| Author |
Message |
    
Blake
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 30, 2010 - 12:10 pm: | 
|
>>> Ellen grabbing her boobs kinda sums up a very large portion of the American public in a way that words never could.
I need to fund the exhibit of it in order to document popular culture? I think the archives of all the popular media do that just fine and all on their own without any gov't intervention required. |
Blake
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 30, 2010 - 12:12 pm: |
|
As I said above, I'm not against funding of exhibits of what I deem offensive "art"; I oppose the federal funding of ANY so-called "art." If it is worthy, people will fund it on their own. Otherwise, let it perish in the cesspool where it belongs. |
Sayitaintso
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 30, 2010 - 12:43 pm: |
|
How many P-51 mustangs (if any) should be saved and preserved by the government? How about the paintings of Norman Rockwell, Georgia O'Keefe?
Yes the feds and local gov'ts are stealing from us everyday and in more ways than we can easily keep track of. And you're right, 1/2 of a TRILLION dollars is a huge investment in retaining and maintaining the history (even if our definitions are different) of the US. You're also right in that not everything needs to be "saved" for the future and thats why I made the earlier comment about dealing with issues individually and not just get rid of the whole thing. I grew up going to the Smithsonian museums (Natural History, Air and Space, Art, and so on) so maybe my veiw is biased here, but to me none of them is any more important than any other. And all of them are more important than maintaining a diplomatic presence in every single piss ant country in the world, or giving away mineral rights to federal lands for fractions of cents on the dollar, or even keeping as much federal land as we do, feeling up passengers before boarding planes, fighting a losing "drug war", and on and on.
In any large organization we can point out things that are stupid and wasteful. |
Sayitaintso
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 30, 2010 - 12:49 pm: |
|
If you want to go after something, go after the National Endowment for the Arts. I'll be right beside you, if not in front of you leading the charge.
IMO, save whats important, dont pay to make things you hope will be important.
(Message edited by sayitaintso on November 30, 2010) |
Hootowl
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 30, 2010 - 12:55 pm: |
|
I hear the Air and Space museum is full of stuff. I guess I expected it be a bit more, I don't know, open.
 |
Blake
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 30, 2010 - 02:29 pm: |
|
A'men on killing off the NEA. Add the NEH to the list too.
P51 Mustangs? Actual war equipment is indeed part of serious, cold, hard, factual history. It's not being shown as "art"--though I personally do indeed view it as such, surely more so than much of other so-called "art"--it's being shown as a record of cold hard and significant history, like old pottery and dinosaur bones. Do they have Monica's dress on display. That would qualify as history too.
Is there a serious need for gov't to procure or pay for exhibits of Rockwell, or O'Keefe type Americana artistry? Plenty of paying customers or other non-fed funded museums will do so. Plenty of library books show lots of "art" like that and other.
It's just not the mandate of the fed gov't to fund art shows is all. Why not protest it? I protest all overstepping of the constitutional powers granted the federal gov't. I think we've seen how the Progressives work progressively mutating government largess beyond constitutional mandates until it is unrecognizable from its original/intended form. Death by a thousand cuts.
So let's stop forgiving any of their meager lacerations against our constitution and put an end to that kind of evil, deceitful guile once and for all, or at least for now. ![: ]](http://www.badweatherbikers.com/buell/clipart/proud.gif)
(Message edited by blake on November 30, 2010) |
Sayitaintso
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 30, 2010 - 02:46 pm: |
|
I'm not ready to get into a Constitutional debate but without a doubt this country would not be what it was if we limited ourselves to the letter of the Constitution. There would have been no Lousianna Purchase, no purchase of Alaska, and many other things that we have accepted and cherish as a nation, like the National Parks and Federal Highway System, and control of the various radio frequencies (can you imagine if there was no overall control of that?).
I dont know what the "right answer" is but I do know that I am not at all happy with the current state of affairs. |
Ourdee
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 30, 2010 - 02:48 pm: |
|
How many P-51 mustangs (if any) should be saved and preserved by the government?
