PDA

View Full Version : Do you favor ending the Department of Transportation?



iustitia
12-25-2014, 07:30 PM
Should the DOT go?

ace's n 8's
12-25-2014, 09:06 PM
Housing 13 agencies, an annual budget of $79 Billion.

I think it could certainly be cut 50% and still be just as 'effective',while I use that term very loosely,(the federal government IS NOT effective).

I really dont believe we can cut it/eliminate it any more, as the States can effectively take over the 50% that I think the federal government doesn't need.

Common
12-25-2014, 09:13 PM
I dont know enough about it to have a strong opinion

ace's n 8's
12-25-2014, 09:15 PM
I dont know enough about it to have a strong opinionHave you ever heard of the concept of ''RESEARCH''.

Educate yourself for a change.please..

Howey
12-25-2014, 10:57 PM
Should the DOT go?

Why should it?

Peter1469
12-26-2014, 01:33 AM
Why should it?
We need to trim the budget by over $.5T a year. The deficit and all that.

CAPUSAFcadet23
12-26-2014, 01:44 AM
Great more people out of work! Do not cut any part of the government or military! We young people do not want any more people to compete against for jobs!

Peter1469
12-26-2014, 02:00 AM
Great more people out of work! Do not cut any part of the government or military! We young people do not want any more people to compete against for jobs!

Look up the word deficit.

Green Arrow
12-26-2014, 02:29 AM
I don't think so, no. Maybe before Eisenhower created the federal interstate system, but definitely not now. There is probably room for reform, however.

ace's n 8's
12-26-2014, 04:16 AM
Great more people out of work! Do not cut any part of the government or military! We young people do not want any more people to compete against for jobs!Slow your roll there for a minute Cappy.

That is nothing like what I am suggesting, stick with me for a minute here, and hear me out.

My suggestions are easy and simple to understand, Maritime and Aviation, should remain within Federal jurisdiction.

ALL Highway agencies can and should be transferred over to the States, those federal employees that are getting income from tax dollars can also be transferred to the States as well, and tax monies that are sent to the Federal Government can stay within the States to fund the needed overhead for the States.

No one loses their tax paid employment, the Federal government is spending less, and the States are being funded, by their own tax revenues, resulting in less waste and fraud, and also resulting in a more efficient program.

So, Cappy, you still have your job.

donttread
12-26-2014, 07:04 AM
Yes, any federal function not included in their enumerated powers should be cut and the power returned to the states. Of course this would require a transition period of a year or so.

ace's n 8's
12-26-2014, 07:32 AM
Yes, any federal function not included in their enumerated powers should be cut and the power returned to the states. Of course this would require a transition period of a year or so.

It would take longer than a year for that transition, it would take 2-3 years.

donttread
12-26-2014, 08:07 AM
It would take longer than a year for that transition, it would take 2-3 years.

I think if you give them that long, they will screw it up. No reason we should accept burecratic time frames any longer

ace's n 8's
12-26-2014, 08:09 AM
I think if you give them that long, they will screw it up. No reason we should accept burecratic time frames any longer
I can agree with that to a point.

donttread
12-26-2014, 08:48 AM
Why should it?

It's all in the Constitution, you should read it sometime

Green Arrow
12-26-2014, 09:40 AM
Yes, any federal function not included in their enumerated powers should be cut and the power returned to the states. Of course this would require a transition period of a year or so.

What would you do with the interstate system?

Howey
12-26-2014, 10:26 AM
It's all in the Constitution, you should read it sometime

I think you should read some of my recent posts. Equality for blacks and women wasn't in the Constitution either, shall we do away with them too?

Look. The argument for a literal vs. living Constitution has been fought since day one. The SCOTUS and courts nationwide have affirmed we have a Constitution that evolves as the country evolves.

Chris
12-26-2014, 10:30 AM
I think you should read some of my recent posts. Equality for blacks and women wasn't in the Constitution either, shall we do away with them too?

Look. The argument for a literal vs. living Constitution has been fought since day one. The SCOTUS and courts nationwide have affirmed we have a Constitution that evolves as the country evolves.


You find equality in the Declaration as a natural right. Equality before the law. You can't possibly make people who differ in skills, abilities, etc, equal.



The SCOTUS and courts nationwide have affirmed we have a Constitution that evolves as the country evolves.

Where's this opinion to be found?

Max Rockatansky
12-26-2014, 10:37 AM
Housing 13 agencies, an annual budget of $79 Billion.

I think it could certainly be cut 50% and still be just as 'effective',while I use that term very loosely,(the federal government IS NOT effective).

I really dont believe we can cut it/eliminate it any more, as the States can effectively take over the 50% that I think the federal government doesn't need.

While I don't know enough about it to hazard a guess on what percentage to cut, we're agreed that, while the DOT shouldn't be eliminated, it certainly should be trimmed. Cut the bureaucracy and the Federal overreach.

Bo-4
12-26-2014, 10:51 AM
Can you name ANY government agency that you wouldn't take great joy in unraveling: FDA - FAA - ED - HHS????

Republicans seem to be into eating tainted meat while flying in an unsafe aircraft.

Live on the edge bay-bee and leave it up to idiots like Rick Perry, Scott Walker and their corporate overlords to make those decisions and protect human rights! :rolleyes:

Quite frivolous ;-)

Peter1469
12-26-2014, 10:53 AM
Can you name ANY government agency that you wouldn't take great joy in unraveling: FDA - FAA - ED - HHS????

Republicans seem to be into eating tainted meat while flying in an unsafe aircraft.

