Still Hating America.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
I went to a restaurant in Toronto recently where, if you sit at the bar, they serve you one of those big french-fry cones, but filled with strips of bacon.

Canadian or real?

[Adder]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
It's the rest of the programs, aimed at social engineering, as opposed to safety nets, that are the problem.

Which, pray tell, are these?

[Adder]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Oh, I think it should be abolished.

If you have something useful to say, say it. If you want to try snarky, get a different personality. You're bad at it.

Just testing the limits of your rant. I am not fan of subsidies either, but I am not sure getting rid of the safety net that prevent banking panics falls into my definition of subsidy. But it is good to konw that you are sticking to your pure libertarian guns today. It makes it all the easy to ignore you as a crazy person.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
What is "social engineering"?

That's any policy proposed by Democrats.

Social engineering is tomorrow's "Partisan".

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Adder
how do you feel about the FDIC?

What business has it bailed out, though?

As crappy has mandatory government insurance is, it's better that people pay for it in advance than get it for free later. (see National Flood Insurance Program)

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Adder
Which, pray tell, are these?

Abstinence only sex education. You know, Democratic issues.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
What is "social engineering"? Public education? Public transportation? The military? Courts? Law enforcement?

You've already taken welfare out of the equation, so it's not clear what's getting your goat today.

I paid a hell of a lot of taxes last year. My kid goes to private school. I drive to work. And yet, I feel I benefit from what the government does a lot more -- in both absolute and proportionate terms -- than someone making $40k. There are countries without much public education, roads, etc. etc. I don't think it's as easy in those countries to break into the higher income ranks as it is here.

The notion of "progressive"taxation is itself a social engineering policy. There's no equal apportionment of the burden there. It's manuevered to effect someone's desired result in the way of wealth allocation/redistribution. Not surprisingly, it does the opposite.

Every policy save basic safety nets is a policy too many. My state seems to have an amazing rate of people on full SS disability. They seem pretty healthy to me, but they get checks from Uncle Sam for some unknown malady. My favorite is of course the govt workers' pensions and Maybach health plans. You do know some of them get full pensions and those comprehensive plans on your and my dime after a mere 25-30 years of work. Nice. I know some folks enjoying a damn solid early retirement. They tell me they deserve those sweet bennies because working among Fed Govt employees for so long qualifies them for that and then some... I don't know if they're right, but it looks like a pretty good gig on the balance whether you're working with the challenged or Einsteins.

Re the comparison to other countries, I don't think that's the proper view of these things. I think the proper view of these things is to chuck the "Let the State Handle It" view that'll trend us toward the economic mess Europe's become and follow a more Libertarian, and yes - very cold and unapologetically cutthroat - societal exemplar. We're fattened and falling behind. Is the answer to find new ways to keep us all fat or is it to let the pain create a more competitive society?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Question: If the FBI can enter a congressional office to execute a search warrant, why can't the House Sargeant of Arms enter the White House to seize computer hard drives to execute a valid subpoena?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
The notion of "progressive"taxation is itself a social engineering policy. There's no equal apportionment of the burden there. It's manuevered to effect someone's desired result in the way of wealth allocation/redistribution. Not surprisingly, it does the opposite.

Have you ever once complained about government action that redistributes from the poor to the rich, or do you only get exercised when things work in the other direction?

If the former, please link to the posts. TIA.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Have you ever once complained about government action that redistributes from the poor to the rich, or do you only get exercised when things work in the other direction?

If the former, please link to the posts. TIA.

Please cite me a govt policy that redistributes money from the pockets of the poor to the pockets of the rich. Actual dollars. No Rube Goldberg analysis.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Question: If the FBI can enter a congressional office to execute a search warrant, why can't the House Sargeant of Arms enter the White House to seize computer hard drives to execute a valid subpoena?

Great Hypo!!! In answering are we to assume the House Sargeant of Arms is bullet proof?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Please cite me a govt policy that redistributes money from the pockets of the poor to the pockets of the rich. Actual dollars. No Rube Goldberg analysis.

Are you kidding me? You can't think of government policies that benefit those more wealthy than the average taxpayer? You're not thinking very hard.

But thank you for answering the question indirectly.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Great Hypo!!! In answering are we to assume the House Sargeant of Arms is bullet proof?

You can assume that he'll call the Secret Service first to tell them he's coming, and that they will respect the law.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Question: If the FBI can enter a congressional office to execute a search warrant, why can't the House Sargeant of Arms enter the White House to seize computer hard drives to execute a valid subpoena?

The FBI has law enforcement authority; the Congress does not.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
The FBI has law enforcement authority; the Congress does not.

Does not the Sargeant at Arms get to enforce Congressional subpoenas?

eta: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bi...=273&invol=135