Only as many as deemed necessary to supply parts for the ones we are using in defense of the USA. Uh, I'll do the math for you, none. |
Blake
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 01, 2010 - 12:34 pm: |
|
>>> without a doubt this country would not be what it was if we limited ourselves to the letter of the Constitution
Don't confuse violations of the constitution with intentional subversion of the constitution. Violations by one branch of gov't found abhorrent by the other are handled according to law in the courts; recall the Bush 43 Military Tribunal issue for instance. Subversions of the constitution employ corrupt judiciaries to legislate from the bench and outrightly defy written law.
I'd not agree on all the constitutional "violations" you mention. We must recognize that a failure of congress to contest an executive mandate plus their willingness to fund said mandate amounts to nothing less than tacit approval, thus in the end, no violation of the constitution, at least not wrt an overstepping of executive authority.
I agree that the national parks ought to be turned over to the state(s) in which they are located. |
Buellbozo
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 01, 2010 - 01:42 pm: |
|
Hey, I know...Let's just turn the states over to the states they're located in. That oughta work out great, huh?
Seems to me that turning the National Parks over to the states sure sounds like one of those "unfunded mandates" some folks get upset about.
'course if they could forest, drill, strip mine, and have lot's of room for more prisons, so much the better, right?
Would someone smarter than I please show us the numbers...% of this year's budget that goes to just National Parks? Not the whole thughead Dept of the Interior, just the NP.
I really would like to know. Betcha it's less than the earmark new speaker Boehner got for GE in Cincinnati for extra F22 engines the AF does'nt even want.
Waffle House coffee, as always. |
Ft_bstrd
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 01, 2010 - 02:23 pm: |
|
NPS gets $3.1B in the 2010 budget.
Source
The top 10% pay 75% of the taxes. This means that of the $3.1B, the top 10% pay $2.325B proportionately.
This means that the 14M taxpayers in the top 10% pay $166 each (whether or not they actually visit any of these parks) just to keep them open.
Total budget for the Department of the Interior is $18B. NPS gets 1/6th of the total budget.
The issue is that there was never an intent for the Federal Government to seize large swaths of land WITHIN STATES and secure it from state use. There is no provision.
If this is permissible, the furthest iteration is for the Federal Government to seize enough land that the states are rendered irrelevant completely.
What is a state if the majority of the lands within it are governed directly by the Federal Government? |
Sayitaintso
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 01, 2010 - 02:45 pm: |
|
Gregory, I'd bet that number you're looking for isn't even known (accurately) to the folks at the Department of the Interior, too much much in "in-kind" grants and services provided by other governmental depts and private entities for the NPS to keep track of.
But the '09 budget for the NPS was 2.9 billion or there about (per wiki).
Blake, to me the NPS is another one of those things that the Feds seem to do a good job with. (Whether there should be a NPS or not is a different debate). |
Ft_bstrd
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 01, 2010 - 02:54 pm: |
|
The Federal Government owns 80% of Nevada and 63% of Utah.
At what point does a state cease to be a state?
Old data from 2004:
When the Federal Government "owns" the land, IT gets to decide who works it and how not the state or the citizens of the state.
