One More Reason To Dislike Government

Email Print posted by KenTX 03/22/2008 03:21:32 PM EST

Google Technorati del.icio.us digg reddit
If you like this story, digg it!
Do you think that when the government creates a tax on tobacco that they want you to stop smoking?

Do you think that when the government creates a tax on gasoline that they want you to reduce your driving?

Take a look at this article from the Dallas Morning News.

They installed those red light intersection cameras in Dallas, and the system worked even better than anticipated. People quit running red lights. Traffic accidents fell. Traffic deaths fell.

You think the Dallas City Council was happy about it? HELL NO!!! Now, they are taking down the cameras because they are pissed off that people are no longer running red lights. The plan was always about revenue, and it was never about public safety.

Government doesn’t care about improving society. They just want your damn money!

< De-Evolution | Is Hillary Positioning for 2012? >
 Display:
One More Reason To Dislike Government | 35 comments (35 topical, 0 hidden)
Uh huh... (none / 0)
Ok...right...so how much was your fine?

by MRFred on 03/22/2008 03:25:01 PM EST

Let's clarify something (none / 0)
You wrote: "Government doesn’t care about improving society. They just want your damn money!"

This just proves the point that a government is only as good as the people it represents and the people we choose to represent us (especially the latter).


This issue is not inherent to government. In fact, ironically enough, it IS inherent to private companies, because by law a corporation's primarly objective MUST be to always increase profits above all else.


Contrast that with government which does *not* have that as a primary objective, although if you elect the wrong people, that may well be what you get.

by ihavenobias on 03/22/2008 04:39:18 PM EST

Unfortunately, Ken is right on this one... (none / 0)
As a former peace officer, I can tell you without hesitation that Red Light cameras are there for one purpose only - REVENUE GENERATION... The over under cost of an efficient camera system is a revenue CASH COW - If people stop running red lights, cities with these systems lose valuable funding sources...and they get pissed...

A tangent to Ken point is this - Traffic Laws in general are not designed with your safety as the key component of its purpose...

The purpose of 90% of all traffic stops is so the police can see what you are doing or to search your vehicle.

Do you really think that if you dont use your turn signals or if you dont have a light over your license plate that Police really give a shit? No, they want to know who you are, why you are there and if you have dope... Thats what most traffic stops are made for... (except for obvious violations like accidents and prolific speeding)

Those who think that the "government" is looking out for you are just lying to yourself or are just stupid in general...

Thanks...

by bobo1 on 03/22/2008 04:40:48 PM EST

I could not. Agree. With this more. (none / 0)
If the object of traffic regulation was public safety, they would sit police officers in dangerous areas with their lights ON, flashing, to warn people to slow down, and if they didn't slow down, THEN go nab them for speeding violations.

Instead, they sit as stealthily as possible, hoping to "catch" someone running over by 10 miles or so, so they can pick up a ticket and more cash for the state.

The amount of hypocrisy in traffic law astounds me.  Of course, I'm especially bitter about this because something like 40% of NYC's budget comes from traffic citations, and another 20% comes from parking citations (I might have those numbers backwards).  But it is a HUGE portion of the budget.

by jarett on 03/22/2008 05:50:44 PM EST

Come on Jarett (none / 0)
I expect better from you than that subject line which indicates you agree with Ken's absurd conclusion in addition to the idea that some local government groups try to make profit above all else (although it's not like that profit all goes into their pockets BTW).

Agree 100%?  Even with this ridiculous broad brush statement(?) Government doesn’t care about improving society. They just want your damn money!

Do you really think Obama's goal is going to be to get as much money as he can, or that he wants to improve society, partially by ensuring he has enough money to fund much needed and much desired (by a majority of Americans) programs?

by ihavenobias on 03/23/2008 12:35:02 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Okay, maybe I seized on the example (none / 0)
a bit too much.

I just really hate hypocrisy, especially when it's shamelessly written into law.

by jarett on 03/23/2008 02:26:31 PM EST

[ Parent ]
absurd conclusion (none / 0)
"The idea that some local government groups try to make profit above all else."
 
