Journal smittyoneeach's Journal: The Indebted States of America 30
Wasn't one of you mungheads just telling me that the debt is b.s.?
Maria Pappas, the treasurer of Cook County, Illinois, got tired of being asked why local taxes kept rising. Betting that the answer involved the debt that state and local governments were accumulating, she began a quest to figure out how much county residents owed. It wasnâ(TM)t easy. In some jurisdictions, officials said that they didnâ(TM)t know; in others, they stonewalled. Pappasâ(TM)s first report, issued in 2010, estimated the total state and local debt at $56 billion for the countyâ(TM)s 5.6 million residents. Two years later, after further investigation, the figure had risen to a frightening $140 billion, shocking residents and officials alike. âoeNobody knew the numbers because local governments donâ(TM)t like to show how badly they are doing,â Pappas observed.
Economic gravity. It sucks.
Complete fraud (Score:1)
These are the people who gave us foreclosure and interest rate fraud and robbed our pension funds, and they are using fraudulent accounting to sell you the 'debt' the same way the politicians used fraudulent 'evidence' to sell us the wars. It is a 'truth' to you because it is what you want to believe. It outsources the blame to the 'system' without acknowledging who props up the system... That would require a bit more introspection than one would be comfortable with, eh?
Re: (Score:2)
It was done through...
PRIVATIZATION!
Re: (Score:2)
Because nothing says 'private' to me like Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac.
All of the fear-mongering Lefty weenies bemoaning the ills of capitalism (as though we even recall what that is, this far along the socialist lolly-pop trail) can just go suck a swamp dry.
Re: (Score:2)
Can you at least lay out the simple grounds for reasoning the argument of your position?
None of what you say directly addresses the question of revenue streams to local, municipal government.
You bait-and-switch argument, under the cover of blanket terms like "Lefty".
To explain, once again - for those a little slower - Municipal privatization of parking, utilities and civil infrastructure is like selling the family silver for a temporary boost in revenue. We are watching what happens, twenty years later, wh
Re: (Score:2)
If you call me a "lefty" again, I will abandon any conversation with you. It indicates that you live in Flatland, and cannot conceive of dimensions outside of those you received in tutelage from others.
In fairness (and by way of apology), the whole right/left distinction is increasingly a bugaboo. Read Codevilla [spectator.org], and know that it's the ruling class vs. us here peasants.
Coming back to the public/private sector point, I'm talking about the encroachment/enslavement of the public sector via entitlements.
As TFA is saying, the emphasis on public sector incurring of debt to pay for shiny items has pushed whole cities (Detroit) past the point of reasonable recovery, triggering fire sales for temporary revenue b
Re: (Score:1)
Been happening since Reconstruction at least, as a way of shedding the war debt. Wouldn't surprise me in the least to discover we're still paying for it. The government has been privatized for a very long time. It is hardly worth distinguishing it from private, aside from being a department of that sector. I'll leave that to Mr. Smith's mental masturbations. That's his narrative, and he's sticking to it. But the only 'border' between them is of a bureaucratic nature. The money still goes into the same pocke
Re: (Score:2)
It is so incredibly bizarre when leftists like you bemoan the ills of government control, and pretend that the problem is privatization, instead of the government control you're looking directly at, and commenting about.
Re: (Score:2)
Please, let's try and have a discussion of actual points, and support for arguments, in terms of causes and relationships of actions.
Labeling of a commenter and generalizations about their intellect and political positions is fairly infantile, and reflects a laziness in thinking, arrogance in positioning, and general disrespect for other people.
I wouldn't normally point this out in such detail - but you so rarely comment, choosing only opportune moments to "helicopter" in on JE threads, without on-going p
Re: (Score:2)
Let's see. Nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing ...
Oh wait, there's something that appears as though it might be substance in there!
Do you see a historical, functional difference in the role and nature of local, civic government, from that of federal, centralized "Big G" Government?
Massive differences, yes.
Because I believe, that if you doctrinally dismiss the value of the former - then inherently you are opposed to actual Democracy, in principle.
Of course, I am, as James Madison was, as most of the Founders were. I am for Republican government, not Democratic government. Democracy is a way for the majority to take away the rights of the minority. A Republican government has the possibility of protecting the rights of the minority, defying the majority and the Democratic principles it would ot
Re: (Score:2)
Well.
You've fallen short of completely disappointing me.
I very nearly made reference to democratic republics. But it is cumbersome. I'd assumed we were not going to the reductio ad absurdum of evoking mob rule.
The fact is, centralized, absolute and tyrannical authority is very interested in making local, participatory and sustainable government impossible. It means that people can resort to a local recourse, other than Big Brother.
That is why the Federal aggregation of corporate puppets are using every m
Re: (Score:2)
I'd assumed we were not going to the reductio ad absurdum of evoking mob rule.
No one did that. I even gave you a real-life example. I have more, if you like.
The fact is, centralized, absolute and tyrannical authority is very interested in making local, participatory and sustainable government impossible. It means that people can resort to a local recourse, other than Big Brother.
Right, which is a huge reason why I reject the Democratic Party, because they want to centralize more, and increasingly take away local power. Literally and explicitly. They are even honest about it: when they cannot convince local governments to do what they want, they try to get state and federal governments to force them. Or, as Eliot Spitzer is proud of doing, they try to use the courts to effectively make new law when t
Re: (Score:2)
Well. I'm not sure of your final position.
Local = Free to the Black Panthers of '67. They were for commie free lunch and day care - but also for strong self-defense - with firearms - and individual property rights that began at the human body.
I really dig the Panthers, even if they existed solely defined by the pressure of an oppressive, oppositional force.
The Greens? Pretty f-ing left, most wise. Not so big on central/federal...
The real issue is corruption of intention, "right" or "left" - by the power t
Re: (Score:2)
Local = Free to the Black Panthers of '67.
Oh, please.
"We believe that the federal government is responsible and obligated to give every man employment or a guaranteed income."
Yeah, sounds like they were big on local government.</sarcasm> No, they were big on getting what they wanted, some of which happened to mean being more local, some of which happened to mean being more federal/central.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh and not only did the BPs not care about local, they didn't give a damn about freedom, either. Government-guaranteed jobs is one of the most anti-freedom policies you could propose in this country.
Re: (Score:1)
One of my mantras is "local = free."
Of course it does! For the dominant power. For the rest? Well, who cares about them? They don't write the history books. Those that try are dismissed out of hand as liars.. What you defend are medieval fiefdoms and privileged status, Might makes right... It's a 'domestic matter' you say.
Re: (Score:2)
One of my mantras is "local = free."
Of course it does! For the dominant power. For the rest? Well, who cares about them?
Wow. That makes no sense at all. I have no idea what you even think you're talking about, and suspect you aren't thinking at all. *EVERYONE* is more free, the more local you are, in our system, because everyone has more of a say. That's how it works. Each person becomes more dominant as the number of people is reduced.
What you defend are medieval fiefdoms and privileged status, Might makes right... It's a 'domestic matter' you say.
That bears no resemblance of any kind to anything I have ever said. Please stop lying. Thanks!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
The only one lying is you, and only to yourself. To me you are simply mistaken and misguided. History has confirmed many times over what I said. Your classical denials are further confirmation. The addict denying the addiction. As long as man craves authority you will always have a feudal society in perpetual war as everyone jockeys for advantage while those on top try to keep theirs. It's as natural as the sun, moon, and the tides. There's no getting around it. It is law, absolute and unambiguous, written
Re: (Score:2)
You say truly wonderful things about republicanism, yet completely fail to understand why such things will never exist outside the textbook.Communism and all the other 'isms' suffer the same predicament. And if they could exist, they wouldn't be thought necessary.
Wait, if the people who understand their government to be republican in form aren't in republics,
and the Communist Party residents of the U.S.S.R weren't, in fact, communist,
then just where've we been these decades--cruising about on the back of a turtle?
It must be Friday. You're in rare form, boss.
Re: (Score:2)
The only one lying is you, and only to yourself.
You are sooooo right. When each person has more of a say, they are less free. You make perfect sense.
To me you are simply mistaken and misguided.
You're a liar. You don't believe that at all. We are all well aware you are just trolling at this point.
History has confirmed many times over what I said.
One example, please. Thanks! (Psst. I already know you won't give one, because you don't have one.)
But go ahead. Give an example of where people were not more free as power became more local.
Re: (Score:1)
Give an example of where people were not more free as power became more local.
Be more specific. Which people are you taking about?
Re: (Score:2)
Give an example of where people were not more free as power became more local.
Be more specific.
No. You are the one who said I was wrong; so say what you meant when you said so.
Re: (Score:1)
:-) AHA! Thank you! You just proved you are full of it. As we all know, nothing needs to be said. It is well understood who specifically benefits from 'local' governance. And we don't have to mention who you prefer to dominate. History has already told us. That is also well understood. Your refusal to answer is all the answer we could possibly ask for. The code was broken a long time ago.
Re: (Score:2)
:-) AHA! Thank you! You just proved you are full of it.
I "proved" I am "full of it" by not providing evidence for *your* argument.
You really think anyone actually believes you're serious?
As we all know, nothing needs to be said. It is well understood who specifically benefits from 'local' governance.
Right. Everyone.
And we don't have to mention who you prefer to dominate. History has already told us. That is also well understood.
Right. Everyone.
Your refusal to answer is all the answer we could possibly ask for. The code was broken a long time ago.
Liberty isn't a code. It just *is*. Socialists like you want to violate it at every turn.
Re: (Score:1)
*Everyone*... How perfectly revealing... truly classic.
Ladies and gentlemen. You are seeing, in profound glory, how people try and fail to hide the power of their own subconscious, even from themselves. You are seeing the deep power of culture, and the high drama that comes from the attempt to obscure it. You can actually see the science of psychology spelled out most clearly.
And pudge, thank you for being such a good specimen. There's a Nobel Prize waiting for the guy who does the best writeup.
Re: (Score:2)
Scanning for content, scanning for content ...
Re: (Score:1)
Scanner works better when you plug it in. Or you can call a friend who has a working model. Either way, you have given me much to be grateful for, even if I die hoping that you become self aware.
One word can sum up these people (Score:1)
When they speak, think, "MONORAIL!"...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
That's your department...