Re: $290 billion down the government money hole
On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 10:42 PM, Dave Land [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Honestly, I should have known better. LOL! By the way, I noticed that some of your posts do not begin with honestly. Is that a clue? ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: $290 billion down the government money hole
On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 8:29 PM, Ronn! Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Do you think there should be any minimum legal age for people to make that decision and take those actions, as frex there is with alcohol or tobacco? Those minimum ages always struck me as rather arbitrary. I'd think that if there were licensing, there could be some sort of test (and possibly parental consent for minors to get a license) which seems less arbitrary than an age restriction. But I don't have a strong opinion on it. It would be interesting to see what rules states and counties would make if the experiments I mentioned before were tried. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: $290 billion down the government money hole
On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 11:02 PM, Charlie Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As I have pointed out, the only substantive difference between viewpoints on this List is the degree to which we view goverment control as acceptable. Which is a euphemism for whether it is right to force one's will on others, and in what cases the ends justify the means. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: $290 billion down the government money hole
At 08:22 AM Saturday 11/15/2008, John Williams wrote: On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 10:42 PM, Dave Land [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Honestly, I should have known better. LOL! By the way, I noticed that some of your posts do not begin with honestly. Is that a clue? Honestly? . . . ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: $290 billion down the government money hole
At 08:27 AM Saturday 11/15/2008, John Williams wrote: On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 8:29 PM, Ronn! Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Do you think there should be any minimum legal age for people to make that decision and take those actions, as frex there is with alcohol or tobacco? Those minimum ages always struck me as rather arbitrary. I'd think that if there were licensing, there could be some sort of test (and possibly parental consent for minors to get a license) which seems less arbitrary than an age restriction. But I don't have a strong opinion on it. It would be interesting to see what rules states and counties would make if the experiments I mentioned before were tried. Okay, let's approach it from the other end: Is there any age or group of people by age that you think would be too young to self-administer hard drugs for recreational purposes? . . . ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: $290 billion down the government money hole
On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 9:15 AM, Ronn! Blankenship Okay, let's approach it from the other end: Is there any age or group of people by age that you think would be too young to self-administer hard drugs for recreational purposes? My kids, as long as I judge them unable to decide for themselves (and they are living under my roof). The restnot under my jurisdiction. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: $290 billion down the government money hole
Jphn W. wrote: I think that heroin addicts should use drugs responsibly. I think anybody does. Let's give the addicts a plentiful suppy of heroin and hope they behave! Now that's a good idea! At once we have heroin addicts that aren't going to be stealing stuff to get their fix and we cut off the dealers and their whole underworld. Lets do it. Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: $290 billion down the government money hole
I mean John W. wrote, sorry. On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 6:08 PM, Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jphn W. wrote: I think that heroin addicts should use drugs responsibly. I think anybody does. Let's give the addicts a plentiful suppy of heroin and hope they behave! Now that's a good idea! At once we have heroin addicts that aren't going to be stealing stuff to get their fix and we cut off the dealers and their whole underworld. Lets do it. Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
$290 billion down the government money hole
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/12/AR2008111202846_pf.html It's a mess, said Eric M. Thorson, the Treasury Department's inspector general, who has been working to oversee the bailout program until the newly created position of special inspector general is filled. I don't think anyone understands right now how we're going to do proper oversight of this thing. In approving the rescue package, lawmakers trumpeted provisions in the legislation that established layers of independent scrutiny, including a special inspector general to be nominated by the White House and a congressional oversight panel to be named by lawmakers themselves. Some lawmakers and their aides fear that political squabbling on Capitol Hill and bureaucratic logjams could delay their work for months. Meanwhile, the Congressional Budget Office, which also has some oversight responsibilities, is worried about the difficulty of hiring people who can understand the intensely complicated financial work involved. Considering how taxpayers' money around Washington isn't respected, a day shouldn't go by without having an inspector general checking on it, said Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa), the ranking member on the Finance Committee. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: $290 billion down the government money hole
On Nov 14, 2008, at 8:26 AM, John Williams wrote: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/12/AR2008111202846_pf.html Considering how taxpayers' money around Washington isn't respected, a day shouldn't go by without having an inspector general checking on it, said Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa), the ranking member on the Finance Committee. I'm in agreement with Sen. Grassley and the underlying idea that our money must be spent responsibly. I think anybody would be. Behind this and other posts on this topic is a lurking pair of straw-man twins: (first) everyone except the poster (whoever it may be) is complicit in the fact that (second) every act of government spending is always and inherently wasteful. I don't want to start a proof-text war here: let's not begin Googling for every possible example of fiscal profligacy and responsibility and mail-bombing Brin-L with it. I just want us to be aware that these two straw-man twins are out there and they are just straw-men. Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: $290 billion down the government money hole
On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 10:56 AM, Dave Land [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Nov 14, 2008, at 8:26 AM, John Williams wrote: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/12/AR2008111202846_pf.html Considering how taxpayers' money around Washington isn't respected, a day shouldn't go by without having an inspector general checking on it, said Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa), the ranking member on the Finance Committee. I'm in agreement with Sen. Grassley and the underlying idea that our money must be spent responsibly. I think anybody would be. I think that heroin addicts should use drugs responsibly. I think anybody does. Let's give the addicts a plentiful suppy of heroin and hope they behave! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: $290 billion down the government money hole