Government isn't a person, it's an entity, like a corporation. It exists for the sole purpose of growing by expanding revenue.

Governments never shrink. They always grow and grow and grow.

by KenTX on 03/23/2008 04:29:39 PM EST

[ Parent ]
You Mean The Good Republicans on the Dallas (none / 0)

City Council and the Republican Mayor didnt get the memo?

Government doesn’t care about improving society. They just want your damn money!

 Small unobtrusive government...a Reagan ideal right?

Tom ( the mayor) holds an M.B.A. with Distinction from Harvard Business School 

After receiving his M.B.A., Tom was appointed by President Reagan as a White House Fellow. In this prestigious position, he worked for the Department of the Treasury and White House staff.

 Guess the Mayor didn't get the memo either.

 

Dallas lawmakers originally estimated gross revenue of $15 million from their 62 cameras this fiscal year, which ends June 30.But City Manager Mary Suhm estimated last week that the city would fall short by more than $4 million.

So last week, the city turned off about a quarter of the least profitable cameras, saying it couldn't justify the cost of running them.

No matter...they are fiscally responsible Ken...and they run things like the private sector your always so hot to replace the evil  government with.

 

One more thing, stop using your Blackberry when you drive, you wont get so many tickets that way. 

 

by MRFred on 03/22/2008 05:55:39 PM EST

As always, Ken misses larger point (none / 0)

Ken misses the point so plainly made in the article: reduced revenue means fewer funds to support the cameras.  They are not removing them because someone is pissed; they can't afford maintenance with dropping funds.

Since ticket revenues are down, the other option open to the city council is to support cameras with general revenues. Since Ken believes the cameras should remain, I'll asssume he's been out there lobbying for the TAX INCREASE necessary to provide them. Unfortunately, a populace ignorant enough to subscribe to GOP fiscal policies means that our hero Ken will be unable in all likelihood to persuade the council to risk their careers by raising taxes for cameras.

So the problem isn't government per se. It's government constrained by those advocating unreasoned and unthinking hatred of government, and by citizens too stupid to understand the need to pay for government services that facilitate public safety.

In Texas, people will die because of Republicans dogma.

by Dogger on 03/22/2008 08:44:25 PM EST

No, you missed the reason (none / 0)
The reason they are taking down the cameras is because NET REVENUE from traffic enforcement has gone DOWN after they've been in place for a while.  The cameras have a negligible "maintenance cost."

This is actually a GOOD sign -- it means people are driving more safely.  However, Ken's point is that the city doesn't CARE about safety -- what it cares about is fucking traffic enforcement revenue.

This incenses me, and it should incense everyone else here too.

by jarett on 03/22/2008 10:12:24 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Jumping Jack Flash (none / 0)

However, Ken's point is that the city doesn't CARE about safety -- what it cares about is fucking traffic enforcement revenue.

 Hey ,I've got it! They could have a strobe light or something that goes off when you run the light. Then you could voluntarily pay it.

by MRFred on 03/22/2008 11:58:05 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Hey Rocky Top (none / 0)
When they put one of those red light cameras at the intersection of Campbell Station and Kingston Pike, you're gonna change your tune.

by KenTX on 03/22/2008 11:17:39 PM EST

[ Parent ]
So Ken (none / 0)

What is your point here?

Do you like the big brother idea or don't you? 

by z1p101 on 03/22/2008 11:26:23 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Different question, but since you asked, (none / 0)
I am very much in favor of protecting the civil liberties of citizens, as outlined in the Constitution. But al Qaeda are not citizens, and they have no Constitutional rights.

And any citizen who is aiding the enemy during time of war is guilty of treason, and should be tried by military tribunal and hanged.

When al Qaeda operatives are talking to each other on satellite phones, and the communication is routed through computers in the U.S., Democrats should do us all a favor and shut the hell up.

by KenTX on 03/22/2008 11:47:40 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Ken brings up an interesting point! (none / 0)

Because al Queda has followed us over here, they can now speed through intersections in Dallas without the monitoring cameras safe in the knowledge they will not be caught.

< Dallas protected by traffic cameras. 

