Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
ok conservatives
- Thread starter Lao Tzu
- Start date
RyanH
New member
Re: Re: Re: ok conservatives
Umm, how effective do you believe another government department is going to be when the existing ones, such as the CIA and FBI, can't even properly perform their jobs? Don't conservatives believe that the answer to government inefficiency is to just get rid of government? Or do you now want to replace government inefficiency with government inefficiency? Sounds relatively inconsistent to me. No?
huntmaster said:
Umm, how effective do you believe another government department is going to be when the existing ones, such as the CIA and FBI, can't even properly perform their jobs? Don't conservatives believe that the answer to government inefficiency is to just get rid of government? Or do you now want to replace government inefficiency with government inefficiency? Sounds relatively inconsistent to me. No?
spentagn
New member
No, I'm worried about continuous growth in GDP. My original post outlined it fairly simplisticly. Sorry if it didn't meet your requirements.RyanH said:
RyanH said:
I like your assertion that GM et al "continue to pay very low taxes in comparison to their earnings," yet later admit you have no evidence when you say "I'd be interested in looking at the tax burden some of America's major corporations paid last year and comparing that with the amount of income received and salaries paid to those at the top." Corporations pay taxes on these "outrageous" salaries, and these taxes can't be avoided. These are the taxes that fuel your beloved Social Security. I guess it would make sense to cut back their salaries, and in turn reduce tax revenues for the Federal Government.
As far as Enron goes, that is corruption to the nth degree. I'm not sure if you mentioned this because I'm from Texas, or the President is, but whatever the case, it is irrelevant, as neither of us have oversight into either Enron or its former accountants.
When you claim that employees are paid "less than stellar salaries," how do you quantify a stellar salary? Heaven forbid an employee is paid less than they think they're worth.
RyanH said:
Modern businesses don't need as strict of Government oversight as those of yesteryear. Global economic markets provide seemingly infinite employment opportunities. If you aren't happy where you work, look elsewhere. While some government oversight may be necessary, as in the case of the SEC, it is historically inefficient. Regulation of economic markets is not the Government's strength. Since the cornerstone of international markets is comparative advantages, why should the Government opperate any differently?
RyanH said:
It is amusing you mention Wal Mart paying minimum wage. The Wal Mart down the road from me hires employees at a minimum of $9/hr. Hardly minimum wage. It would also surprise me that a company that has been recognized as among the "100 best to work for" on multiple occaisions would treat their employees so poorly.
As far as my suggestions on Social Security, you're welcome to do a search under my name and that topic. I have discussed at length the short comings of our current Social Security Administration, and given my suggestions on what reforms should be initiated. Briefly, the SSA has published reports predicting insolvency by 2034. Increasing immigration due to things such as NAFTA only speed up this process. What do you suggest to do with the poor elderly when the lock box sinks? Put them on the streets.
Lao Tzu
New member
Thank you spentagn, That was thoughtful.
For all the other conservatives, i'm referring to things like free trade, anti-communism, the drug war, etc. there seems to be little logic. It is just knee jerk responses. The democrats do it to, but i don't see why conservatives are a reasonable party while the democrats aren't. Both spentagn & ryanH seem to have a debate backed up with facts. They aren't just assuming 1 sniff of crack = death, or that white people who live in the suburbs have to worry about crime, or that america spends 400 billion a year on foreign aid, or that getting shot in school is a realistic event, etc.
For all the other conservatives, i'm referring to things like free trade, anti-communism, the drug war, etc. there seems to be little logic. It is just knee jerk responses. The democrats do it to, but i don't see why conservatives are a reasonable party while the democrats aren't. Both spentagn & ryanH seem to have a debate backed up with facts. They aren't just assuming 1 sniff of crack = death, or that white people who live in the suburbs have to worry about crime, or that america spends 400 billion a year on foreign aid, or that getting shot in school is a realistic event, etc.
Republican is NOT conservative.
Democrat is NOT liberal.
Both parties are in bed with varied interests and cloak themselves under those headings.
Please do not degrade the discussion by introducing politics under teh heading of philosophy.
Democrat is NOT liberal.
Both parties are in bed with varied interests and cloak themselves under those headings.
Please do not degrade the discussion by introducing politics under teh heading of philosophy.
p0ink
New member
RyanH said:
give me a break. the whole purpose of the new department is to collect information received from the various agencies, since it has been illegal for the fbi and cia to share information thanks to the democrats that passed the FISA act. if the fbi and cia were allowed to work together in the first place, none of this would have been an issue.
Lao Tzu
New member
p0ink said:
This is kind of what i mean. Is there any evidence that FISA is a democratic bill, or are they just being blamed? what about Executive Order 12949? Hard logic isn't big in the conservative field, it is usually just straw man arguments and delusions of grandeur (no offense p0ink). I'm not sure the liberals are any different, whatever party philosophy (libertarian, green, liberal, democratic) seems to be the most grounded in reality is the one i want to look into.
p0ink
New member
The FISA bill was a product of closed-door negotiations lasting several months between legislators and the Justice Department. Senator Edward Kennedy (D-MA), who had attempted to regulate the power of warrantless surveillance in four different sessions, sponsored the FISA legislation. The FISC concept was a compromise between legislators who wanted the FBI and National Security Agency (NSA), the only two agencies affected by the FISA statute, to follow the standard procedure for obtaining a court order required in criminal investigations and legislators. The federal agencies believed that they should be completely unfettered in conducting their foreign intelligence surveillance work inside US borders. Hence, the FISC was born.<2>
FISA was approved by Congress and signed into law by President Jimmy Carter on October 25, 1978. Executive Order 12139,<3> signed by President Carter several months later, officially chartered the FISC. The legislation established an authorization procedure for the FISC to issue surveillance orders without probable cause. It also set up a “minimization” procedure for communications by US citizens inadvertently intercepted by the agencies. With the passage of FISA, the NSA was bound for the first time to a process of judicial review before initiating domestic surveillance operations
Circumventing the Bill of Rights
The most troubling aspect of FISA surveillance and searches is that they circumvent explicit Constitutional guarantees expressed in the First, Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the Constitution. The First Amendment guarantees the right to free speech and to peaceable assembly. However, under the FISA statute, a US citizen may be subject to a FISC surveillance order for political statements and views that are determined to be unpopular – yet legal – by unelected government officials in violation of the First Amendment.
In addition, physical searches without reasonable cause are specifically prohibited by the Fourth Amendment:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
But the expansion of the FISC by the Congress and the Clinton Administration through the Intelligence Appropriation Act of 1995 and Executive Order 12949 permits black bag fishing expeditions – without cause. FISC physical search orders authorized by these legislative and executive actions allow government agents to scour a suspect’s home, papers and effects indiscriminately and without reasonable cause.
It is hard to imagine that our Constitution’s framers, carrying with them the fresh reminders of intrusive searches conducted by British military and governmental personnel for British “national security” interests, would have approved the activities allowed by FISA when they ratified the Bill of Rights with its explicit prohibitions of unreasonable, indiscriminate searches.
The Fifth Amendment right not to be compelled to act as a witness against oneself is significantly harmed when those under surveillance have full expectation of privacy in their conversations and personal communications but subsequently have their conversations recorded and analyzed by law enforcement and intelligence agencies. FISC orders may be (and typically are) enacted without cause, and yet these wrongfully acquired surveillances may be used in criminal trials.
This is one dimension to the “Catch-22” problem discussed earlier. If surveillance is conducted with cause and criminal prosecution result, the government should be required to meet the same Title III surveillance requirements imposed upon all other law enforcement efforts conducted on the federal, state and local level in order to present that evidence in a criminal trial.
A final direct Constitutional concern is that a citizen’s Sixth Amendment rights to confront accusers, to review evidence against him, and to legal counsel are frequently violated. In all of the criminal trials involving FISC orders, evidence is sealed from review from both the accused and their legal counsel. This is heightened further by the requirement to keep this evidence from the view of juries. In the case of Richard Johnson, the judge instructed the jury that evidence against Johnson existed, and yet would not be presented for “national security” reasons, requiring the jury to rely on the “testimony” of the judge. This prevented Johnson’s attorneys from challenging evidence that was not available to them but was testified to by the judge himself.
FISA was approved by Congress and signed into law by President Jimmy Carter on October 25, 1978. Executive Order 12139,<3> signed by President Carter several months later, officially chartered the FISC. The legislation established an authorization procedure for the FISC to issue surveillance orders without probable cause. It also set up a “minimization” procedure for communications by US citizens inadvertently intercepted by the agencies. With the passage of FISA, the NSA was bound for the first time to a process of judicial review before initiating domestic surveillance operations
Circumventing the Bill of Rights
The most troubling aspect of FISA surveillance and searches is that they circumvent explicit Constitutional guarantees expressed in the First, Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the Constitution. The First Amendment guarantees the right to free speech and to peaceable assembly. However, under the FISA statute, a US citizen may be subject to a FISC surveillance order for political statements and views that are determined to be unpopular – yet legal – by unelected government officials in violation of the First Amendment.
In addition, physical searches without reasonable cause are specifically prohibited by the Fourth Amendment:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
But the expansion of the FISC by the Congress and the Clinton Administration through the Intelligence Appropriation Act of 1995 and Executive Order 12949 permits black bag fishing expeditions – without cause. FISC physical search orders authorized by these legislative and executive actions allow government agents to scour a suspect’s home, papers and effects indiscriminately and without reasonable cause.
It is hard to imagine that our Constitution’s framers, carrying with them the fresh reminders of intrusive searches conducted by British military and governmental personnel for British “national security” interests, would have approved the activities allowed by FISA when they ratified the Bill of Rights with its explicit prohibitions of unreasonable, indiscriminate searches.
The Fifth Amendment right not to be compelled to act as a witness against oneself is significantly harmed when those under surveillance have full expectation of privacy in their conversations and personal communications but subsequently have their conversations recorded and analyzed by law enforcement and intelligence agencies. FISC orders may be (and typically are) enacted without cause, and yet these wrongfully acquired surveillances may be used in criminal trials.
This is one dimension to the “Catch-22” problem discussed earlier. If surveillance is conducted with cause and criminal prosecution result, the government should be required to meet the same Title III surveillance requirements imposed upon all other law enforcement efforts conducted on the federal, state and local level in order to present that evidence in a criminal trial.
A final direct Constitutional concern is that a citizen’s Sixth Amendment rights to confront accusers, to review evidence against him, and to legal counsel are frequently violated. In all of the criminal trials involving FISC orders, evidence is sealed from review from both the accused and their legal counsel. This is heightened further by the requirement to keep this evidence from the view of juries. In the case of Richard Johnson, the judge instructed the jury that evidence against Johnson existed, and yet would not be presented for “national security” reasons, requiring the jury to rely on the “testimony” of the judge. This prevented Johnson’s attorneys from challenging evidence that was not available to them but was testified to by the judge himself.
spentagn said:Honestly nordstrom, you appear to have a negative predisposition to "conservative ideology." That and Ryan would most likely try to ban you if you did "switch."
I will address the issue, but only in the area I am most familiar with: macroeconomics. Speaking generally of course, conservatives favor less government intervention in the business cycle. Conservatives support the idea that businesses drive the economy, not the government and employees. For example, profitable businesses need more employees to expand production and fulfill customer demands, thus causing a growth in the economy. One ways businesses become more profitable is by reducing their taxable income. Hence the often criticized "business welfare" and lower taxes supported by Republican administrations.
Liberal philosophy, on the other hand, tends to support a higher tax rate on businesses (and usually individuals as well) to fuel government-run social programs. While social programs sound great to the end user, they have to be paid for. Unfortunately, the majority of the people who pay for these programs see little or none of the services. The higher taxes only lower business profits, and can in turn restrict economic growth. Raising minimum wage requirements have the same effect. In turn, businesses are forced to raise prices to meet profit levels, hence inflation. This inflation causes a devaluation of the dollar, which hurts both the common man and businesses alike.
This is quite a clever argument, but since you're comparing apples to oranges it's also completely nonsensical.
Let's take a closer look. On the one hand, you're looking at how great it is that conservative philosophy encourages growth in GDP by offering corporate tax cuts and welfare. This is simply classic trickle-down theory; that whatever benefits the corporation benefits the economy.
Then, rather than providing the countering liberal viewpoint on GDP growth you offer an explanation of how liberals screw corporations to support social programs.
For the record, liberals favor the consumer rather than the corporation, believing that tax cuts and welfare targeted at the consumer provide a bigger boost to GDP than the supply-side economics favored by conservatives.
Similar threads
