2024 Field

This is a tremendous argument for the need to slash and reduce the government so that such an election isn't so consequential

Again, I’m not actually arguing this point. But you don’t smash a window because the lock breaks so that you can replace the whole thing. You fix the part that’s broken. Claiming a policy that would affect thousands of families and drive the entire government toward having to train thousands of new employees at once is fine because the jobs shouldn’t exist in the first place is a short-sighted view.
 
Yes, that limit simply exists somewhere above letting people die of hunger.

That's very virtuous.

I don't know the data on hunger. But I will commit to looking into it.

But as a parallel, I also am in favor of eliminating the department of education.

You and Carp probably translate this as sturg33 wants kids to be stupid

But sturg33 would point out that *every* metric we measure of educational standards has gotten worse since it's creation, and we are spending more per student today than we ever have.

I do not want kids to be stupid. I want the opposite, actually. Do you?
 
Like Sturg, we are literally talking about feeding the hungry. If you want to come to me with viable alternatives to some of the inefficient ways in which we attempt that today, I’m all ears. I don’t think government must be ineffective, but it very often is. So let’s talk solutions that aren’t “well do we really want to take tax money to feed the hungry?”
 
Again, I’m not actually arguing this point. But you don’t smash a window because the lock breaks so that you can replace the whole thing. You fix the part that’s broken. Claiming a policy that would affect thousands of families and drive the entire government toward having to train thousands of new employees at once is fine because the jobs shouldn’t exist in the first place is a short-sighted view.

Do you think Donald Trump was correct when he described the "deep state", or a group of unelected beaurocrats who are critically important to direction of our government?
 
That's very virtuous.

I don't know the data on hunger. But I will commit to looking into it.

But as a parallel, I also am in favor of eliminating the department of education.

You and Carp probably translate this as sturg33 wants kids to be stupid

But sturg33 would point out that *every* metric we measure of educational standards has gotten worse since it's creation, and we are spending more per student today than we ever have.

I do not want kids to be stupid. I want the opposite, actually. Do you?

I think we fundamentally disagree on two key points:

1) You tend to present everything to do with the federal government as a dichotomy: either we continue to see poor results from the program or we eliminate it. You leave no room for nuance and assume the appropriate response is to throw it out.

2) You either assume more altruism in the world than I do, or are willing to let people suffer if the public sector cannot or will not replace governmental aid. I think the reason you need the government in some of these spheres isn’t because they’re the best at it, but because it happens even if it doesn’t break even. I think we can and should run budget deficits to feed the hungry if we must. Audit everything, reduce the waste and red tape where you can, but you don’t just let people not eat.
 
I think we fundamentally disagree on two key points:

1) You tend to present everything to do with the federal government as a dichotomy: either we continue to see poor results from the program or we eliminate it. You leave no room for nuance and assume the appropriate response is to throw it out.

2) You either assume more altruism in the world than I do, or are willing to let people suffer if the public sector cannot or will not replace governmental aid. I think the reason you need the government in some of these spheres isn’t because they’re the best at it, but because it happens even if it doesn’t break even. I think we can and should run budget deficits to feed the hungry if we must. Audit everything, reduce the waste and red tape where you can, but you don’t just let people not eat.

1. The federal government makes everything worse, every time. There are no exceptions to this, outside of the military

2. There have been tons of research done here that displays that private will fill the void for charity when needed. When government takes over, private money reduces. In these examples, outcomes are worse because the federal government makes everything worse, every time.

A great example of this is medical costs before and after the creation of medicaid and Medicare
 
It takes a bit **** on the first amendment, expands presidential powers, and also supports letting people in poverty starve to death.

Glad to know you are on board with such amazing values.

Sturg is mentally ill right now. His ideology is now “trash trump” and nothing else.
 
These programs don’t operate in a vacuum. They fill in the gaps in the larger system and reduce the burden. But I can’t get behind a political philosophy that doesn’t at the very least keep people from starving if other people don’t answer the call.

It’s an extremely narcissistic and selfish ideology. That’s just who he is. Scummy salesmen vibes.
 
Anyone pretending that a country as great as America can’t play a big role in helping its citizens that are struggling are morons and don’t understand externalities of their selfish policies.
 
And yes - Trump has adopted a portion of the project 2025 ideas because this is what they were going to do before the stolen election. Bannon has been talking about these measures for years and make no mistake bannon has a direct line to Trump.
 
Regarding burkele trump needs to either produce real evidence of his claims or shut the **** up. Burkele is part of the global resistance to the mind virus.

How should we feel if burkele did just send his criminals to the US? Interesting question.
 
I actually did a little research following you're 4th grade level attack.

Feeding America is one of hundreds of charities and they feed over 40M people per year

They are better at it than DC.

You support worthless beaurocracies. I support effective solutions.

Bit it's easier to say I want people to die

They provide over 40 million meals.... Not the same as feeding 40 million people food for 365 days of the year.

Who is going to fund these charities? In total, US charities receive around 60 billion annually in donations. But we spend around 120 billion to fund SNAP alone? How the **** are you expecting charities to provide these benefits, when all charitable donations together don't even add up to half the funding for SNAP? I mean Jesus dude, do you realize 1 in 8 households have issues putting food on the table consistently in our CURRENT system?

You clearly can't understand the gargantuan task of funding a program like this on a national level, staffing a program like this on a national level, and having a proper system in place for the ease of access to these sort of charitable benefits. Charities not only CAN'T provide this, but they shouldn't be called upon to do this.
 
Last edited:
That’s why they call them LOLibertarians.

Come out with magic like balance the budget to pay off our debt!
 
Perhaps giving the executive the ability to act like an executive, we can finally get a smaller government

Why shouldn't the executive not be allowed to fire people under his purview?

Because it removes certain checks and balances that ensure we don't have a dictator. The founding fathers precisely designed the role of the President this way. We want the POTUS (and by extension, the Federal government) the least involved in our lives as possible.
 
Hold on a second - we should be giving more power to the president as it’s been slowly nerfed the past few decades by the administrative state. It’s just a matter of how far is too far.
 
That's very virtuous.

I don't know the data on hunger. But I will commit to looking into it.

But as a parallel, I also am in favor of eliminating the department of education.

You and Carp probably translate this as sturg33 wants kids to be stupid

But sturg33 would point out that *every* metric we measure of educational standards has gotten worse since it's creation, and we are spending more per student today than we ever have.

I do not want kids to be stupid. I want the opposite, actually. Do you?

Ending the department of education without providing some sort governmentally funded replacement is indeed being ok with millions of kids being stupid. Glad you are catching on.
 
Hold on a second - we should be giving more power to the president as it’s been slowly nerfed the past few decades by the administrative state. It’s just a matter of how far is too far.

The POTUS needs to stay out of our lives as much as possible. Limiting his powers to affect that is something that anyone truly for small government would agree with.
 
The POTUS needs to stay out of our lives as much as possible. Limiting his powers to affect that is something that anyone truly for small government would agree with.

Right now the past few decades it’s been the administrative state that has had an unduly impact on our lives. The president is elected by the people and any impact from the executive branch should flow from the president.
 
Back
Top