This was NEVER the intent of the Constitution. |
Sayitaintso
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 01, 2010 - 03:34 pm: |
|
Fatty, I dont disagree with you but My understanding is that Gettysburg Battlefield this is where the whole thing started. At least according to the NPS. I assume things just grew from there. Background: A company was trying to build build a railway throughout the Gettysburg battlefield and in order to protect the battlefield from development the federal govt took the land through eminent domain....which ended up a case before the Supreme Court....... From (buried deep within) the NPS website
http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/hi story_military/nmpidea5a.htm
On January 27, 1896, Justice Rufus Wheeler Peckham of the United States Supreme Court handed down the court's unanimous decision. His language was eloquent and reflects the spirit of the time:
The end to be attained, by this proposed use, as provided for by the act of Congress, is legitimate, and lies within the scope of the constitution. The battle of Gettysburg was one of the great battles of the world. The numbers contained in the opposing armies were great; the sacrifices of life was dreadful; while the bravery, and, indeed, heroism displayed by both contending forces, rank with the highest exhibition of these qualities ever made by man. The importance of the issue involved in the contest of which this great battle was a part cannot be overestimated. The existence of the government itself, and the perpetuity of our institutions depended upon the result... .Can it be that the government is without power to preserve the land, and properly mark out the various sites upon which this struggle took place? Can it not erect the monuments provided for by these acts of Congress, or even take possession of the field of battle, in the name and for the benefit of all the citizens of the country, for the present and for the future? Such a use seems necessarily not only a public use, but one so closely connected with the welfare of the republic itself as to be within the powers granted Congress by the constitution for the purpose of protecting and preserving the whole country. [22]
By this resounding decision, the Supreme Court affirmed the constitutionality of acquiring private property by right of eminent domain for Gettysburg National Park and established the principle that the preservation of nationally important historic sites and buildings is a legitimate purpose of the Government of the United States. |
Ft_bstrd
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 01, 2010 - 03:51 pm: |
|
The SCOTUS allowed the Federal Government to overstep its bounds IF when the Federal Government exercises Eminent Domain that the actions interferes with the State in the performance of its governmental functions.
How can a State fully perform its governmental functions as a State Government when the majority of the land contained within its borders is under the direct control of the Federal Government?
Getysburg was merely the "nose under the tent".
Does a State have the right to control the commerce that occurs WITHIN its borders? Is that control a power granted to that State and protected under the 10th Amendment from encroachment by the Federal Government?
Law based upon bad precedent is bad law.
The Federal Government Currently controls 650M acres. The United States has 2.3B acres.
The Federal Government currently holds 28% of the land mass of the United States.
It is TOO MUCH. IT WAS NEVER THE INTENT OF THE CONSTITUTION FOR THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO HAVE THIS MUCH OWNERSHIP OF LAND! |
Sayitaintso
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 01, 2010 - 04:06 pm: |
|
Many of the things the Fed Gov't has done and continues to do was never the intent of the Constitution or it framers. Some of it good, some bad. The hard part is separating the good from the bad, and who get to decide. A good start is to scrap all previous case law regarding the Commerce clause and Necessary and Proper clause, and start over.
I'd hate to have to give back the Louisiana Purchase to France b/c it was acquired unconstitutionally. |
Scooter808484
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 01, 2010 - 04:09 pm: |
|
When one of the drafter's/ signer's of the Constitution bought all of the land West of the Mississippi River, how much land mass did the Feds own then? |
Ft_bstrd
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 01, 2010 - 04:13 pm: |
|
The issue is HOW the Federal Government has been allowed to exceed its limited powers.
The system is broken.
Those who have worked at breaking it for the last 100+ years are in power. "Radical Transformation" is the death of the Constitution as we know it.
"Hope and Change" is not what was advertised.
I "hope" there is time to "change" our course before it is too late.
When the Bread and Circus have run their course, America will see dark days indeed. |
Sayitaintso
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 01, 2010 - 04:28 pm: |
|
Its happened b/c we turn a blind eye to a "violation" when
it is for a good reason. The problem is that the "exception"
is then used as a precedent for other reasons that are not so good.
Its gotten so far out of hand I cant see a reversal through
normal means. Nobody wants to lose what they have or give up
their seat on the "gravy train".
Like others have said, the machine is broken. I've not yet
heard anything that makes sense for fixing it either.....
including the 2nd amendment |
Ft_bstrd
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 01, 2010 - 04:47 pm: |
|
Oh, it'll fix itself one way or another.
All methods of correction are going to be painful. |
Buellbozo
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 01, 2010 - 06:57 pm: |
|
OK, NPS got 3.1 billion in 2010.
1.) What percentage of the total budget does that come to?
2.) How much is the GE F22 Raptor engine (That the AF doesn't want) contract for? And what percent of the total budget?
I don't know these answers, and would like to be told.
The NPS is enjoyed by a huge number of citizens for a huge number of reasons and pursuits.
The F22 GE engine contract is enjoyed by some citizens of a congressional district in SW Ohio.
If only one or the other had to be cut, which would be the proper choice?