Live on the edge bay-bee and leave it up to idiots like Rick Perry, Scott Walker and their corporate overlords to make those decisions and protect human rights! :rolleyes:

Quite frivolous ;-)

What are you going to do when the entire system collapses? (http://www.usdebtclock.org/)

Green Arrow
12-26-2014, 10:57 AM
Can you name ANY government agency that you wouldn't take great joy in unraveling: FDA - FAA - ED - HHS????

Republicans seem to be into eating tainted meat while flying in an unsafe aircraft.

Live on the edge bay-bee and leave it up to idiots like Rick Perry, Scott Walker and their corporate overlords to make those decisions and protect human rights! :rolleyes:

Quite frivolous ;-)

The corporate overlords are already making those decisions. The only difference is now when we take porches and titchforks to the polluters and Monsantos, the government locks us away for it.

Chris
12-26-2014, 10:58 AM
Can you name ANY government agency that you wouldn't take great joy in unraveling: FDA - FAA - ED - HHS????

Republicans seem to be into eating tainted meat while flying in an unsafe aircraft.

Live on the edge bay-bee and leave it up to idiots like Rick Perry, Scott Walker and their corporate overlords to make those decisions and protect human rights! :rolleyes:

Quite frivolous ;-)



While I would unravel it all, I believe iustitia's point in this series of similar threads is to get at what agencies are constitutionally legal and what agencies illegal.

It would be interesting if a progressive like you would take a serious stab at answering rather than wander off into hyperbolic spin and empty ad hom--frivolous indeed!

Max Rockatansky
12-26-2014, 11:10 AM
Can you name ANY government agency that you wouldn't take great joy in unraveling: FDA - FAA - ED - HHS????

Republicans seem to be into eating tainted meat while flying in an unsafe aircraft.
....

By your account, the only two choices we have are a large, red-tape covered, all-seeing Federal bureaucracy or nothing? Sorry, but I disagree.

Yes, I want children to be able to eat safe food and take safe medicine. However, requiring adults to wear seat-belts and motorcycle helmets isn't equal to driving unsafe cars or "flying in an unsafe aircraft".

ace's n 8's
12-26-2014, 11:12 AM
Can you name ANY government agency that you wouldn't take great joy in unraveling: FDA - FAA - ED - HHS????

Republicans seem to be into eating tainted meat while flying in an unsafe aircraft.

Live on the edge bay-bee and leave it up to idiots like Rick Perry, Scott Walker and their corporate overlords to make those decisions and protect human rights! :rolleyes:

Quite frivolous ;-)Every agency within the Federal Government can and should be unraveled to some extent.

DEPT. of ED.--ELIMINATE

FDA--cut 60%

FAA--cut 30%

HHS--cut 45%

Alot of those Federal Government 'services' can and should be transferred to the States, which relates to savings for the Federal Government, while also relieving the fraud, waste and abuse.

Bo-4
12-26-2014, 11:38 AM
What are you going to do when the entire system collapses? (http://www.usdebtclock.org/)

Put on my furry costume and attend a last minute convention! ;-)

http://blogs.westword.com/showandtell/fur-con-2.jpeg

Bo-4
12-26-2014, 11:42 AM
While I would unravel it all, I believe iustitia's point in this series of similar threads is to get at what agencies are constitutionally legal and what agencies illegal.

It would be interesting if a progressive like you would take a serious stab at answering rather than wander off into hyperbolic spin and empty ad hom--frivolous indeed!

It would appear to me that iustitia's point is the same as all anti-gubment sorts. In my mind, he's pulling a Rick Perry.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0uvmKnFY4uk

Bo-4
12-26-2014, 11:44 AM
By your account, the only two choices we have are a large, red-tape covered, all-seeing Federal bureaucracy or nothing? Sorry, but I disagree.

Yes, I want children to be able to eat safe food and take safe medicine. However, requiring adults to wear seat-belts and motorcycle helmets isn't equal to driving unsafe cars or "flying in an unsafe aircraft".

Until of course, the clown without a seatbelt or helmet and no insurance is checked into ER for months on end and we all get to pay for it.

Bo-4
12-26-2014, 11:48 AM
FDA--cut 60%

Say hello to tainted meat and drugs that give you butt-rot.

Chris
12-26-2014, 11:50 AM
Say hello to tainted meat and drugs that give you butt-rot.

We have those things with the FDA.

Chris
12-26-2014, 11:51 AM
It would appear to me that Lusty's point is the same as all anti-gubment sorts. In my mind, he's pulling a Rick Perry.

....

With your frivolous name calling and such I'm not sure the problem is you can't be serious or you can't be taken seriously.

Bo-4
12-26-2014, 11:52 AM
We have those things with the FDA.

Once in a blue moon. Ace appears interested in a 60% increase of such.

Chris
12-26-2014, 11:59 AM
Once in a blue moon. Ace appears interested in a 60% increase of such.

Quite often, actually.

Same could be accomplished better privately.

Bo-4
12-26-2014, 12:04 PM
With your frivolous name calling and such I'm not sure the problem is you can't be serious or you can't be taken seriously.

Did it ever cross your mind that you might be a tad too serious?

Bo-4
12-26-2014, 12:06 PM
Quite often, actually.

Same could be accomplished better privately.

Yes of course, privatize everything. Worked out well for us here in Idaho with prisons.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/02/private-prison-racket-103893.html#.VJ2VXrgsA

Chris
12-26-2014, 12:12 PM
Yes of course, privatize everything. Worked out well for us here in Idaho with prisons.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/02/private-prison-racket-103893.html#.VJ2VXrgsA

Nice example of government contracting. Not private but managed by government. Fertile for cronyism.

