[cherdanno]

luke warm, on Oct 14 2009, 11:51 AM, said:

jjbrr, on Oct 14 2009, 09:28 AM, said:

mike777, on Oct 14 2009, 02:31 AM, said:

In america...everyone for helping the starving poor

what? was this sarcasm?

mike can speak for himself, but i think he was serious... i don't know anybody who is *not* for helping the starving poor (or young, or old, or anyone else)

You mean, as long as it doesn't cost money? Or are you in favor of raising taxes?

[jjbrr]

We're all for feeding the hungry poor except when it comes to actually doing something that costs us time or money!

[Lobowolf]

cherdanno, on Oct 14 2009, 12:24 PM, said:

luke warm, on Oct 14 2009, 11:51 AM, said:

jjbrr, on Oct 14 2009, 09:28 AM, said:

mike777, on Oct 14 2009, 02:31 AM, said:

In america...everyone for helping the starving poor

what? was this sarcasm?

mike can speak for himself, but i think he was serious... i don't know anybody who is *not* for helping the starving poor (or young, or old, or anyone else)

You mean, as long as it doesn't cost money? Or are you in favor of raising taxes?

I hear tell that some folks give money directly to organizations that help the starving poor, without the government's involvement at all.

[jjbrr]

Lobowolf, on Oct 14 2009, 01:50 PM, said:

cherdanno, on Oct 14 2009, 12:24 PM, said:

luke warm, on Oct 14 2009, 11:51 AM, said:

jjbrr, on Oct 14 2009, 09:28 AM, said:

mike777, on Oct 14 2009, 02:31 AM, said:

In america...everyone for helping the starving poor

what? was this sarcasm?

mike can speak for himself, but i think he was serious... i don't know anybody who is *not* for helping the starving poor (or young, or old, or anyone else)

You mean, as long as it doesn't cost money? Or are you in favor of raising taxes?

I hear tell that some folks give money directly to organizations that help the starving poor, without the government's involvement at all.

good point? now please include the rest of the people to make up the "everyone" that was in the original quote. what do they do?

[jdonn]

Lobowolf, on Oct 14 2009, 01:50 PM, said:

cherdanno, on Oct 14 2009, 12:24 PM, said:

luke warm, on Oct 14 2009, 11:51 AM, said:

jjbrr, on Oct 14 2009, 09:28 AM, said:

mike777, on Oct 14 2009, 02:31 AM, said:

In america...everyone for helping the starving poor

what? was this sarcasm?

mike can speak for himself, but i think he was serious... i don't know anybody who is *not* for helping the starving poor (or young, or old, or anyone else)

You mean, as long as it doesn't cost money? Or are you in favor of raising taxes?

I hear tell that some folks give money directly to organizations that help the starving poor, without the government's involvement at all.

And yet there are still lots of starving and poor around. I guess if a problem is more than 0% solved the government should stay out of it?

[Lobowolf]

jdonn, on Oct 14 2009, 02:38 PM, said:

Lobowolf, on Oct 14 2009, 01:50 PM, said:

cherdanno, on Oct 14 2009, 12:24 PM, said:

luke warm, on Oct 14 2009, 11:51 AM, said:

jjbrr, on Oct 14 2009, 09:28 AM, said:

mike777, on Oct 14 2009, 02:31 AM, said:

In america...everyone for helping the starving poor

what? was this sarcasm?

mike can speak for himself, but i think he was serious... i don't know anybody who is *not* for helping the starving poor (or young, or old, or anyone else)

You mean, as long as it doesn't cost money? Or are you in favor of raising taxes?

I hear tell that some folks give money directly to organizations that help the starving poor, without the government's involvement at all.

And yet there are still lots of starving and poor around. I guess if a problem is more than 0% solved the government should stay out of it?

I didn't suggest anything of the sort. The comment I was responding directly to split the question of helping the starving and poor into two:

1) Don't do it if it costs money; or
2) Raise taxes.

There's plenty of room to support spending money to help the starving and poor, including primarily
3) Private charitable contributions; and
4) Supporting the existing levels of government spending.

In particular, 4), above, doesn't involve the government staying out of it.

Although helping the starving and poor without spending money (directly) on it has some merit as well, i.e. reducing unemployment.

[awm]

It seems pretty clear that Ayn Rand would be opposed to helping the starving poor. This is not just opposition to government involvement, but also to charitable contributions. It's "socialism" in her view, and if they are poor and starving it's their own fault.

Some of the right wing does claim to be disciples of Ayn Rand. In fact, some bridge players even claim to follow her. So I don't think it's true that "everyone" supports helping the poor.

[Lobowolf]

awm, on Oct 14 2009, 04:11 PM, said:

It seems pretty clear that Ayn Rand would be opposed to helping the starving poor. This is not just opposition to government involvement, but also to charitable contributions. It's "socialism" in her view, and if they are poor and starving it's their own fault.