I'm a retired IAM member, but I say keep the parks.
And like I said before, getting a National park dumped in your lap and being told to look after it sounds like a hell of an unfunded mandate to me. |
Slaughter
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 01, 2010 - 07:00 pm: |
|
William F. Buckley had a good suggestion - that if Government Funded art was such a good thing, make participation in and a visit to an exhibit PART of renewing your drivers license. You have to have so many "punches" before you're allowed to renew. |
Scooter808484
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 01, 2010 - 08:18 pm: |
|
Far and away against my better judgment I'm going to jump in here...
All of the things I've seen bandied about, NEA, NPS, etc, etc, don't amount to an ant on an elephant's arse in the total federal budget. What does.... Pentagon budget, Social Security, Medicare.
You want to balance the budget without touching those? Good Luck!!
You want to stay elected, no matter which party you're from, and do anything to reduce those, especially the last two? Even better luck.
So I say, for the 0.00002% of the budget to keep Yosemite from being strip mined and clearcut... those are tax dollars I consider well spent. |
Blake
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 01, 2010 - 08:51 pm: |
|
Cost is irrelevant to the issue is of legality. The point is NOT that we're proposing to save money or balance the budget. The point is that the aforementioned federal services/departments/endowments are unconstitutional. They represent authority assumed by the federal not granted it and thus left to the states.
Any national park that cannot support itself financially doesn't warrant park status.
A number of the national parks generate serious revenue. You don't think that the states containing the most popular parks would welcome taking over ownership? Really? Think. |
Ft_bstrd
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 01, 2010 - 09:30 pm: |
|
Considering that defense spending is one of the 18 enumerated powers, I'd say cut NPS over defense.
That said, 40% of the defense budget could be slashed by cutting internal bureaucracies.
The Pentagon isn't any different than any other government agency. If you don't spend all your budget this year, you don't get it plus increase next year. The system doesn't reward efficiency.
The ENTIRE budget MUST be returned to Zero Based format.
Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid must ALL be slashed.
It's stupid to say "Look how big the budget is compared to (fill in the blank). Let's not cut anything".
The FIRST area is to starve out the waste by reviewing every dollar spent in EVERY program. SECOND area is to pull the heads of legislators out of the trough by eliminating earmarks through the line item veto. THIRD area is to cut funding to EVERYTHING not specifically provided for under Article 1, Section 8 and return these programs to the states. If it's important, pass a Constitutional Amendment under Article 5. Going forward ANY program not specifically provided for under Article 1, Section 8 MUST be created under the Amendment process.
For Social Security, index the retirement age to life expectancy. Benefits are paid for the 10 or 15 years prior to life expectancy (Current LE is 82, eligible for benefits to start between 67 and 72. Below a certain age, THERE WILL BE NO SS BENEFITS. In return, you'll get half of what you would have paid into SS as a retirement savings contribution into specified private accounts. The long term goal is to abolish Social Security. If it's such a great program, make it voluntary. If I took the money I pay into social security and put it into a hole in the back yard, not only would it be more secure than it is currently, but I'd have more benefit than Social Security provides.
Medicare cuts will come in two areas. First, medical malpractice legislation WILL be passed removing the need and practice of defensive medicine. Estimates are that between savings in malpractice insurance and reduced medical costs will cut between 20% and 30% from medicare. Second, move the threshold for benefits upward with the gap to be provided by individual coverage purchased on the open market (like medicare part B). The ultimate goal for Medicare is to eliminate it all together. If any part is to be retained, it should be as a final backstop for medical care after all others have failed not the healthcare plan for everyone over age 65.
For unemployment/welfare/medicaid, stricter entry requirements. As an example, if you smoke, your out. If you drink, your out. If your BMI is outside of a healthy range, your out. There is a maximum duration you can claim benefits (2 years). After that time you must go off the benefits for at least 2 years before you can file again or at least demonstrate progress toward being able to leave government assistance (During 2 years on assistance you completed GED and are working toward trade education or a degree you can get an extension.
This is going to be ugly, hard, and painful. There WILL be "broken promises".