Peter1469
12-26-2014, 12:18 PM
Privatization of prisons isn't the issue. It is paying only for the warehousing of prisoners rather than paying for the rehabilitation of prisoners.

Bo-4
12-26-2014, 12:25 PM
Nice example of government contracting. Not private but managed by government. Fertile for cronyism.

Actually Chris .. no, we turned one over to a company called CCA lock stock and barrel, there was no governmental management.


In July 2000, Idaho’s then-Governor Dirk Kempthorne made a decision similar to Jerry Brown’s. He opened the Idaho Correctional Center, the state’s first private prison. But it wasn’t long before the facility—built and operated by CCA—began to draw concerns. Prisoners in the 2,000-bed facility dubbed it “Gladiator School” for the rampant fighting that took place inside. A 2008 study by the Idaho Department of Corrections obtained by the American Civil Liberties Union (https://www.aclu.org/files/assets/bankingonbondage_20111102.pdf) showed that there were four times as many prisoner-on-prisoner assaults there than in all the state’s seven other prisons combined.


The ACLU sued CCA in 2010, alleging that violence had become an “epidemic” in the facility, and the Associated Press released a video showing a prisoner beaten unconscious while correctional officers stood around watching. A 2011 settlement required CCA to keep more officers on staff, but the company apparently didn’t bother to do that. Last year, a review of CCA’s staff records showed that prison employees had falsified as many as 4,800 hours over the course of seven months; they had understaffed the prison on purpose and fudged records. The end result: Idaho's private prison experiment with CCA will end in June (http://bigstory.ap.org/article/ap-newsbreak-prison-company-leaving-idaho).

Howey
12-26-2014, 12:32 PM
While I would unravel it all, I believe iustitia's point in this series of similar threads is to get at what agencies are constitutionally legal and what agencies illegal.

It would be interesting if a progressive like you would take a serious stab at answering rather than wander off into hyperbolic spin and empty ad hom--frivolous indeed!

I already did.

ace's n 8's
12-26-2014, 12:48 PM
Yes of course, privatize everything. Worked out well for us here in Idaho with prisons.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/02/private-prison-racket-103893.html#.VJ2VXrgsASomething that I am confident that you already know, anything coming out of Politico, is most generally twisted to fit the leftists agenda.

This is something that I am ALREADY aware of, politico has zero credibility, their reporting is always out of context.

Chris
12-26-2014, 12:50 PM
Actually Chris .. no, we turned one over to a company called CCA lock stock and barrel, there was no governmental management.


In July 2000, Idaho’s then-Governor Dirk Kempthorne made a decision similar to Jerry Brown’s. He opened the Idaho Correctional Center, the state’s first private prison. But it wasn’t long before the facility—built and operated by CCA—began to draw concerns. Prisoners in the 2,000-bed facility dubbed it “Gladiator School” for the rampant fighting that took place inside. A 2008 study by the Idaho Department of Corrections obtained by the American Civil Liberties Union (https://www.aclu.org/files/assets/bankingonbondage_20111102.pdf) showed that there were four times as many prisoner-on-prisoner assaults there than in all the state’s seven other prisons combined.


The ACLU sued CCA in 2010, alleging that violence had become an “epidemic” in the facility, and the Associated Press released a video showing a prisoner beaten unconscious while correctional officers stood around watching. A 2011 settlement required CCA to keep more officers on staff, but the company apparently didn’t bother to do that. Last year, a review of CCA’s staff records showed that prison employees had falsified as many as 4,800 hours over the course of seven months; they had understaffed the prison on purpose and fudged records. The end result: Idaho's private prison experiment with CCA will end in June (http://bigstory.ap.org/article/ap-newsbreak-prison-company-leaving-idaho).



You did read what you linked and now posted: "n October, when California Governor Jerry Brown signed a new contract with Corrections Corporation of America"? Government is managing it. Outsourcing like that's nothing new, and it's not private.

Chris
12-26-2014, 12:53 PM
I already did.

Post #5, lol. Post #17, addressed in post #18.

Bo-4
12-26-2014, 01:19 PM
You did read what you linked and now posted: "n October, when California Governor Jerry Brown signed a new contract with Corrections Corporation of America"? Government is managing it. Outsourcing like that's nothing new, and it's not private.

What could you possibly privatize without some sort of a contract?

Bo-4
12-26-2014, 01:24 PM
Something that I am confident that you already know, anything coming out of Politico, is most generally twisted to fit the leftists agenda.

This is something that I am ALREADY aware of, politico has zero credibility, their reporting is always out of context.

I live here in Idaho. I know what happened. Here's Idaho's state newspaper and an AP story if you feel them to be more credible.

http://www.idahostatesman.com/2014/10/27/3451348/how-public-sees-prison-scandal.html

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/ap-newsbreak-prison-company-leaving-idaho

Chris
12-26-2014, 01:25 PM
What could you possibly privatize without some sort of a contract?

Contracts with government are not private.

There are all sorts of standards set outside government, IEEE, ANSI, ISO, etc etc etc.

Bo-4
12-26-2014, 01:35 PM
Contracts with government are not private.

There are all sorts of standards set outside government, IEEE, ANSI, ISO, etc etc etc.

You're running in circles now Chris. The constant cry from conservatives is that they want to privatize just about everything and get government out of the picture. What we did with prisons is to hand them a buttload of cash and say here -- go build us a prison, run that prison, and do it according to law ... but if you don't, then we don't want to know anything about it.