John Williams wrote: I think that heroin addicts should use drugs responsibly. I think anybody does. Let's give the addicts a plentiful suppy of heroin and hope they behave! I don't like to feed the trolls, but this time I think you crossed the line. Comparing government expending with heroin addicts consuming heroin is disproportional, abject and disrespectul. The heroin addicts deserve a little respect! Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: $290 billion down the government money hole
On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 11:05 AM, John Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: I think that heroin addicts should use drugs responsibly. I think anybody does. Let's give the addicts a plentiful suppy of heroin and hope they behave! Many people would agree with this, even though I suspect you meant it to be sarcasm. I have a friend who is a municipal court who definitely would agree, after seeing the time and expense that arises from the criminalization of drugs. He, like many, expects that de-criminalization would bring prices down, eliminate a great deal of related crime and empty our prisons considerably, saving government huge amounts of money. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: $290 billion down the government money hole
On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 6:30 PM, Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think that heroin addicts should use drugs responsibly. I think anybody does. Let's give the addicts a plentiful suppy of heroin and hope they behave! Many people would agree with this, even though I suspect you meant it to be sarcasm. I have a friend who is a municipal court who definitely would agree, after seeing the time and expense that arises from the criminalization of drugs. He, like many, expects that de-criminalization would bring prices down, eliminate a great deal of related crime and empty our prisons considerably, saving government huge amounts of money. Actually, I am opposed to laws that deny people from putting any substance they want into their body (or buying or selling substances). I was sarcastic about the GIVE them heroin part. Beyond issues of personal liberty (which are enough in themselves), I agree with your friend that other benefits would probably accrue. My only concern would be the extent to which people drugged out of their right minds might endanger others. That would be one of the rare cases where I think government interference may be warranted, probably some sort of licensing to buy or consume certain substances...although I wouldn't be opposed to no licensing either. It would be interesting to see it left up to states or even municipalities. Let them all try their own methods and people can choose where they want to live. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: $290 billion down the government money hole
At 09:05 PM Friday 11/14/2008, John Williams wrote: On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 6:30 PM, Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think that heroin addicts should use drugs responsibly. I think anybody does. Let's give the addicts a plentiful suppy of heroin and hope they behave! Many people would agree with this, even though I suspect you meant it to be sarcasm. I have a friend who is a municipal court who definitely would agree, after seeing the time and expense that arises from the criminalization of drugs. He, like many, expects that de-criminalization would bring prices down, eliminate a great deal of related crime and empty our prisons considerably, saving government huge amounts of money. Actually, I am opposed to laws that deny people from putting any substance they want into their body (or buying or selling substances). I was sarcastic about the GIVE them heroin part. Beyond issues of personal liberty (which are enough in themselves), I agree with your friend that other benefits would probably accrue. My only concern would be the extent to which people drugged out of their right minds might endanger others. That would be one of the rare cases where I think government interference may be warranted, probably some sort of licensing to buy or consume certain substances...although I wouldn't be opposed to no licensing either. It would be interesting to see it left up to states or even municipalities. Let them all try their own methods and people can choose where they want to live. Do you think there should be any minimum legal age for people to make that decision and take those actions, as frex there is with alcohol or tobacco? . . . ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: $290 billion down the government money hole
On Nov 14, 2008, at 11:05 AM, John Williams wrote: On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 10:56 AM, Dave Land [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Nov 14, 2008, at 8:26 AM, John Williams wrote: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/12/AR2008111202846_pf.html Considering how taxpayers' money around Washington isn't respected, a day shouldn't go by without having an inspector general checking on it, said Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa), the ranking member on the Finance Committee. I'm in agreement with Sen. Grassley and the underlying idea that our money must be spent responsibly. I think anybody would be. I think that heroin addicts should use drugs responsibly. I think anybody does. Let's give the addicts a plentiful suppy of heroin and hope they behave! Honestly, I should have known better. You steadfastly refuse to address the substance of any post. I had hoped that someone would address the substance of my post, instead of taking pot-shots at one little comment. I hoped in vain, as it turns out. It's really sad how low you've brought the level of discourse here. You'll be tempted to tell me to leave if I don't like it, but I've waited out trolls before in my four or so years on the list, I can wait you out, too. You'll lose interest, eventually. Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: $290 billion down the government money hole
On 15/11/2008, at 5:56 AM, Dave Land wrote: On Nov 14, 2008, at 8:26 AM, John Williams wrote: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/12/AR2008111202846_pf.html Considering how taxpayers' money around Washington isn't respected, a day shouldn't go by without having an inspector general checking on it, said Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa), the ranking member on the Finance Committee. I'm in agreement with Sen. Grassley and the underlying idea that our money must be spent responsibly. I think anybody would be. Absolutely, and this is where the checks and balances in the US Constitution were so revolutionary (as was the Magna Carta before it, in its day). Accountability is the most important thing in governance in my view, whether it be a national government or a local authority, a multinational corporation or mom-and-pop-shop, an international charity or a locolly run charitable trust. I don't want to start a proof-text war here: let's not begin Googling for every possible example of fiscal profligacy and responsibility and mail-bombing Brin-L with it. I just want us to be aware that these two straw-man twins are out there and they are just straw-men. Indeed. As I have pointed out, the only substantive difference between viewpoints on this List is the degree to which we view goverment control as acceptable. It's not an all or nothing. Some of us regard government responsibility for public services as essential, some do not. But it's only a difference in where we draw the line of how-much- is-too-much. Personally I think utilities and transport should be publically owned but run as private concerns - IOW the taxpayers are the shareholders, but the responsibility is down to an appointed board, as with any other big company... It works for, for example, Australia Post. Charlie. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