As a side note, elimination of the tax system and installation of either flat tax or national sales tax. The bottom 50% need to pay "their fair share". There MUST be the elimination of the "recipient class". |
Aesquire
| | Posted on Thursday, December 02, 2010 - 07:18 am: |
|
Defense spending is huge & the buying stuff process massive and slow. There have been abuses in the past, so that's one reason, but we haven't been able to buy a fighter plane without spending 20 years to get a dozen, because of the over ( badly ) regulated system. We could save billions with a more rational system, and get better gear to our troops. But a more rational system doesn't let senators make massive bribes. So that settles that.
Besides, Defense is not only one of the things they are actually supposed to be doing, it's mot the majority of the budget.
Parks? minute fraction. Remember when we had a space program? Paid for itself dozens of times over with new tech, GPS, etc? just a few dollars a year, each.
Now, we have to rent spaceflight from our betters, to get to the Space station we paid for.
The majority of the budget is robbing Peter to pay Paul. Paul thinks it's great. Even worse, I'd bet you, despite any claims by Congress, most of the money stolen from Peter never gets to Paul. It goes to buy buildings, supplies, and pay the people who's job it is to rob Peter....advertise to Paul to come and get what was stolen, and, MOST important, make Paul jump through hoops, then deny Paul the money, since, most of it was spent on the bureaucracy.
So, as with the Pelosi/Obama nationalization of healthcare, the MOST important part is the "death boards" that will decide to deny you health care, since the money, taken from you, was already spent on the system to take & spend your money. There's just not enough left to pay to heal you. ( ask Paul Krugman about the Death Boards. He called Palin insane to think they exist...now he believes "obama's death panels" are the only hope for our economy. Needless to say I don't always agree with that Nobel Prize winning economist. )
NPR is simply the propaganda arm of the left. The leaders believe that Stalin would have succeeded, if only he was as smart as they were. ( and are at least as arrogant about you hicks in flyover country...you know, the bitter clingers )
That said I like some of the shows. I also like "Ninja Warrior", so my taste is suspect. |
Scooter808484
| | Posted on Thursday, December 02, 2010 - 03:13 pm: |
|
Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid must ALL be slashed.
I don't necessarily disagree with everything you say, but....it can't happen. The mere mention of anything like this is instant political suicide. In order to enact anything, you've got to get elected.
Bush tried to get SocialSecurity away from the hand to mouth system that it is now, so that at least part of it makes use of time value of money, but he got shellaced over it.
The bad guys in the case of entitlements are not the homeless, the poor, etc. the bad guys are our parents, and sooner than I'd like to admit, me.
At some point we all have get past this slash and burn, all or nothing, just say no, BS and get together and compromise on what we can agree is the right direction for the GOOD of the US, not the good of the Tea Party, or the good of the Republicans, or the good of the Democrats. |
Scooter808484
| | Posted on Thursday, December 02, 2010 - 03:22 pm: |
|
...and while we're talking about the Feds "seizing" land, the vast majority of that public land above was purchased, quite unconstitutionally, some might say, by the US government under the direction of Thomas Jefferson. So basically it was theirs when the state was created.
I always love the irony that TJ, the poster child for small limited federal government, made what was the most sweeping change to the nation, and had absolutely no basis for it in the Constitution. |
Sayitaintso
| | Posted on Thursday, December 02, 2010 - 03:55 pm: |
|
Scooter, the real kicker is that TJ knew it when he did it, if you read some of the letters he wrote at the time, it really shows the moral dilemma he struggled with.
http://wps.ablongman.com/wps/media/objects/1481/15 17560/primarysources6_8_1.html |
Scooter808484
| | Posted on Thursday, December 02, 2010 - 04:09 pm: |
|
Yeah, I've read a few biographies about him... seems as though he had a unique ability to separate the abstract concepts from the pragmatic day to day reality. Another example would have been all of writings on Freedom, while, of course, being a holder of several slaves. |
Scooter808484
| | Posted on Thursday, December 02, 2010 - 04:12 pm: |
|
Unfortunately, few, if any of our present day leaders seems to share this talent. |
|