Chris
12-26-2014, 01:39 PM
You're running in circles now Chris. The constant cry from conservatives is that they want to privatize just about everything and get government out of the picture. What we did with prisons is to hand them a buttload of cash and say here -- go build us a prison, run that prison, and do it according to law ... but if you don't, then we don't want to know anything about it.


Bo, I'm saying the same thing in different ways, expanding here, exampling there. Politicians, left and right, speaking of privatization mean one thing, government outsourcing. You're the one now circling back to that on prisons. When I speak of privatization, I mean complete privatization, sans government.

It might help you to understand I'm not a partisan conservative but a libertarian anarchist.

Don
12-26-2014, 01:45 PM
I think the DOT might pass constitutional muster but it has been expanded way beyond what it was created for. It could probably be cut by 95%.

ace's n 8's
12-26-2014, 02:14 PM
Actually Chris .. no, we turned one over to a company called CCA lock stock and barrel, there was no governmental management.


In July 2000, Idaho’s then-Governor Dirk Kempthorne made a decision similar to Jerry Brown’s. He opened the Idaho Correctional Center, the state’s first private prison. But it wasn’t long before the facility—built and operated by CCA—began to draw concerns. Prisoners in the 2,000-bed facility dubbed it “Gladiator School” for the rampant fighting that took place inside. A 2008 study by the Idaho Department of Corrections obtained by the American Civil Liberties Union (https://www.aclu.org/files/assets/bankingonbondage_20111102.pdf) showed that there were four times as many prisoner-on-prisoner assaults there than in all the state’s seven other prisons combined.


The ACLU sued CCA in 2010, alleging that violence had become an “epidemic” in the facility, and the Associated Press released a video showing a prisoner beaten unconscious while correctional officers stood around watching. A 2011 settlement required CCA to keep more officers on staff, but the company apparently didn’t bother to do that. Last year, a review of CCA’s staff records showed that prison employees had falsified as many as 4,800 hours over the course of seven months; they had understaffed the prison on purpose and fudged records. The end result: Idaho's private prison experiment with CCA will end in June (http://bigstory.ap.org/article/ap-newsbreak-prison-company-leaving-idaho).What would this nation do, without the sympathetic ACLU.

ace's n 8's
12-26-2014, 02:16 PM
I think the DOT might pass constitutional muster but it has been expanded way beyond what it was created for. It could probably be cut by 95%.I initially thought about cutting it that much, I think the DOT, should maintain jurisdiction over Maritime and Aviation.

Bo-4
12-26-2014, 02:17 PM
Bo, I'm saying the same thing in different ways, expanding here, exampling there. Politicians, left and right, speaking of privatization mean one thing, government outsourcing. You're the one now circling back to that on prisons. When I speak of privatization, I mean complete privatization, sans government.

It might help you to understand I'm not a partisan conservative but a libertarian anarchist.

Okay, but complete privatization sans government seems like a pie in the sky ideal.

Perhaps that is possible at some point, but at least initially .. someone needs to contract with government. Otherwise you have a gaggle of unqualified yahoos trying to be the low bidder at the expense of the general public.

Without SOME regulation and oversight, is there not most often -- chaos?

Chris
12-26-2014, 02:23 PM
Okay, but complete privatization sans government seems like a pie in the sky ideal.

Perhaps that is possible at some point, but at least initially .. someone needs to contract with government. Otherwise you have a gaggle of unqualified yahoos trying to be the low bidder at the expense of the general public.

Without SOME regulation and oversight, is there not most often -- chaos?


Your personal incredulity is hardly an argument.

What of the standardization institutions I mentioned earlier? Those exist factually.

Anarchy I speak of is not chaos, nice try at abusing ambiguity. How could it be when I example standards institutions?

Bo-4
12-26-2014, 02:48 PM
Your personal incredulity is hardly an argument.

What of the standardization institutions I mentioned earlier? Those exist factually.

Anarchy I speak of is not chaos, nice try at abusing ambiguity. How could it be when I example standards institutions?

Okay i had to use the Google on your standardization institutions outside of government. But even ANSI coordinates with government.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_National_Standards_Institute

ANSI accredits standards that are developed by representatives of other standards organizations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standards_organization), government agencies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_agency), consumer groups (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_organization), companies, and others. These standards ensure that the characteristics and performance of products are consistent, that people use the same definitions and terms, and that products are tested the same way. ANSI also accredits organizations that carry out product or personnel certification in accordance with requirements defined in international standards

Chris
12-26-2014, 03:02 PM
Okay i had to use the Google on your standardization institutions outside of government. But even ANSI coordinates with government.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_National_Standards_Institute

ANSI accredits standards that are developed by representatives of other standards organizations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standards_organization), government agencies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_agency), consumer groups (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_organization), companies, and others. These standards ensure that the characteristics and performance of products are consistent, that people use the same definitions and terms, and that products are tested the same way. ANSI also accredits organizations that carry out product or personnel certification in accordance with requirements defined in international standards

My point was they are not contracted to nor are they managed by government.

Max Rockatansky
12-26-2014, 04:02 PM
Until of course, the clown without a seatbelt or helmet and no insurance is checked into ER for months on end and we all get to pay for it.
It's worth the cost to let dumb asses remove themselves from the gene pool.

If we're going to pass Nanny State laws, then how about passing a law pulling the plug on brain-dead assholes?

As it is, most would die on impact, so it'd be rare that one would survive that kind of stupidity.

Cthulhu
12-26-2014, 05:37 PM
Should the DOT go?
Yes. Preferably with a napalm strike.


Sent from my evil cell phone.