Some of the right wing does claim to be disciples of Ayn Rand. In fact, some bridge players even claim to follow her. So I don't think it's true that "everyone" supports helping the poor.

And, conversely, some people of all wings and the middle talk a great game when it comes to helping the starving poor, but don't contribute any of their own money to doing so.

Rand is a bit extreme as an example, though; I think that most peope who aren't a part of the "everyone" aren't opposed to it, per se, but are apathetic. Sounds like a nice idea, but they don't actually do anything to effectuate it.

[luke warm]

awm, on Oct 14 2009, 04:11 PM, said:

It seems pretty clear that Ayn Rand would be opposed to helping the starving poor. This is not just opposition to government involvement, but also to charitable contributions. It's "socialism" in her view, and if they are poor and starving it's their own fault.

Some of the right wing does claim to be disciples of Ayn Rand. In fact, some bridge players even claim to follow her. So I don't think it's true that "everyone" supports helping the poor.

that isn't necessarily true... rand's philosophy was based on making decisions based on your own objective self-interest, which is an individual thing... is it in your best interest to promote higher taxes for social services? if so, do it... is it in your best interest to give of your time and money locally? then do so

rand was against, not unlike the founders of this country, a central gov't so strong that it could override individual liberties... that's why she had a hatred for communism

[luke warm]

i ran across this recently... is it better to let the people decide (with their pocketbooks) or the gov't?
big screen hd government

Quote

Reporting from Sacramento - The influential lobby group Consumer Electronics Assn. is fighting what appears to be a losing battle to dissuade California regulators from passing the nation's first ban on energy-hungry big-screen televisions.

On Tuesday, executives and consultants for the Arlington, Va., trade group asked members of the California Energy Commission to instead let consumers use their wallets to decide whether they want to buy the most energy-saving new models of liquid-crystal display and plasma high-definition TVs.

"Voluntary efforts are succeeding without regulations," said Doug Johnson, the association's senior director for technology policy. Too much government interference could hamstring industry innovation and prove expensive to manufacturers and consumers, he warned.

But those pleas didn't appear to elicit much support from commissioners at a public hearing on the proposed rules that would set maximum energy-consumption standards for televisions to be phased in over two years beginning in January 2011. A vote could come as early as Nov. 4.

hard to believe calif is in financial trouble, eh? why not just allow the consumer to choose?

[Lobowolf]

luke warm, on Oct 15 2009, 05:13 PM, said:

i ran across this recently... is it better to let the people decide (with their pocketbooks) or the gov't?
big screen hd government

Quote

Reporting from Sacramento - The influential lobby group Consumer Electronics Assn. is fighting what appears to be a losing battle to dissuade California regulators from passing the nation's first ban on energy-hungry big-screen televisions.

On Tuesday, executives and consultants for the Arlington, Va., trade group asked members of the California Energy Commission to instead let consumers use their wallets to decide whether they want to buy the most energy-saving new models of liquid-crystal display and plasma high-definition TVs.

"Voluntary efforts are succeeding without regulations," said Doug Johnson, the association's senior director for technology policy. Too much government interference could hamstring industry innovation and prove expensive to manufacturers and consumers, he warned.

But those pleas didn't appear to elicit much support from commissioners at a public hearing on the proposed rules that would set maximum energy-consumption standards for televisions to be phased in over two years beginning in January 2011. A vote could come as early as Nov. 4.

hard to believe calif is in financial trouble, eh? why not just allow the consumer to choose?

THanks for reminding me...I have to get to Best Buy soon.

[hrothgar]

luke warm, on Oct 16 2009, 01:13 AM, said:

i ran across this recently... is it better to let the people decide (with their pocketbooks) or the gov't?
big screen hd government

Quote

Reporting from Sacramento - The influential lobby group Consumer Electronics Assn. is fighting what appears to be a losing battle to dissuade California regulators from passing the nation's first ban on energy-hungry big-screen televisions.

On Tuesday, executives and consultants for the Arlington, Va., trade group asked members of the California Energy Commission to instead let consumers use their wallets to decide whether they want to buy the most energy-saving new models of liquid-crystal display and plasma high-definition TVs.

"Voluntary efforts are succeeding without regulations," said Doug Johnson, the association's senior director for technology policy. Too much government interference could hamstring industry innovation and prove expensive to manufacturers and consumers, he warned.

But those pleas didn't appear to elicit much support from commissioners at a public hearing on the proposed rules that would set maximum energy-consumption standards for televisions to be phased in over two years beginning in January 2011. A vote could come as early as Nov. 4.

hard to believe calif is in financial trouble, eh? why not just allow the consumer to choose?

False dichotomy:

I'm opposed to taxes on television sets. It seems rather silly...
I favor a carbon tax (which is a much broader way to accomplish the same end)

So far, the federal government hasn't been willing to implement a carbon tax. California isn't in a good position to pass one since power grids don't respect state lines.

I'm not going to get bent out of shape if the CA legislature decides to pass this specific type of sin tax.

[Lobowolf]

They're not trying to pass a sin tax; they're trying to pass a sin ban.

[jdonn]

Lobowolf, on Oct 15 2009, 06:44 PM, said:

They're not trying to pass a sin tax; they're trying to pass a sin ban.

They are trying to set a maximum energy consumption level. Just like there are maximum or minimum standards for gas mileage in cars, lead in paint, nicotine in cigarettes (I think?), and probably lots of other things. It's not like this is unheard of is all I'm saying.

[Lobowolf]

jdonn, on Oct 15 2009, 07:06 PM, said:

Lobowolf, on Oct 15 2009, 06:44 PM, said:

They're not trying to pass a sin tax; they're trying to pass a sin ban.

They are trying to set a maximum energy consumption level. Just like there are maximum or minimum standards for gas mileage in cars, lead in paint, nicotine in cigarettes (I think?), and probably lots of other things. It's not like this is unheard of is all I'm saying.

Agreed; I'm just saying that unlike a sin tax, they're not charging a prohibitive amount to discourage the purchase of certain items, or to offset the societal costs associated with them; they're prohibiting their sale outright.

[Winstonm]

Lobowolf, on Oct 15 2009, 07:16 PM, said:

jdonn, on Oct 15 2009, 07:06 PM, said:

Lobowolf, on Oct 15 2009, 06:44 PM, said:

They're not trying to pass a sin tax; they're trying to pass a sin ban.

They are trying to set a maximum energy consumption level. Just like there are maximum or minimum standards for gas mileage in cars, lead in paint, nicotine in cigarettes (I think?), and probably lots of other things. It's not like this is unheard of is all I'm saying.

Agreed; I'm just saying that unlike a sin tax, they're not charging a prohibitive amount to discourage the purchase of certain items, or to offset the societal costs associated with them; they're prohibiting their sale outright.

Of course society has the right to ban sales of these products. The question is whether or not the government is acting in concert with the wishes of its ruling society.

That is the point of government of the people - to have its representative government act in concert with the wishes of the society if represents.

This doesn't seem to occur at the federal level.

[mike777]

: That is the point of government of the people - to have its representative government act in concert with the wishes of the society if represents."


I disagree strongly....


I think this is a great discussion point...is the point of our representatives to act in concert or to lead?

In any event I think Winston and most would agree it is perfectly legal to not act in concert.....


btw as far as the tv tax...one more reason I am glad to move out of calif. the state simply became unlivable for the nonrich.

[Winstonm]

mike777, on Oct 15 2009, 09:44 PM, said:

:  That is the point of government of the people - to have its representative government act in concert with the wishes of the society if represents."


I disagree strongly....


I think this is a great discussion point...is the point of our representatives to act in concert or to lead?

In any event I think Winston and most would agree it is perfectly legal to not act in concert.....


btw as far as the tv tax...one more reason I am glad to move out of calif. the state simply became unlivable for the nonrich.

So your position is we elect a ruling class and a monarch? And, no, it is not illegal for the rulers to ignore the will of the people, but there are supposed to be consequences for doing so.

And I guess there are.....Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam....

[Hanoi5]

After reading the OP I thought of this conversation between the highest ranking Republicans:

- So the media is interfering with our war and interests, what shall we do about it?
- Hm, we should probably close some news channels like CNN.
- Come on! That's outrageous, they'd say we're like Chavez or something.
- You're right, I'll tell you what, why don't we make the Democrats do it for us.
- Hm, that's very interesting, how'd we do that.
- Well first of all we let the black guy win the election...

And I guess you can complete the conversation from that point.

[hrothgar]

luke warm, on Oct 16 2009, 01:13 AM, said:

i ran across this recently... is it better to let the people decide (with their pocketbooks) or the gov't?
big screen hd government

Quote

Reporting from Sacramento - The influential lobby group Consumer Electronics Assn. is fighting what appears to be a losing battle to dissuade California regulators from passing the nation's first ban on energy-hungry big-screen televisions.

On Tuesday, executives and consultants for the Arlington, Va., trade group asked members of the California Energy Commission to instead let consumers use their wallets to decide whether they want to buy the most energy-saving new models of liquid-crystal display and plasma high-definition TVs.

"Voluntary efforts are succeeding without regulations," said Doug Johnson, the association's senior director for technology policy. Too much government interference could hamstring industry innovation and prove expensive to manufacturers and consumers, he warned.

But those pleas didn't appear to elicit much support from commissioners at a public hearing on the proposed rules that would set maximum energy-consumption standards for televisions to be phased in over two years beginning in January 2011. A vote could come as early as Nov. 4.

hard to believe calif is in financial trouble, eh? why not just allow the consumer to choose?

Just to be clear, California is not banning large screen TVs

The bill in question would

1. Extend existing energy consumption standards to TV sets (there are already similar standards in place for refridgerators and air conditioners)

2. The restrictions would be phased in over the course of two years