The treasonous citizens of Dallas are overly concerned about their civil liberties, particularly if it may cost them a few bucks. They should know that they will have to give up a few freedoms, or a few traffic points, in the war on terror

 

 

Since there have been no attacks in Dallas the cameras were obviously doing their job. So by not supporting the public safty department they have endangered freedom in  greater Dallas area.

< Dallas without traffic cameras 

The Mayor and the city council of Dalas should be tried by military tribunal and hanged. By cutting the funding and removing the traffic cameras they are  aiding the enemy during time of war and are guilty of treason.

 

by MRFred on 03/23/2008 12:27:07 AM EST

[ Parent ]
So Ken (none / 0)

we should allow our government to listen in on every one without over site (watching the watchers) as long as they say they say they are only focusing on al Qaeda? No judge, no warrant, no nothing. We should have that much trust in our government?

Careful Ken, you are about to loose your conservative membership card. 

by z1p101 on 03/23/2008 12:31:50 AM EST

[ Parent ]
I dont know what he's so upset about.. (none / 0)

after all the free market decided with cameras were going to be removed. The cameras that couldn't compete were shut down. No hand outs from the government!

Now if the cameras belonged to big investment banks like Bear Sterns the Repubs would be all over bailing them out like stink on poop. 

by MRFred on 03/23/2008 12:48:59 AM EST

[ Parent ]
I'm glad you asked. (none / 0)
"We should allow our government to listen in on every one without oversite, as long as they say they're only focusing on al Qaeda?"

During time of war, we should be intercepting signals communication from the enemy, without regard to warrants. Alberto Gonzales did a very good job of explaining this issue during testimony before Congress:

 “This Nation has a long tradition of wartime enemy surveillance. And for as long as electronic communications have existed, the United States has intercepted those communications during wartime, and done so, not surprisingly, without judicial warrants. In the Civil War, for example, telegraph wiretapping was common and provided important intelligence for both sides. In World War I, President Wilson authorized the military to intercept all telegraph, telephone, and cable communications into and out of the United States; he inferred the authority to do so from the Constitution and from a general congressional authorization to use military force that did not mention anything about such surveillance. See Exec. Order No. 2604 (Apr. 28, 1917). So too in World War II; the day after the attack on Pearl Harbor, President Roosevelt authorized the interception of all communications traffic into and out of the United States. The terrorist surveillance program, of course, is far more focused, since it involves the interception only of international communications that are linked to al Qaeda.”

by KenTX on 03/23/2008 01:39:48 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Nice coward dodge (none / 0)

But we fix legal problems in our country when we see them. That is why you and Alberto "the humiliated one" Gonzalez are quoting what happened in 1917.

I still have not seen a formal declaration of war. Neither has your own congressman.

So, the question still remains Ken, are you for or against the government spying on everyone and taking their word for it that they are only listening to who they say they are?

by z1p101 on 03/23/2008 02:05:12 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Here is my answer, AGAIN. (none / 0)
I'll highlight it this time so that you won’t miss it.
During time of war, we should be intercepting signals communication from the enemy, without regard to warrants.

Here is the roll call on Senate Democrats who supported the President and the telecoms in voting for the Protect America Act. Note that Hillary Clinton abstained. She didn’t want to go on record.

Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), Evan Bayh (D-IN), Daniel Inouye (D-HI), Tim Johnson (D-SD), Herb Kohl (D-WI), Mary Landrieu (D-LA), Claire McCaskill (D-MO), Mark Pryor (D-AR), Blanche Lincoln (D-AR), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Ken Salazar (D-CO), Tom Carper (D-DE), Barbara Mikulski (D-MD), Jim Webb (D-VA), Ben Nelson (D-NE), Bill Nelson (D-FL), Kent Conrad (D-ND), and Debbie Stabenow (D-MI)

Evidently, there is widespread support throughout the Democrat Party for warrantless wiretaps of al Qaeda communications with Americans.

by KenTX on 03/23/2008 02:15:30 AM EST

[ Parent ]
You are such a pussy (none / 0)

I could give a fling rats ass what Senate Democrats do.