Cthulhu
12-26-2014, 05:38 PM
It would take longer than a year for that transition, it would take 2-3 years.
I tear my Band-Aids off quickly, the states should do the same.


Sent from my evil cell phone.

donttread
12-26-2014, 06:03 PM
What would you do with the interstate system?

Each state would care for the portion of the Interstate that was within their borders.

donttread
12-26-2014, 06:07 PM
I think you should read some of my recent posts. Equality for blacks and women wasn't in the Constitution either, shall we do away with them too?

Look. The argument for a literal vs. living Constitution has been fought since day one. The SCOTUS and courts nationwide have affirmed we have a Constitution that evolves as the country evolves.

The rights were there for blacks and women they just weren't enforced right away. As for "evolving document" that's crap. "Shall not be infringed " still means "keppa you hands offa my guns"
As for USSC, they have evolved into nothing more than an extension of the Donkephant.

donttread
12-26-2014, 06:12 PM
Contracts with government are not private.

There are all sorts of standards set outside government, IEEE, ANSI, ISO, etc etc etc.

Functions taken away from the feds should go to the states. What's sll this talk of privatization?

Chris
12-26-2014, 06:26 PM
Functions taken away from the feds should go to the states. What's sll this talk of privatization?

Just an extension of that theory of federalism.

Green Arrow
12-26-2014, 06:26 PM
Each state would care for the portion of the Interstate that was within their borders.

So if Texas decides not to care for their portion?

Howey
12-26-2014, 06:28 PM
So if Texas decides not to care for their portion?

Do they now? From what I've seen few states want to spend money on infrastructure.

Green Arrow
12-26-2014, 06:33 PM
Do they now? From what I've seen few states want to spend money on infrastructure.

No, they don't, because the interstate system is strictly federal upkeep. But you're right, hardly any state wants to spend money on infrastructure these days, so it's not unreasonable to think most states would keep up their end of the interstates.

Tahuyaman
12-27-2014, 12:02 AM
Why should it?

The better question is why shouldn't it? What's it's purpose? Would you notice anything if it went away? Why must the feds do things the states can do more effectively? Why should standards be the same in California as they are in Montana? Lets get rid of most federal agencies and let states, counties and cities do their job.

Dr. Who
12-27-2014, 02:52 AM
No, they don't, because the interstate system is strictly federal upkeep. But you're right, hardly any state wants to spend money on infrastructure these days, so it's not unreasonable to think most states would keep up their end of the interstates.
That is an issue for the movement of goods to various parts of the nation. Since most goods are transported by road, what happens when some States let the interstates become dilapidated and others keep up the maintenance. The movement of goods slow down to the point where spoilage occurs. Everyone is affected. There are more accidents and some companies avoid delivering in those States with bad roads. Would this encourage States to ensure maintenance of their interstates roads? Not sure. Certainly the cost of goods would increase if truckers avoided certain States.

How about vehicle standards? Currently such safety features as air bags, anti-lock brakes etc are a national mandate. Take that away and what happens? Is it possible that standard safety features won't be required in States that don't demand them? I don't know. If they don't could other States prohibit people without said safety features from driving in their State?

If you decentralize the functions of the DOT, don't you just transfer those duties duplicatively to all of the States? Is it more or less efficient to have 50 times more people performing the same function?

I'm just asking questions regarding some of the functions of the DOT, nevermind the rest.

donttread
12-27-2014, 07:03 AM
So if Texas decides not to care for their portion?

Then people don't visit Texas very much and they lose tourist dollars. Besides , here in the north the state does a pretty good job of plowing the interstates or did you think someone flew a plow in from Washington to do that?

donttread
12-27-2014, 07:05 AM
That is an issue for the movement of goods to various parts of the nation. Since most goods are transported by road, what happens when some States let the interstates become dilapidated and others keep up the maintenance. The movement of goods slow down to the point where spoilage occurs. Everyone is affected. There are more accidents and some companies avoid delivering in those States with bad roads. Would this encourage States to ensure maintenance of their interstates roads? Not sure. Certainly the cost of goods would increase if truckers avoided certain States.

How about vehicle standards? Currently such safety features as air bags, anti-lock brakes etc are a national mandate. Take that away and what happens? Is it possible that standard safety features won't be required in States that don't demand them? I don't know. If they don't could other States prohibit people without said safety features from driving in their State?

If you decentralize the functions of the DOT, don't you just transfer those duties duplicatively to all of the States? Is it more or less efficient to have 50 times more people performing the same function?

I'm just asking questions regarding some of the functions of the DOT, nevermind the rest.

You guys do realize, don't you, that not having a federal DOT would free up tax dollars for the states to use on infrastructure? In an inherently more efficient manner to boot.

zelmo1234
12-27-2014, 07:20 AM
Great more people out of work! Do not cut any part of the government or military! We young people do not want any more people to compete against for jobs!

Cut out the department and you would send billions to the states, thus giving more money for projects.

producing jobs that do more than talk around the water cooler

zelmo1234
12-27-2014, 07:23 AM
I think you should read some of my recent posts. Equality for blacks and women wasn't in the Constitution either, shall we do away with them too?

Look. The argument for a literal vs. living Constitution has been fought since day one. The SCOTUS and courts nationwide have affirmed we have a Constitution that evolves as the country evolves.

See amendments! there is a great way to change the constitution the founding fathers made it possible.

zelmo1234
12-27-2014, 07:30 AM
First it is so much easier to change state governments, and the recall process holds them accountable.

It would make them more accountable, not less.

Next the Democrats have corporate overlords too, they are just different!

