in power.

I think most people thin anarchy is people running wild in the streets. You can still have organizational systems to deal with the things that need to get done.

How about The Postal Service? How about the Highway system? How about a FEMA that actually used to work quite effectively at a Federal level before Bush's cronyism degraded it to the joke we saw at work last week? How about a stream of Federal programs that actually DO help the poor and needy in this country?

You sound just like a rich Republican! That's what a lot of people want, is an end to Federalism because people with resources and money will just run shit on a local and state level! Without the Feds Blacks in the South might still be struggling for the LEGAL right to attend schools meant for Whites!

I think you need to think some things through. That idea is just plain lousy.

I'm not talking about the Republicans plan......I'm talking about radical restructuring of all government and economic systems. I'm fully aware that it's a Plato's Utopia vision that won't happen, I'm just saying think about it........

The republicans use the power to the people guise so they can live in state with no minorities while they roll around in big piles of money, that's not what I'm talking about and you know it.

If all the government did was pick up the trash, deliver the mail and build roads that would be great. But they have slowly grabbed more and more power and are now fully out of control.

Really.....UPS gets packages all over the world with out being a government agency, so the post office is not dependant on a big govenrment.

The highway system is not that amazing. Plus, the government is constantly using the threat of pulling highway funds to get the states to do things. You know people used to haul salt on the backs of camels 100's of miles across a desert with out a paved highway or a government.

FEMA is useless if it can be stripped in a few years by one president. This just backs up my point. Every pres just does what ever is good for him and his party.

We wouldn't need social service programs if the governement and big business hadn't run the country into the ground. Social services are there because people aren't being taken care of in the first place, so they are not a good thing. They are the result of everything else being so fucked.

Yea, thank god for the government so nobody is racist anymore.

Dude, go read a book for Christ's sake! There is not one iota of you are saying that has not been spouted by knuckleheads on Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh every day for the last ten years. YOU ARE REPEATING FAR RIGHT TALKING POINTS LIKE THEY ARE SOME NEW LIBERAL IDEA. They are not, it is far right posturing and you are embarrassing yourself. please stop.

Telling me to stop and not question? Hmmmmm now who sounds like far right talking points?

Your clearly missing the point. The far right spouts a lot of this stuff to act like they care about the people when they really just want to get everything in the hands of the companies they own/work for. Once again, that's not what I'm suggesting and you know it. Don't tell me I need to read a book just because you don't agree. This is not some new liberal idea, this is the kind of stuff forward minded people have talked about for 100's of years.

WHAT forward minded people are you speaking of?

Corporations are def in the pocket and vice versa with the Fed, especially THIS administration. They are perverting what the Fed ought to be. there is NO REASON to dismantle the level of assistance that the Federal Gov OUGHT to be able to supply their citizens, and to push the argument in that direction is completely the antithisis of Progressive thinking.

And by entitlement I mean that it takes an almost irrational faith in your Local and State Governments to do right you w/o a Federal Government maintaining some unified authority to make it all work.

Really.....UPS gets packages all over the world with out being a government agency, so the post office is not dependant on a big govenrment.

and this is what I am talking about...THE POST OFFICE IS THE GOVERNMENT! To offer to let UPS take over is called privatization.

volumen · September 2005

I'm not suggesting had everything over to big companies. The UPS example was just to show that it doesn't take a government to deliver packages.

In fact I'm suggesting that the government already has handed everything over to big companies and that is part of the problem. Dismantleing big government means dismantleing local stuff as well. I'm talking about (prettty much) starting over and trying to get it right. Local polititions can be just as gulity about making the local companies happy while the people suffer.

I can't believe no one has heard of this outside of republican propoganda.

Their is so much stuff the government claims to do with our taxes, but events like this and 9/11 demonstrate they are just wasting our money and not getting anything done.

If your the manager of a store and a fire is working it's way down the blcok and you just stand their and let your people burn, what do you think would happen? You'd be fired and possibly put in jail. I'm suggesting the government be held to the same standards we are. Instead they are going to "look into it and be sure it doesn't happen again". Bullshit! Shouldn't have happened in the first place.

Yes, trying to undo the powers-that-be is progressive!

lucero · September 2005

the awful truth ..

Birdman9 · September 2005

Their is so much stuff the government claims to do with our taxes, but events like this and 9/11 demonstrate they are just wasting our money and not getting anything done.

If your the manager of a store and a fire is working it's way down the blcok and you just stand their and let your people burn, what do you think would happen? You'd be fired and possibly put in jail. I'm suggesting the government be held to the same standards we are. Instead they are going to "look into it and be sure it doesn't happen again". Bullshit! Shouldn't have happened in the first place.

Yes, trying to undo the powers-that-be is progressive!

I agree with all of the above, but I disagree that the entire Fed needs to be dismantled to accomplish it, because despite your argument, there are lots of good things that your tax dollars pay for on a Federal level. Involvement on the local level is the first step, and voting these crooks out of office on a Federal level is next. I hate to break it down this way, but I think you know as well as I do that 'starting over' is not an option at this point. We have to improve what we know CAN work, strip out the shit that doesn't work or is too invasive and inneffective, and remember that these people work for the PEOPLE and not the other way around.

twoply · September 2005

I'm not suggesting had everything over to big companies. The UPS example was just to show that it doesn't take a government to deliver packages.

In fact I'm suggesting that the government already has handed everything over to big companies and that is part of the problem. Dismantleing big government means dismantleing local stuff as well. I'm talking about (prettty much) starting over and trying to get it right. Local polititions can be just as gulity about making the local companies happy while the people suffer.

I can't believe no one has heard of this outside of republican propoganda.

Their is so much stuff the government claims to do with our taxes, but events like this and 9/11 demonstrate they are just wasting our money and not getting anything done.

If your the manager of a store and a fire is working it's way down the blcok and you just stand their and let your people burn, what do you think would happen? You'd be fired and possibly put in jail. I'm suggesting the government be held to the same standards we are. Instead they are going to "look into it and be sure it doesn't happen again". Bullshit! Shouldn't have happened in the first place.

Yes, trying to undo the powers-that-be is progressive!

Volumen, I believe your heart is in the right place, but your political ideas and opinions are severely stunted. When Birdman told you to go read a book, what he meant was: go make an effort to better educate yourself. I'm not saying this to be mean or cruel, but I remember saying similar things when I was in high school. I thought it would be cool to overthrow the state and have anarchy (in the literal sense). Many drugged up, over-sexed hippies in the 60s thought the same thing. Since then, I have read a lot more books and now realize that it's not possible to (nor is there any reason to) come up with an ideal model for society that suits everyone. I also know now that in political discussions I would do better to listen more than I talk.

volumen · September 2005

Their is so much stuff the government claims to do with our taxes, but events like this and 9/11 demonstrate they are just wasting our money and not getting anything done.

If your the manager of a store and a fire is working it's way down the blcok and you just stand their and let your people burn, what do you think would happen? You'd be fired and possibly put in jail. I'm suggesting the government be held to the same standards we are. Instead they are going to "look into it and be sure it doesn't happen again". Bullshit! Shouldn't have happened in the first place.

Yes, trying to undo the powers-that-be is progressive!

I agree with all of the above, but I disagree that the entire Fed needs to be dismantled to accomplish it, because despite your argument, there are lots of good things that your tax dollars pay for on a Federal level. Involvement on the local level is the first step, and voting these crooks out of office on a Federal level is next. I hate to break it down this way, but I think you know as well as I do that 'starting over' is not an option at this point. We have to improve what we know CAN work, strip out the shit that doesn't work or is too invasive and inneffective, and remember that these people work for the PEOPLE and not the other way around.

Yea, that's why I said think about it, cuz your right it's not like what I'm saying is going to happen anytime soon. Kinda like the John Lennon "Imagine" song. Great thought but not going to happen.

I really do blame a lot of this on the people for not showing up to the polls. But, voting has been made difficult for some so I can't blame everything on the people.

I remeber telling my friend about how congress has a private gym and hair salon all at the taxpayers expense and he couldn't believe it. This is the kind of stuff our tax dollars are going to.

I just can't see changing things from the inside when the inside is as damaged as a smokers lung.

Oh well, I'll go back to getting drunk now!

volumen · September 2005

Volumen, I believe your heart is in the right place, but your political ideas and opinions are severely stunted. When Birdman told you to go read a book, what he meant was: go make an effort to better educate yourself. I'm not saying this to be mean or cruel, but I remember saying similar things when I was in high school. I thought it would be cool to overthrow the state and have anarchy (in the literal sense). Many drugged up, over-sexed hippies in the 60s thought the same thing. Since then, I have read a lot more books and now realize that it's not possible to (nor is there any reason to) come up with an ideal model for society that suits everyone. I also know now that in political discussions I would do better to listen more than I talk.

Well, I've spent plenty of time educating myself. In fact I would argue that everyone needs to read more if they think what I'm saying is republican and not progressive. People have always said governments are a bad thing, so this isn't anything new. And the reality is that the so called greatest democracy on earth is a total failure.

Plus, your almost making my point for me. There is no model that will suit everyone......so why should we be forced into institutionalized democracy? That's the thing. We are trying to force everyone to follow certian ways. And those ways change depending on who's in power. The government is a tool and it's being used by the rich to screw the poor and keep them enslaved to the capitalist military ideals.

I am not free! If I wanted to go live in the woods I couldn't. It would be long before someone showed up and wanted me to pay taxed on the scrub of land I was living own. Even if I used no utilities or social services the government would find a way to tax me. Which means I have to have income to pay the taxes, which means my income is taxes, which means I have to pay more taxes and burn fuel and use public services...................

Did I mention I was getting back to being drunk!!!!!!

motown67 · September 2005

The largest democracy in the world is India, the oldest is Switzerland. Forms of government are widespread throughout the world but play out differently in each situation based on lots of things like power, history, etc. I would say that Switzerland does a pretty good job taking care of its people, keeping out of wars, running banks, laundering money, etc. India on the other hand, has a lot of religious and ethnic strike, lots of poverty, a lack of basic services, while at the same time has a large and fast growing middle class, lots of educated college students and is taking advantage of the offshoring of hi-tech and basic service jobs from the U.S. and Europe right now. The point being, it's not democracy that's the problem in the U.S. Saying American Democracy sucks, we should get rid of the Federal government is more sloganeering than a real analysis of what's up in the U.S.

Community

Think about it..........

Comments