Do you trust your government when they tell you that they are listening in on everyone but they will only focus on al Qaeda or not? Or does it only matter to you when they catch your dumb ass running a red light on a spy camera?

Come on man, it is an easy question.

Are you small or big government? You raised the question. 

by z1p101 on 03/23/2008 02:31:39 AM EST

[ Parent ]
You've been drinking again, (none / 0)
and you always become rude and incoherent whenever you post in an inebriated condition.

Are you ever embarrassed, the following day, when you read what you posted the night before?

by KenTX on 03/23/2008 02:44:57 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Nope (none / 0)

gave it up for lent.

So Ken are you willing to allow the government to listen in on all your phone calls and other communications trusting that they will ignore them because you are not al Qaeda or not?

Still an easy question, pussy.

Are you going to continue to be my favorite baby fur seal? 

by z1p101 on 03/23/2008 02:58:47 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Im the only one allowed to drink on this forum!!! (none / 0)
Look Ken and Zippy...

First Ken - He has you dead to rights, man. Just say it... its OK to have cojones for what you believe...

Then you Zippy - Dude, the government has been spying on us since they have had the technology to do so... To say that its just been in the past few years is the most asinine thinking there could possibly be. Please tell me you know this to be true, but your inner gut denies it because you still believe in a Free America that really no longer exists....

This thread is getting as bad as the damn Evolution one next door - y'all must be terribly bored this weekend...

Happy Easter to both of you...

by bobo1 on 03/23/2008 03:14:15 AM EST

[ Parent ]
bobo, this ain't hard (none / 0)
During peacetime, civil liberties of the citizens supersede the objectives of government.

During time of war, we should be intercepting signals communication from the enemy, without regard to warrants.

After Congress hands war powers to the president with an AUMF, he has sweeping authority to prosecute the war, and nothing gets in the way, not even the Bill of Rights.

Civil liberties have been steamrolled by war effort on several occasions in the nation’s history. The Supreme Court rarely interferes with the Executive in the middle of a war.

You might have noticed that Bush’s record is 100-0 when it comes to getting his way on points of conflict with respect to his prosecution of the war. That’s because the Constitution is designed to favor the Commander In Chief.

by KenTX on 03/23/2008 03:50:13 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Here is where you are right! (none / 0)
During time of war, we should be intercepting signals communication from the enemy, without regard to warrants.

Absolutely!

And here is where you are wrong:

The problem is that in cases where you don't know whether or not these signals are from the enemy, you should be getting warrants to perform those interceptions.  We don't really care when, you know.  Before.  During.  After.  It's all completely acceptable to us.  Just as long as a warrant is obtained and there is some kind of oversight.  Furthermore, once it is ascertained that said transmissions are in fact from the enemy, I don't see why another warrant should be needed for further wiretapping.

Oh, and one other thing.  We're not actually in a time of war.

See, we're all quite reasonable about this, as I'm sure you'll agree.

by jarett on 03/23/2008 06:15:41 AM EST

[ Parent ]
you can't declare war on an organization.... (none / 0)
and that's why all this is bullshit

by chrisandyasemin on 03/23/2008 01:12:29 PM EST

[ Parent ]
How did this thread (none / 0)
turn into a discussion of the (admittedly unconstitutional, unnecessary, civil liberties-violating) warrantless wiretapping program?

Can't we all RAAAAAAAAAAAGE over Dallas' failure to protect public safety in favor of making a buck instead?

by jarett on 03/23/2008 06:11:12 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Enlighten me (none / 0)
I have not problem with trying to protect America. In fact I believe that the Bush Administration has done a terrible job at it.

It is my understanding that under FISA our goverment could monitor communications without a warrant (for a couple of days). It is also my understanding the Dems were willing to adopt changes to FISA to meet the changes in technology and the "new" threat.

It is further my understanding that Bush lied (saying FISA was sufficient) and violated the law and has repeatedly gone beyond the law and lied to the American people about it. Further certain telecom Companies went along with these violations while others did not.

It seems that Bush is more concerned with protecting the telecoms from lawsuits than he is at protecting America. What do the telecoms have to fear if they have been only spying on Al Qeaeda?