And third if the rights reside with the states the people not only have more say, but they can vote with their feet.

zelmo1234
12-27-2014, 07:37 AM
Until of course, the clown without a seatbelt or helmet and no insurance is checked into ER for months on end and we all get to pay for it.

As opposed to the clown without a seatbelt or helmet and not insurance checking into the ER now and will all get to pay for it!

this is exactly what is wrong with the thinking that an all powerful government will solve this.

The ACA mandates insurance, prices go up dramatically, and yet will still have about the same number of uninsured?

the Government sets rules and regulations for the mining and drilling for minerals and oil and yet mines still cave in and oil rigs still blow up. It just cost more

The Government sets rules and regulations for firearms, and yet the criminals still have guns.

What progressives fail to see, is that the government rarely solves an problem, it just makes it more expensive for the people

zelmo1234
12-27-2014, 07:42 AM
Say hello to tainted meat and drugs that give you butt-rot.

This is where you are wrong.

You see States with the same money can employ more people.

If you think that it is working now? then why are there the salmonella and food born illness breakouts?

When you leave it to the federal government you take the people further away from the oversight.

If you were correct and it was working perfectly then we would not have to watch all of the ads on TV and radio from lawyers suing the drug companies for bad drugs.

The system has failed you and you are still beholden to the system!

By returning the system to the states, it becomes more efficient and more accountable to the people. Sure some states will have more government benefits and some states less.

This gives us 50 test markets to get it right.

donttread
12-27-2014, 08:08 AM
Cut out the department and you would send billions to the states, thus giving more money for projects.

producing jobs that do more than talk around the water cooler

That's the part they can't wrap their minds around for some reason. Pavlovian conditioning most likely

Bo-4
12-27-2014, 10:29 AM
The ACA mandates insurance, prices go up dramatically, and yet will still have about the same number of uninsured?

Prices increases as a whole have gone up more modestly than pre-ACA. It varies by state but my non-subsidized ACA-complient policy was up 10% over last year compared to the normal 15-20% in years prior.



But, overall, the 2015 premiums increases will not be significantly worse than they were in the past. They might even be a little better.


http://www.newrepublic.com/article/118966/obamacare-premiums-2015-no-rate-shock-just-modest-increases


And the number of uninsured is down DRAMATICALLY post ACA. Sooo -- your dueling butt-nuggets have earned you the well-deserved stamp of shame! ;-)

http://external.ak.fbcdn.net/safe_image.php?d=AQAV6JgSOEr9sajY&w=155&h=114&url=http%3A%2F%2Fquebec.radionrj.ca%2FPics%2FP.A%2 Ffail.jpg

http://www.usnews.com/dims4/USNEWS/f77e6cd/2147483647/resize/652x/quality/85/?url=%2Fcmsmedia%2Fdb%2F10%2Fba296301403d9926a7701 a57c7ad%2F140710-gallup2-graphic.03.23 PM.png

Peter1469
12-27-2014, 10:33 AM
Those drops in uninsured numbers, assuming that they are accurate, are unimpressive and do not warrant radical changes to the health insurance system in the US.

PolWatch
12-27-2014, 10:44 AM
I don't think the states that receive the most in federal money would be happy with that plan. Texas is one of those that receives more $$$ than they send to Washington (along with the rest of the south).

Chris
12-27-2014, 10:50 AM
Prices increases as a whole have gone up more modestly than pre-ACA. It varies by state but my non-subsidized ACA-complient policy was up 10% over last year compared to the normal 15-20% in years prior.





http://www.newrepublic.com/article/118966/obamacare-premiums-2015-no-rate-shock-just-modest-increases


...

Let's address this first point, that costs have risen only modestly, and let's make it clear you're talking about cost of insurance, not cost of healthcare. THat is the magician's slight of hand behind the ACA, that is addresses healthcare at all. For healthcare costs are rising dramatically:

http://i.snag.gy/TNBZ2.jpg

And are predicted to continue to do so:

http://i.snag.gy/AXE0x.jpg

So what has the ACA accomplished but to in various ways redistributes costs. It's all government can ever do.

Bo-4
12-27-2014, 10:54 AM
Let's address the slowing of premium increases, which historically until now have been in the 15-20% range annually Chris .. the rest is just noise.

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-08-12/dire-obamacare-prediction-falls-hilariously-flat?google_editors_picks=true

Chris
12-27-2014, 11:18 AM
Let's address the slowing of premium increases, which historically until now have been in the 15-20% range annually Chris .. the rest is just noise.

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-08-12/dire-obamacare-prediction-falls-hilariously-flat?google_editors_picks=true



Slight of hand. The issue is rising medical costs, not insurance costs.

ace's n 8's
12-27-2014, 11:24 AM
Slight of hand. The issue is rising medical costs, not insurance costs.

This certainly wont allow in minimizing/lowering medical costs;

Affordable Care Act: Medical Device Tax a Problem for Innovation -

: http://www.policymed.com/2012/11/affordable-care-act-medical-device-tax-a-problem-for-innovation.html#sthash.CAvQ0x5w.dpuf

Chris
12-27-2014, 11:27 AM
This certainly wont allow in minimizing/lowering medical costs;

Affordable Care Act: Medical Device Tax a Problem for Innovation -

: http://www.policymed.com/2012/11/affordable-care-act-medical-device-tax-a-problem-for-innovation.html#sthash.CAvQ0x5w.dpuf




Indeed, the ACA does harm to innovation in medicine and thereby reduces quality of medical care.

Bo-4
12-27-2014, 11:48 AM
Slight of hand. The issue is rising medical costs, not insurance costs.

You believe them to be unconnected?

Please.. when uninsured people use the ER or get free surgery, hospitals have to raise their prices which increases what they have to charge insurance companies who then must raise their rates.

You're just flat out wrong on this one @Chris (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=128). The largest medical groups in the country have reported fewer freeloaders which is directly responsible for the slowing of insurance rate increases.

http://kaiserhealthnews.org/news/safety-net-hospitals-seeing-more-patients-and-money/

http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2014/10/26/57-billion-reasons-why-hospitals-love-obamacare.aspx

Chris
12-27-2014, 12:00 PM
You believe them to be unconnected?

Please.. when uninsured people use the ER or get free surgery, hospitals have to raise their prices which increases what they have to charge insurance companies who then must raise their rates.

You're just flat out wrong on this one Chris. The largest medical groups in the country have reported that fewer freeloaders which is directly responsive for the slowing of price increases.

http://kaiserhealthnews.org/news/safety-net-hospitals-seeing-more-patients-and-money/

http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2014/10/26/57-billion-reasons-why-hospitals-love-obamacare.aspx



Did I say they were unconnected? No, I did not. They are connected, the ACA a means of redistributing but not reducing rising medical costs. I can understand why you'd rather argue with something else.

Bo-4
12-27-2014, 12:24 PM
Did I say they were unconnected? No, I did not. They are connected, the ACA a means of redistributing but not reducing rising medical costs. I can understand why you'd rather argue with something else.

I'm trying to figure out your point. What i question is whether their IS one.

Rate increases have slowed and the number of uninsured has plummeted.. this was sort of the point of the ACA -- IOW, it's working and neither of zelmo's claims were correct.

Chris
12-27-2014, 12:29 PM
I'm trying to figure out your point. What i question is whether their IS one.

Rate increases have slowed and the number of uninsured has plummeted.. this was sort of the point of the ACA -- IOW, it's working and neither of zelmo's claims were correct.


My point is simple, bo, the ACA merely redistributes the rising cost of healthcare. As such it is te magicians misdirection typical of politics.

Bo-4
12-27-2014, 12:38 PM
My point is simple, bo, the ACA merely redistributes the rising cost of healthcare. As such it is te magicians misdirection typical of politics.

Normally, SOMEONE is hurt by redistribution (at least in their own mind). What.. are we increasing the cost of employer paid premiums?

Who cares? They're making record profits right now and their costs (like everyone else's) have ALWAYS increased year to year.

Funny, conservatives used to HATE freeloaders. Now that we're insuring them and they are less of a drain on the rest of us, cons are all supportive of their right to freeload.

Weird i tells ya, W-E-I-R-D!

Chris
12-27-2014, 01:10 PM
Normally, SOMEONE is hurt by redistribution (at least in their own mind). What.. are we increasing the cost of employer paid premiums?

Who cares? They're making record profits right now and their costs (like everyone else's) have ALWAYS increased year to year.

Funny, conservatives used to HATE freeloaders. Now that we're insuring them and they are less of a drain on the rest of us, cons are all supportive of their right to freeload.

Weird i tells ya, W-E-I-R-D!


Taxpayers, in addition to moderately rising premiums. My company's insurance plan went way up, to the point we shopped for another carrier, but those were even higher.

Who care? Very telling. Then what is your point, bo, just partisan cheer leading?

zelmo1234
12-27-2014, 04:13 PM
I don't think the states that receive the most in federal money would be happy with that plan. Texas is one of those that receives more $$$ than they send to Washington (along with the rest of the south).

they would still receive more money! because they have more roads. you would just not be spending billions upon billions is DC every year

zelmo1234
12-27-2014, 04:23 PM
Normally, SOMEONE is hurt by redistribution (at least in their own mind). What.. are we increasing the cost of employer paid premiums?

Who cares? They're making record profits right now and their costs (like everyone else's) have ALWAYS increased year to year.

Funny, conservatives used to HATE freeloaders. Now that we're insuring them and they are less of a drain on the rest of us, cons are all supportive of their right to freeload.

Weird i tells ya, W-E-I-R-D!

And this type of thinking is exactly why there are 9 million fewer people in the workforce than in 2008

You are under the illusions that you are actually taking money from the wealthy. You are wrong

I own 3 businesses and each one of them passed this cost on in one way or another. Layoffs and pay freezes, increasing the cost to customers. and cuts in benefits are all things that the ACA has caused in my companies.

You see each business is designed to make a certain profit margin and dollar figure. Businesses are not a charity, they exist to make profit.

When that profit is taken by the government as Is less that I have to invest in other things, but I assure you, my cut will remain the same or I will shut them down

Howey
12-27-2014, 04:34 PM
This certainly wont allow in minimizing/lowering medical costs;

Affordable Care Act: Medical Device Tax a Problem for Innovation -

: http://www.policymed.com/2012/11/affordable-care-act-medical-device-tax-a-problem-for-innovation.html#sthash.CAvQ0x5w.dpuf
[/URL]

Perhaps instead of critiquing the medical device tax you could learn about it.
[url]http://www.brookings.edu/research/opinions/2014/11/12-medical-device-tax-daniel (http://www.policymed.com/2012/11/affordable-care-act-medical-device-tax-a-problem-for-innovation.html#sthash.CAvQ0x5w.dpuf)

Especially this part:


A report from the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, released last week, concluded that the tax is unlikely to hurt the profits of device companies, estimating that it will reduce industry output and employment by no more than .2 percent. CRS states, "The effect on the price of health care, however, will most likely be negligible because of the small size of the tax and small share of health care spending attributable to medical devices."

Note also the outrageous prices these companies charge for their equipment. Ever hear about the $1000 military toilet? Think about the price of a small box of lancets or your Viagara pill.

DME suppliers have a known reputation for billing hospitals, doctors and patients.

How about this. Lower the prices we'll lower the tax?

Chris
12-27-2014, 04:44 PM
Perhaps instead of critiquing the medical device tax you could learn about it.
http://www.brookings.edu/research/opinions/2014/11/12-medical-device-tax-daniel

Especially this part:


A report from the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, released last week, concluded that the tax is unlikely to hurt the profits of device companies, estimating that it will reduce industry output and employment by no more than .2 percent. CRS states, "The effect on the price of health care, however, will most likely be negligible because of the small size of the tax and small share of health care spending attributable to medical devices."

Note also the outrageous prices these companies charge for their equipment. Ever hear about the $1000 military toilet? Think about the price of a small box of lancets or your Viagara pill.

DME suppliers have a known reputation for billing hospitals, doctors and patients.

How about this. Lower the prices we'll lower the tax?


THe point of ace's link was not that existing device companies and products will suffer much but that innovation in medical devices will.

Howey
12-27-2014, 05:07 PM
THe point of ace's link was not that existing device companies and products will suffer much but that innovation in medical devices will.

Allow me to also note that this not a "tax"; it is a repeal of the horrible tax cut Bush gave to DME suppliers in 2003. You know what I mean....the disastrous supply side tax cut bill that gave birth to the worst depression the country had faced in seventy years?

Peter1469
12-27-2014, 05:22 PM
Allow me to also note that this not a "tax"; it is a repeal of the horrible tax cut Bush gave to DME suppliers in 2003. You know what I mean....the disastrous supply side tax cut bill that gave birth to the worst depression the country had faced in seventy years?

You mean the tax cuts that increased tax revenue massively?

PolWatch
12-27-2014, 05:37 PM
they would still receive more money! because they have more roads. you would just not be spending billions upon billions is DC every year

uh, no. I don't think you understood my statement. My state gets about $2.00 from the federal government for every $1.00 they send in taxes.

Howey
12-27-2014, 06:26 PM
You mean the tax cuts that increased tax revenue massively?


That's direct revenue but nice try. :)

http://i.imgur.com/2aKFbjC.jpg

Howey
12-27-2014, 06:30 PM
You mean the tax cuts that increased tax revenue massively?

Oh Peter1469. ... you had such promise! That actually looked like it was a real website! :)

http://m.dailykos.com/story/2011/05/02/972263/-Who-is-Christopher-Chantrill

Chris
12-27-2014, 06:30 PM
Allow me to also note that this not a "tax"; it is a repeal of the horrible tax cut Bush gave to DME suppliers in 2003. You know what I mean....the disastrous supply side tax cut bill that gave birth to the worst depression the country had faced in seventy years?

Yoiu yourself said "Perhaps instead of critiquing the medical device tax..." And now you say it's not?

Howey
12-27-2014, 06:32 PM
Yoiu yourself said "Perhaps instead of critiquing the medical device tax..." And now you say it's not?

Then I remembered whence it came. My apologies.

Chris
12-27-2014, 06:33 PM
Then I remembered whence it came. My apologies.

So was ace talking about a tax, as you also said, or the opposite, a tax cut?

Peter1469
12-27-2014, 06:34 PM
Of course it is direct revenue. What did you think it was?


That's direct revenue but nice try. :)

http://i.imgur.com/2aKFbjC.jpg

Chris
12-27-2014, 06:36 PM
Hmmm, according to the IRS, Medical Device Excise Tax: Frequently Asked Questions (http://www.irs.gov/uac/Medical-Device-Excise-Tax:-Frequently-Asked-Questions), the Medical Device Excise Tax is a tax.

Peter1469
12-27-2014, 06:36 PM
It is real numbers but I understand why the daily kos doesn't like it.

Tax cuts have often increased tax revenue. We could look at JFK as an example. Reagan as well.


Oh @Peter1469 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=10). ... you had such promise! That actually looked like it was a real website! :)

http://m.dailykos.com/story/2011/05/02/972263/-Who-is-Christopher-Chantrill

Peter1469
12-27-2014, 06:37 PM
Of course it is direct revenue. What did you think it was? You can see the massive increase after the tax cuts.

Howey
12-27-2014, 07:36 PM
Oh Peter1469. ... you had such promise! That actually looked like it was a real website! :)

http://m.dailykos.com/story/2011/05/02/972263/-Who-is-Christopher-Chantrill

OMG. Your guy with the fake table!

http://www.christopherchantrill.com/

Howey
12-27-2014, 07:42 PM
It is real numbers but I understand why the daily kos doesn't like it.

Tax cuts have often increased tax revenue. We could look at JFK as an example. Reagan as well.

It's not Kos, Peter1469. It's the CBO that furnished that chart. Direct revenue, for your edumafication, is not just tax revenue. It's all revenue. Incredibly, it's increased substantially since Obama took office.

http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/fed_revenue_2013US

Peter1469
12-27-2014, 08:02 PM
It's not Kos, @Peter1469 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=10). It's the CBO that furnished that chart. Direct revenue, for your edumafication, is not just tax revenue. It's all revenue. Incredibly, it's increased substantially since Obama took office.

http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/fed_revenue_2013US

Yes, I know what it is. Revenues went up after the tax cuts. Why? Economic expansion.

Peter1469
12-27-2014, 08:03 PM
OMG. Your guy with the fake table!

http://www.christopherchantrill.com/

Why do you think that they are fake? Daily kos sez so?