My gut tells me that they were doing alot more than spying on our enemies. My gut tells me that Bush's boys are using this for political reasons.

I am sure that you would be raising questions if this was a democratic president, and rightfully so. Al qeaeda does not have the ability to take our freedoms or imprison us. An unethical goverment can do that and alot more.

The fact that Bush fears oversight more than our enemies speaks volumes.

by LORD FOUL on 03/23/2008 03:47:13 PM EST

[ Parent ]
My pleasure (none / 0)
You seem to have several questions that can be answered by the details of the Protect America Act.

The bill passed with overwhelming bipartisan support in the Senate, including immunity for the telecom companies that assisted the government in the War on Al Qaeda.

House Democrat Leadership is refusing to allow the bill to come up for a vote, because they know it will pass in the House with overwhelming bipartisan support, just like it did in the Senate.

My gut tells me that Pelosi's boys are using this for political reasons.

The fact that Pelosi fears an up or down vote more than our enemies speaks volumes.

by KenTX on 03/23/2008 04:42:36 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Hey, here's a solution! (none / 0)

We could have faith based traffic cameras. The revenue from the cameras could fund abstinence programs or save some frozen embryos!

by MRFred on 03/23/2008 12:42:06 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Evolution of a thread (none / 0)
I like how this thread started out with Ken yelling, "I hate paying taxes!" and worked its way around to Ken yelling, "Help, terrorists want to kill me!"

by OneHitKill on 03/23/2008 06:15:55 AM EST

Echo. Echo. (none / 0)
Oops, I didn't mean to echo Jarett exactly.  Great minds think alike, I guess.

by OneHitKill on 03/23/2008 06:17:40 AM EST

[ Parent ]
OHK, concise as usuall. (none / 0)

It seems one mans civil liberty is another mans traffic camera.

It is funny that for the most part the principles of traffic cameras and warrant-less wiretapping are very similar. Both intrude on or violate individual privacy, both involve the preservation and enforcement of public safety  and both represent the heavy hand of big government intruding on our daily lives , regardless of how good the intentions my be.

The difference is that if you ask Ken to pay for something he gets pissed. If the telcos charged a "national security monitoring tax" on you phone bill the howls and bitching would be long loud and continuous.

I hate to break it to Ken , satellite phones Inmarsat Thuraya, Globalstar and Iridium don't use cells, main office switching and long haul transmission lines. Only when they are switched to a terrestrial number or cell number do they touch the phone system. Point to Point communications are uneffected by the phone and cell backbone. Using a satellite phone would also be a homing beacon for a cruise missile , predator attack or other nasty things.

If the did they would be called cell phones. From what I have read al Queda stopped using those after Tora Bora when they figured out they were being monitored. So I am wondering the utility of using communication or monitoring that have lone since been compromised. If anything they are using encrypted VOIP , stegenographic techniques, or simple codes on the internets.

 

 

 

by MRFred on 03/23/2008 10:04:45 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Getting back on track (none / 0)
Before this thread jumped the rails, I made the point that the city did not remove them because someone is pissed, but rather that they can't afford them with dropping funds. The article stated that Dallas pays ACS a guaranteed $3,799 per month for each camera, while diverting half of net revenue to the state. The success of the program undercut the ability of the city to pay that cost.

The quandry demonstrates the failings of treating government like a business that must sustain itself from generated income, rather than taxes. The article discussed several means by which the cameras could be supported, but never mentions increased taxes.

And my point was that a program that improves public safety is worth paying for, but that people want the benefit of fewer accidents and deaths while reflexively opposing any tax increase that supports the programs which produce those results.

In the toxic political environment created by today's GOP, a responsible politician is forced to choose between killing his own political career by increasing taxes and killing citizens by dismantling valid safety programs. Raise taxes, and the consequences are severe. Raise traffic accidents and fatalities, and nothing happens.


by Dogger on 03/23/2008 09:40:54 AM EST

One More Reason To Dislike Government | 35 comments (35 topical, 0 hidden)
 Display: