General discussion

  • Creator
    Topic
  • #2212761

    To those who voted for Democrats two years ago

    Locked

    by maxwell edison ·

    You contributed to adding more debt onto the shoulders of future generations than everyone else over the past 200 years! AND, you contributed to the impending total collapse of the U.S economy more than everyone else over the past 200 years!

    http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/111th-congress-added-more-debt-first-100

    Go ahead, blame Bush. It’s all you seem to do. But you only have yourselves to blame. Your day of reckoning WILL come, and you will have dragged others down with you.

    What will you do when the Dollar collapses and the United States defaults on both its debt obligations and promises to its citizens? What will you do when the Dollar is devalued? What will you do when the World Reserve Currency is no longer the Dollar? It will happen, you know; it’s just a matter of time. And it will happen sooner rather than later. (And why is George Soros, Democrat’s favorite billionaire, buying up all the gold and silver he can get his hands on – all the while, advocating MORE government spending and debt accumulation?)

    When will people realize that America’s credit card is WAY over the limit? And it’s actually too late to fix it. I’ve been sounding the warning for twenty-plus years. But no, my detractors claim; I’m just mean-spirited and selfish.

    In short, the American people have elected themselves out of the best thing that’s ever happened in the history of the world. They’ve killed the Golden Goose in exchange for their own (selfish) basket of eggs.

    P.S. I also blame the weasel and spineless Republicans who were sucked into the Democrats’ games, and were, themselves, no more than Baby Democrats. But whatever it takes to get elected, I suppose.

    Do you belive such a thing? Do you share such an outlook? If so, what will you do to prepare yourself? If not, why not?

All Comments

  • Author
    Replies
    • #2877830

      Not just debt, Max; not just voting Democrat/Republican

      by santeewelding ·

      In reply to To those who voted for Democrats two years ago

      The assault overwhelms an individual on many other fronts. Debt and default, however, [i]will[/i] grab and spin violently around anyone who has not been paying attention.

      Past time to complain about it.

      • #2877827

        The assault:

        by maxwell edison ·

        In reply to Not just debt, Max; not just voting Democrat/Republican

        That’s a great description, Santee.

        It is – and has been – an assault. It’s been an assault on liberty, an assault on freedom, an assault on individual rights, and an assault on the very fabric of what made America great in the first place.

        But I’m not complaining about it – at least not any more. I used to, I suppose, but that time has long passed. Instead, I’m starting to plan for the inevitable – although that presents quite the challenge.

        Anyone who doesn’t believe that the American economy and the American Dollar is on the road of collapse – a road of no return – is simply ignorant or in denial.

        • #2877748

          You’re overstating the problem

          by delbertpgh ·

          In reply to The assault:

          The way you talk makes me wonder if you’re stocking up on canned food, ammunition, and Krugerrands. “An assault” on liberty, freedom, indiviualism, and the sinews of American greatness. Sounds like somebody has declared war against you. But nobody has. No war. Relax a little. Worry about the real problem.

          The U.S. has gotten into a financial mess because of a lot of mistakes, but mostly by wishful thinking (house prices can go up forever, bankers’ salaries can go up forever, jobs can disappear overseas forever, taxes can be cut forever, and we all will be better because of it.) We had a huge asset bubble that popped, and now we are left with a shrunken economy, mortgages that will never get above water, and no confidence. If you study depression economics, you know that if government spending is slashed to match our lowered government income, then confidence and business activity will fall further. It could potentially increase red ink more than the crazy stop gap spending you hate so much now, once unemployment runs to 20%.

          It is going to take years for our 10% unemployment to get back to the 5% level. Probably about five years. We have a special problem right now because businesses, sitting on a trillion dollars in profits, don’t see any reason to put it at risk by investing in job-creating projects. Private equity (i.e., American rich guy money in limited partnership investment clubs) is putting its tax-cut savings into foreign investment, because they don’t want to risk it here. The private institutions with cash and the power to put it to work behave like they don’t believe in this country.

          Economic dogma says that lower interest rates should produce higher economic activity, but rates are near zero for short term money and 3% for long term, and the economy has not reacted. Traditional economics says that crazy low interest rates cause inflation, but it’s not happening now. Conservative economists say that if taxes are lowered (note: deficit thereby raised) we will automatically see more investment, but it hasn’t happened lately. In fact, taxes have been low since 2002 and all we got was anemic growth and a huge bubble. All the things we were sure of about our economy seem the be false today. Economic truths are on a holiday, until the economy comes back.

          Economics is not like physics; it’s a behavioral science, and right now America is a frightened mob. All it wants to do is conserve its savings and get rid of its stifling mortgages, and it does not invest, no matter how sweet the inducement. If government does not do its job and force economic action, by various forms of stimulus, our economy can and will collapse, until you have 20%-plus unemployment, people dying in front of hospitals that can’t afford to admit them, and a generation of kids who won’t get a college education. Because, like in the 1930s, when it gets that bad, it stays stuck at the bottom for a decade. Maybe if it gets really bad, you get a revolution. Check the politics of the Depression: Huey Long, Norman Thomas, Father Coughlin, Americal First, fascist clubs.

          One last thought: what was it that ended the Great Depression in America? Why, it was the biggest, most wasteful government spending program of all: we paid ten million Americans to dress in funny suits and march in circles, and ten million more to build planes and vehicles that smashed into the ground or burnt or got blown up. It was the Second World War, and we put it on credit.

        • #2877733

          Your smug and condescending attitude is part of the problem

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to You’re overstating the problem

          Re: [i]The way you talk makes me wonder if you’re stocking up on canned food, ammunition, and Krugerrands.[/i]

          People should have individual disaster plans in place, or at least in mind, to prepare themselves for any number of disasters so they DON’T have to rely on government to do it for them. All one has to do is look at the debacle called Katrina as an illustration.

          People should be prepared for medical emergencies by at least having a First Aid Kit, and know how to administer it. For all too many people, the only First Aid they need to know is 911.

          People should be prepared in case of massive power outages.

          People should be prepared for weather emergencies.

          And yes, people should be prepared for some degree of civil unrest and/or social collapse. It can’t happen here, you say? Yea, right.

          But it’s your smug and condescending attitude that exacerbates the problem. And it presupposes that people should not be prepared to take responsibility for themselves. Just wait until we have the nation-wide economic version of Hurricane Katrina. People might wish they were better prepared and relied less on government and more on themselves.

        • #2877724

          I’d prepare for tough times, but not civilizational collapse

          by delbertpgh ·

          In reply to Your smug and condescending attitude is part of the problem

          I’m paying down debt, and losing weight. Leaves me less susceptible to two kinds of potential economic misery. Although I’m not building up a year’s supply of canned food (like a Mormon), I buy extra when it’s cheap. Lots of people like me, holding back on our spending and being very careful of what we do spend it on, contribute to the slow growth of our economy and to the near-zero rates of inflation.

          What I’d really like to see is my government get a proper stimulus working, (preferably something that rebuilt our infrastructure so we’d have something lasting and useful to show for the borrowed money,) so we could get the hell out of this panicked recessionary mindset. Then, all of a sudden we’d have inflation and the budget deficit to worry about, which we’d be able to fix, because we’d be rich Americans again.

        • #2877252

          “I’d”

          by santeewelding ·

          In reply to I’d prepare for tough times, but not civilizational collapse

          Meaning, that, at the moment, you are not prepared for immediate and personal adversity? You look to the kindness of strangers, themselves beset?

        • #2877229

          My fallout shelter’s not stocked and the barbed wire’s not strung, no

          by delbertpgh ·

          In reply to “I’d”

          I’m still counting on the reasonableness of others.

        • #2877097

          All you can do

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to I’d prepare for tough times, but not civilizational collapse

          As Maxwell always indicates, you must look out for number one (yourself and/or your loved ones…your immediate loved ones anyway).

          So when you go to the store to buy a $10.00 can of corn and they are out of stock because the country can’t afford to import more from the nations you rely on, go and knock on Maxwell’s bomb shelter door, it’s all his fault for hoarding it. 😀

          Not to worry, we;ll send down some bags of food and aid as needed. Maybe those poor folks in Iraq will help out as thanks for all the good you did for them or maybe having the biggest military force in the world will help.

        • #2877099

          Smug and condescending attitudes

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Your smug and condescending attitude is part of the problem

          [b]SMUG:[/b] [i] I’ve been sounding the warning for twenty-plus years. But no, my detractors claim; I’m just mean-spirited and selfish.[/i]

          [b]CONDESCENDING:[/b] [i]You contributed to adding more debt onto the shoulders of future generations than everyone else over the past 200 years! AND, you contributed to the impending total collapse of the U.S economy more than everyone else over the past 200 years!

          Your day of reckoning WILL come, and you will have dragged others down with you.

          [/i]
          Three words, POT, KETTLE, BLACK, I won’t call you the ‘H word’ though, it’s just too obvious.

        • #2877059

          Look who’s talking

          by ben “iron” damper ·

          In reply to Smug and condescending attitudes

          You Canadian A-hole.

        • #2877058

          Dear Ben

          by jamesrl ·

          In reply to Look who’s talking

          First off, Oz is not a Canadian citizen.

          Secondly, by using my nationality or anyone’s nationality as an insulting term, you simply do what you accuse Oz and others of doing. It nullifies your argument and puts you into the catgory of schoolyard bullies.

        • #2877038

          Seagulls…

          by ansugisalas ·

          In reply to Look who’s talking

          We have a license to gun them down, right?
          After all, they get in the way of air traffic 🙂

        • #2877030

          At US airports, its Canada Geese

          by jamesrl ·

          In reply to Look who’s talking

          Seriously they hire people to scare them off. I met someone who did it at Newark, they use dogs, in other places they use guns or flares that whistle like fireworks.

          Coincidentally, there was a situation in Kelowna, B.C. this week with the police. They received a report that a man had been firing a gun at the local golf course. They found the man, put him on all fours, and the arresting officer wound up and kicked him straight to the face. Turns out the guy had a job scaring Canada Geese off the golf course. He had been trying to tell the officers that he had a license but they didn’t stop to ask questions before kicking him in the face. A non involved party had a camera phone and made a video which made it to youtube.

        • #2876964

          Damn

          by ansugisalas ·

          In reply to Look who’s talking

          Some people take out their brains when they put on uniform…
          Maybe they don’t want it to dribble and stain the crisp fabric?

        • #2877111

          Nah,

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to You’re overstating the problem

          that’s me 🙂

        • #2877251

          The inevitable & The challenge

          by santeewelding ·

          In reply to The assault:

          Let me know if you get a handle on it. The only thing I sense at the moment, is to remain alert for tipping points.

          The Tucson thing doesn’t look like it. Close, but no cigar; unless we’re in for a spate of them.

        • #2877223

          No, Tucson wasn’t it

          by delbertpgh ·

          In reply to The inevitable & The challenge

          That crazy boy who shot 20 people was schizophrenic, not political. He had some political ideas, but any information or theory in his head was overwhelmed by the crazy.

          As much as I blame today’s “conservatives” for embittering political talk, I can’t assign them the slightest responsibility for this murdering crackpot.

        • #2877205

          Question

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to No, Tucson wasn’t it

          Re: [i]… today’s “conservatives” for embittering political talk[/i]

          We hear that claim all the time, but never accompanied with specific examples. Do you care to post some specific examples of such [i]embittering political talk[/i]? Specific examples means full quotes in full context, either written or video.

          I’d like to know just exactly what you mean by that. Perhaps others would as well.

        • #2877195

          Let me qualify

          by jamesrl ·

          In reply to Question

          I don’t think that conservatives are the only ones throwing out nutty talk.

          But if you want examples of what I consider to be wacky speach that stirs up hate and divides the country, here goes.

          “I hope that’s not where we’re going, but you know if this Congress keeps going the way it is, people are really looking toward those Second Amendment remedies and saying my goodness what can we do to turn this country around? I’ll tell you the first thing we need to do is take Harry Reid out.” Nevada GOP Senate candidate Sharron Angle, floating the possibility of armed insurrection in a radio interview, Jan. 2010

          “This is what Hitler did with the SS. He had his own people. He had the brownshirts and then the SS. This is what Saddam Hussein so but you are comparing that. And I , I mean, I think America would have a really hard time getting their arms around that.”
          Glenn Beck, claiming Obama’s ‘civilian national security force’ is the same as what Hitler and Saddam Hussein did, Glenn Beck, FOX News’ Glenn Beck show, Aug. 27, 2009″

          “We Came Unarmed ? This Time” from a list of ‘favorite’ signs at Tea Party rallies.

          “He has no place in any station of government and we need to realize that he is an enemy of humanity,” said Rep. Trent Franks about Obama.

          “Our nation was founded on violence. The option is on the table. I don’t think that we should ever remove anything from the table as it relates to our liberties and our freedoms.” Tea Party-backed Texas GOP congressional candidate Stephen Broden, suggesting the violent overthrow of the U.S. government if Republicans don’t win at the ballot box, interview with Dallas’s WFAA-TV, Oct. 21, 2010

          And let me be clear, I don’t think that this kind of talk, however reprehensible, is responsible for a nut job with a gun shooting a congresswoman. But there is clearly evidence of embittering talk, on both sides of the aisle.

        • #2877178

          The vitriol comes more in journalist interpretation . .

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Let me qualify

          ….. not from the quote itself:

          [i]…. floating the possibility of armed insurrection in a radio interview, Jan. 2010[/i]

          She didn’t float the possibility of an armed insurrection!

          [i]…. Glenn Beck, claiming Obama’s ‘civilian national security force’ is the same as what Hitler and Saddam Hussein did[/i]

          Big friggin’ deal! How many times was Bush compared to Hitler?

          [i]…. suggesting the violent overthrow of the U.S. government if Republicans don’t win at the ballot box[/i]

          That quote didn’t suggest the violent overthrow of the U.S. government!

          NONE of those words are direct quotes.

          But these are:

          http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0608/Obama_brings_a_gun_to_a_knife_fight.html

          http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-latinos-punish-your-enemies-voting-booth_511932.html

          http://teresamerica.blogspot.com/2009/10/chris-matthews-wishes-rush-limbaugh.html

          I could go on, but I won’t.

          Besides, I’ve said many times in these threads that wars are caused by those who take away individual freedom and liberty. Is that also inciting violence? And is it a false statement? When was the last war waged by a people to restore freedom and liberty? When was the last war waged by a people who wanted to give up their freedom and liberty? The former question has many answers. The answer to the latter question is never.

          People can – and do – reach a breaking point, as history has proven time and again, when their freedom and liberty is taken away. People have never reached a breaking point with more freedom, only with less.

          Are people reaching such a breaking point? You’re damn right they are! (Oh my! Is that violent speech?) I’ve even suggested that the day might come when some states want to secede from the union. Is that suggesting a Civil War? There are those in the media who would add that suggestion after reporting my original comment.

          Example:

          “….. the day might come when some states want to secede from the union”, said Maxwell Edison suggesting the possibility of a second American Civil War. (Of course, I never suggested a Civil War.)

          http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=102&threadID=340147&messageID=3406784&tag=content;leftCol

          Nonetheless, it’s not the angry tone of the language that should be condemned, but rather what’s causing it. All too many people want to stifle the language as a means to advance an ever-increasing encroachment on individual freedom and liberty.

          Thomas Jefferson even noted (I’m paraphrasing) that a rebellion now and then was a good thing to keep government in check.

          (I kind of rambled all over the place, but what the heck!)

        • #2877175

          Respectfully disagree

          by jamesrl ·

          In reply to Let me qualify

          With regards to Sharron Angle, to me when you suggest second amendment remedies to what Congress is doing and “Taking Harry Reid out” in the same breath, its clear to me what she means.

          As to Bush and Hitler, when do two wrongs make a right? Do you believe Obama can be equated to Hitler?

          Enemy of humanity? Thats just outrageous inflamatory rhetoric. I would feel the same if someone said it of Bush.

          I am well aware of TJ’s famous quote. And personally I think in the case of a Hitler, it might be justified. But clearly, the US is not at that point. The US democracy has some huge issues, but it isn’t dead yet. Similarly the economy is in bad shape, but can recover. The debt is an issue, but it can be dealt with.

        • #2877172

          Regarding Thomas Jefferson

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Let me qualify

          Jefferson, Madison, Washington, Mason, Franklin, et al would not recognize this country as the United States. And I would venture to guess, that without exception, every person who signed the Declaration of Independence, and every person who signed the Constitution, and every person who supported both documents, would not stand for the government we have today and would actually rebel against it – armed or otherwise.

        • #2877163

          The direct quotes were there, Max

          by nicknielsen ·

          In reply to Let me qualify

          You chose, however, to focus not on the quotes but on the (obvious, to me) interpretations.

          I’m disappointed.

        • #2877001

          And I’m disappointed with Nick

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Let me qualify

          (Not that either Nick or I lives to please the other.)

          For reference, James’s message – the one to which I replied:

          [i]I don’t think that conservatives are the only ones throwing out nutty talk.

          But if you want examples of what I consider to be wacky speech that stirs up hate and divides the country, here goes.

          “I hope that’s not where we’re going, but you know if this Congress keeps going the way it is, people are really looking toward those Second Amendment remedies and saying my goodness what can we do to turn this country around? I’ll tell you the first thing we need to do is take Harry Reid out.” Nevada GOP Senate candidate Sharron Angle, floating the possibility of armed insurrection in a radio interview, Jan. 2010

          “This is what Hitler did with the SS. He had his own people. He had the brownshirts and then the SS. This is what Saddam Hussein so but you are comparing that. And I , I mean, I think America would have a really hard time getting their arms around that.”
          Glenn Beck, claiming Obama’s ‘civilian national security force’ is the same as what Hitler and Saddam Hussein did, Glenn Beck, FOX News’ Glenn Beck show, Aug. 27, 2009″

          “We Came Unarmed – This Time” from a list of ‘favorite’ signs at Tea Party rallies.

          “He has no place in any station of government and we need to realize that he is an enemy of humanity,” said Rep. Trent Franks about Obama.

          “Our nation was founded on violence. The option is on the table. I don’t think that we should ever remove anything from the table as it relates to our liberties and our freedoms.” Tea Party-backed Texas GOP congressional candidate Stephen Broden, suggesting the violent overthrow of the U.S. government if Republicans don’t win at the ballot box, interview with Dallas’s WFAA-TV, Oct. 21, 2010

          And let me be clear, I don’t think that this kind of talk, however reprehensible, is responsible for a nut job with a gun shooting a congresswoman. But there is clearly evidence of embittering talk, on both sides of the aisle.[/i]

          —————————————-

          And these are the direct quotes he posted:

          [i]”I hope that’s not where we’re going, but you know if this Congress keeps going the way it is, people are really looking toward those Second Amendment remedies and saying my goodness what can we do to turn this country around? I’ll tell you the first thing we need to do is take Harry Reid out.”[/i]

          and

          [i]”This is what Hitler did with the SS. He had his own people. He had the brownshirts and then the SS. This is what Saddam Hussein so but you are comparing that. And I , I mean, I think America would have a really hard time getting their arms around that.”[/i]

          and

          [i]”We Came Unarmed – This Time”[/i]

          and

          [i]”He has no place in any station of government and we need to realize that he is an enemy of humanity,” [/i]

          and

          [i]”Our nation was founded on violence. The option is on the table. I don’t think that we should ever remove anything from the table as it relates to our liberties and our freedoms.” [/i]

          End of quotes.

          —————————————-

          First of all, James started his message saying, [i]”But if you want examples of what I consider to be wacky speech that stirs up hate and divides the country…”[/i]

          Okay, [i]wacky speech that stirs up hate and divides the country[/i] is, at best, a stretch, considering the exact quotes he posted. And that’s what we’re looking for.

          First of all, a pet-peeve of mine is the term, [i]divides the country[/i], as if all of the sudden, all people can agree on all things at all times. It’s a silly and meaningless platitude, at best, and with the rarest of exceptions (if ever), this country always has been, and always will be, [i]divided[/i] in many regards and/or to some degree. There’s absolutely no way around it. There are simply too many [i]Conflicts of Visions[/i] (due credit given to Thomas Sowell) among the population.

          (That’s one of the beauties of individualism, by the way, at least in my opinion (my vision), since it’s more conducive for people to live and pursue their own visions without infringing on another’s.)

          So I dismiss this [i]divides the country[/i] nonsense. It’s nothing but a tactic used against one’s opponent when one does not want to address and/or discuss the REAL underlying issue.

          Okay, so now let’s try to target those things in his message that [i]stirs up hate[/i].

          Oh my, but first, I used a forbidden word, myself! I used the word, [i]target[/i] – [b]AS IN GUNS!!!!!!!!![/b] OH MY! Am I using [i]wacky speech[/i] that [i]stirs up hate[/i] and [i]divides the country[/i]?

          But I digress.

          What exactly is in those quotes that specifically [i]stirs up hate[/i]? I hear them and I don’t feel hateful towards anyone. Do you feel hateful, Nick (or James) when you hear (or read) them? Heck, using the greeting [i]Merry Christmas[/i] stirs up hatred in some people – those who just want to hate someone and/or something in the first place. Hatred is an emotion generated from within, not from without.

          So there’s nothing hateful in any of those quotes.

          Okay, and finally, let’s look for anything that might be considered [i]wacky[/i]. Well, that’s pretty subjective, don’t you think? What exactly constitutes [i]wacky[/i] anyway?

          Personally, I think, like, teenagers, you know, talk, like, you know, kind of, like, wacky; you know, he was, like …… and she was, you know, like, wacky.

          Heck, I also remember when we used to smoke wacky!

          Okay, I’ll give you that one. Those quotes might fall under the wacky category. And I’ll also admit that when I hear people whose policy positions I might support use those kinds of terms, I cringe – not because they use them, per se, but because it only feeds ammunition to their political opponents who will only use it against them, thereby side-stepping the underlying issues.

          OH MY!!!!! I DID IT AGAIN!!!!! I used the word [i]ammunition[/i] – [b]AS IN GUNS!!!!!!!!![/b] OH MY! Am I using [i]wacky speech[/i] that [i]stirs up hate[/i] and [i]divides the country[/i]?

          My guess is that some wacky thinker out there will try to use it against me in a hateful way that will only serve to further divide the country.

          And there’s probably a joke in here somewhere about a comparison to how Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr settled their political disagreements; but then I’d probably be accused in inciting violence.

        • #2877104

          Specific examples

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Question

          “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun” – Barack Obama

          “I don?t sit around just talking to experts because this is a college seminar, we talk to these folks because they potentially have the best answers, so I know whose ass to kick.” – Barack Obama

          “That Scott down there that’s running for governor of Florida. Instead of running for governor of Florida, they ought to have him and shoot him. Put him against the wall and shoot him.” – U.S. Rep. Paul E. Kanjorski

          “If I hear one more Republican tell me about balancing the budget, I am going to strangle them.” – Joe Biden

          “You guys see Live and Let Die, the great Bond film with Yaphet Kotto as the bad guy, Mr. Big? In the end they jam a big CO2 pellet in his face and he blew up. I have to tell you, Rush Limbaugh is looking more and more like Mr. Big, and at some point somebody?s going to jam a CO2 pellet into his head and he?s going to explode like a giant blimp. That day may come. Not yet. But we?ll be there to watch. I think he?s Mr. Big, I think Yaphet Kotto. Are you watching, Rush?” – Chris Matthews

        • #2877064

          Exactly what I mean by that

          by delbertpgh ·

          In reply to Question

          I mean that the tone of politics has become nastier. There are far more cases of politicians, and particularly of commentators with access to broadcast media, who paint opponents as not just wrong on policy, but as treasonous or revenge-driven evil spawn, who want to do nothing but destroy wealth, blacken the future, and sow despair among good people so that America will never prosper again.

          Republican-allied forces seem to be making the most of this tactic. If you don’t hear it, I imagine your concern about other issues has left you deaf to these tones, and no appeal to reason or evidence would convince you otherwise.

          As for specific examples, James has documented a few. Tony has provided opposing material. For every quote, there’s a counter-quote. I won’t bother, because there’s no way to demonstrate what the climate of discourse is by plucking a dozen words from here or there. I’ve watched enough of Hannity, Palin, Issa, and others to spot that the basic strategy is to get people pissed off.

        • #2877063

          Add mine

          by santeewelding ·

          In reply to Exactly what I mean by that

          Sheep outlaw wolves.

          Wolves are.

          Bleat, bleat.

        • #2877032

          That’s the smoke-screen

          by ansugisalas ·

          In reply to Exactly what I mean by that

          There are people who use inflammatory rethoric to create an illusion of opinion.
          They have no opinions. They don’t agree or disagree. They just want the votes and the pork and the screwing over the nation some more, from the other end.

          And if the common man doesn’t smell the stink and turn on, and tear limb from limb, these parasites… well, then the common man has himself to blame for getting screwed over some more.

          That’s my take on it. They’re not wolves, just scabby dogs.
          And people are only sheep until they wake up… they are the real wolves, then.

        • #2850168
        • #2878368

          assault on liberty? freedom?

          by mike.pulaski ·

          In reply to The assault:

          I might need stitches from falling out of my chair while laughing at your statement. Those kinds of statements are made by clueless fearful politicians or money hungry clergy who want to control mindless robots.

          What assault on liberty and freedom? Please tell me ONE freedom or liberty you have personally lost since Obama was President? I assume this is who you direct it at. And I’m not a Obama backer. I expected better, but I certainly don’t see any of my freedoms and/or liberties going away because of him.

          Bush signed the Patriot Act. Cheney flat out revealed the name of a CIA spy, had his staff lie about it, get convicted in court, AND THEN COMMUTED THE SENTENCE!!! Here’s someone protecting the US in a certain death situation, and that MF reveals her name simply becuase her husband wrote an unflattering article about the Iraq War!! NOW THAT is losing liberty and freedoms!

          They started warrantless wiretaps and actually tried to appoint their personal attorney to the Supreme Court!!! What’s your feelings on that?

          And the best part of all that, they came off smug and acted like us, the people, should realize they are above us and we simply don’t understand that they are protecting the country. Uh…HELLO?? From the people, of the people, by the people? But I guess Lincoln didnt know what he was talking about when he said that.

          You want to know who are jeopardizing our freedoms and liberties? Terrorists, not politicians. What do you suggest we do? Nothing since you have already lost tons and tons of your freedoms and liberties?

        • #2878303

          You’re not doing yourself any favors

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to assault on liberty? freedom?

          You assume too much. You speculate too much. You know too little about me to make an informed opinion about me.

          http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=102&threadID=340147&messageID=3408388&tag=content;leftCol

          Nonetheless, to answer your question regarding the Obama Administration.

          [i]Please tell me ONE freedom or liberty you have personally lost since Obama was President? [/i]

          Establishing (and/or supporting) a medical care system that FORCES people to buy medical insurance IS INDEED a direct infringement on individual freedom and liberty. Do you disagree?

          And if you fail to answer my replies – as you have up to now – you paint yourself an intellectual coward.

          P.S.

          Re your comment: [i]I might need stitches from falling out of my chair while laughing at your statement.[/i]

          Are you going to pay for those stiches out of your own pocket, or do you expect other people to pay for them for you? I say that you should pay for them yourself. But Obama wants the “collective” to pay for them.

    • #2877828

      Those who talk like that

      by ansugisalas ·

      In reply to To those who voted for Democrats two years ago

      are the ones giving solace to the ones giving fuel to the ones that go popping caps in people…

      You people, for all the good you have, also have one of the most fiicked up political discourses outside of fiicking 1980 Cambodia!
      No wonder you have assassinations every now and then. Max – they’re politicians.
      They’re all bad.
      There are no heroes in porkville.

      So get over it, breathe deeply counting backwards from ten, and get over it some more.
      It’s not like the other side would have done any better, they’d just have pardoned some more CEOs with that money.

      • #2877825

        Get over it? GET OVER IT???????????

        by maxwell edison ·

        In reply to Those who talk like that

        Are you friggin’ serious? I’m witnessing the demise of my own country, and you tell me to get over it?????

        P.S. It illustrates – and supports – my basic premise. Less government is the best government. (Due credit given to T.J.)

        P.P.S. What’s the difference between those who would steal money from another, one by vote and the other by gun?

        • #2877800

          You’ve witnessed that

          by ansugisalas ·

          In reply to Get over it? GET OVER IT???????????

          for how long now?
          It can’t be good for you to have a blood pressure that high all the time.

          At the PPS: The former is not theft, and is not in violation of those natural rights you talk about. Nor is it your place to deny the right of another to give their vote according to their rights – so stop whining about it.

          Instead of contributing to near-extremist word-warring, thus contributing to the smokescreen that allows the leeches of porkville to have their way with your country and everything in it’s reach, you should contribute to a constructive effort to get people to agree to realistic goals.
          *None of that “no social security” crap, coz there are people who will have to kill you for food if it goes away.
          :Instead help your fellows create a discourse where the actions of government are viewed in a realistic, nonpartizan, nonzealot light. Keep it real.
          Or keep having steam come out of your ears like in the OP, whatever.

        • #2877780

          You’re delusional

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to You’ve witnessed that

          You think you understand me, but you don’t. I also don’t think you understand squat about the U.S. budget. And it’s obvious you don’t understand the concept of [i]American Democracy[/i] – as it was intended.

          Re: [i]the right of another to give their vote according to their rights[/i].

          A democracy is not three wolves and a sheep [i]voting[/i] on what’s for dinner. So stop whining about trying to make it so.

        • #2877691

          The US budget is a hole in the ground…

          by ansugisalas ·

          In reply to You’re delusional

          Goes all the way through, terminus : China.

          Did I get that right?

          Three wolves and a sheep voting on what’s for dinner? And let me guess; the republican-backed corporate rule is the “sheep”… and the “wellfare mothers” are the wolves?

          You’re dumbing yourself down way too much. This is that “fighting” you’ve been doing, right? No wonder you’re up shit creek with a paddle up your ass – sideways.
          You should have done something useful, not ranted uselessly – like you do here, now.

          I’ve yet to hear you say something constructive that doesn’t concern pre-19th-century events.

          Why don’t you let your own history inform you on how to deal with crises? And no, Booth is not what I’m talking about.

        • #2877095

          Yup, GET OVER IT ALREADY

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Get over it? GET OVER IT???????????

          You have seen it coming for 20 years and yet remained to see it come to fruition, merely complaining about other people’s actions in the process instead of planning your escape route. Nowhere else to go? That’s because maybe you see that every other nation on the planet with any history behind it, eventually separates into classes of rich and poor. American’s dreams of every man being wealthy had to end one day, some people will eventually have to live on less and in harder times, again just like every other nation on the planet. A super power never remains a super power and you know that very well too.

          Sop what does that leave you with? A nation that you love anyway, home.

          Th sun still rises and sets in the most downtrodden places on Earth, people still wake up and live their lives regardless of economic or political situations.

          If you find no satisfaction in life itself, then perhaps you should shut yourself in a bomb shelter and simply wait for the end while waving your fists and cursing your fellowman.

          But to think that America will always remain a prosperous and financially stable nation where all men can enjoy wealth and success, in a world where you rely on so many for your day to day existence, is simply blind.

          That’s not 20 years of foresight at all. It;s ignoring the state of the rest of the world. You always say how referring to history offers guidance, in the sense of quoting your founders, however you seem to have ignored the state of other nations with any history.

          You constantly comment about how people rely on others and are not self sufficient (which I don’t contest at all), yet you seem to ignore the fact that AMERICA relies on others and isn’t self sufficient.

          How did you hope it was going to work out for you? Everyone prospers, everyone is rich or successful in their own way? Yet everyone still depends on ‘something’ from others.

          It’s a given, if you follow history show me where it has been different anywhere else in the world, even for those who have such plentiful lands that they provide America’s resources.

          So yeah, get over it already, or move somewhere else where you can say how great America is in comparison, a reality check if you will.

      • #2877824

        Solace

        by santeewelding ·

        In reply to Those who talk like that

        I thought for a microsecond about that, before dismissing it.

        • #2877823

          You gotta’ love it when . . . . .

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Solace

          ….. some guy from Finland tries to come across as an expert on Americans. I don’t know about you, but he just rubs me the wrong way. (Of course, from his perspective, it’s probably my short-coming, not his.)

        • #2877822

          Rub

          by santeewelding ·

          In reply to You gotta’ love it when . . . . .

          I see no right or wrong about what Ansu says. The rub is the thing, alone, for which I am grateful.

        • #2877819

          Right – just like the “rub” of seeing the demise of the USA. . . .

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Rub

          …. perhaps I should just [i]get over it[/i].

        • #2877818

          That’s right

          by santeewelding ·

          In reply to Right – just like the “rub” of seeing the demise of the USA. . . .

          A rub.

          Sell your children.

        • #2877817

          More

          by santeewelding ·

          In reply to Right – just like the “rub” of seeing the demise of the USA. . . .

          Courtesy of Google:

          http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-1035-0.html?forumID=102&threadID=334703&messageID=3343340

          Not only your children. They’re easy. Elephants of the mind — they’re harder.

        • #2877799

          I’m not from Finland

          by ansugisalas ·

          In reply to You gotta’ love it when . . . . .

          Not that it matters.
          And I don’t try to come across as an expert on Americans.

          I know language, and I know meaning.

          The way you people use language in political subjects is highly unstable, making it a small step for a madman to go from the normal(1) “They’re destroying our country” to the completely postal “I’ve gotta kill those [Party of Choice] congressmen”.
          After all, if someone is literally destroying the country, killing them is the usual response, is it not?

          (1:normal in your political discourse – not normal in the sense of non-pathological)

        • #2877797

          The, “you people”

          by santeewelding ·

          In reply to I’m not from Finland

          Is what kills you, vaunted language expertise, or not.

          Step carefully. Others of us have a handle on language, too.

        • #2877794

          Discourse…

          by ansugisalas ·

          In reply to The, “you people”

          is a property of a society or community as a whole, a collective.
          It’s the sum of the standard ways the people of that collective speak about the various things they speak about.
          I criticize that discourse; specifically the way Mr. Edison contributes to it, a way that seems to me (subjectively, and subject to faulty sampling) to be a widespread phenomenon.
          And I can’t, for the life of me, find a better way to address the people that make up a collective – specifically as members of that collective – than “you people”.
          I don’t think it to mean “every single one of you people” – on the contrary; I intend it to mean “the resulting, de-facto output of the lot of you taken as a whole”.

          But I guess I should mind my business, and not talk so much.

        • #2877793

          Oh, Good Lord, no

          by santeewelding ·

          In reply to Discourse…

          Talk away.

          Mind, that a 45 is leveled at your forehead.

        • #2877790

          You know better than that…

          by ansugisalas ·

          In reply to Discourse…

          too close.

          And pointing a gun is pointless.

          Pointing a gun and pulling the trigger, that’s something.

          Short of that, it’s just holding your dick in public.

        • #2877789

          Cf

          by santeewelding ·

          In reply to Discourse…

          Figurative; literal.

          You know better.

          Pull up your socks.

          That PC shilt doesn’t work with me.

        • #2877787

          Oh, I always take you seriously

          by ansugisalas ·

          In reply to Discourse…

          Which is why I’m here, now, too.

        • #2877684

          If you don’t mind

          by delbertpgh ·

          In reply to I’m not from Finland

          Are you working in Finland, but from somewhere else? And, where?

        • #2877678

          Living in Finland.

          by ansugisalas ·

          In reply to If you don’t mind

          But from Denmark.

        • #2878380

          Brings to mind a song

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Living in Finland.

          Finland, Finland, Finland,
          The country where I want to be,
          Pony trekking or camping,
          Or just watching TV.
          Finland, Finland, Finland.
          It’s the country for me.

          You’re so near to Russia,
          So far from Japan,
          Quite a long way from Cairo,
          Lots of miles from Vietnam.

          Finland, Finland, Finland,
          The country where I want to be,
          Eating breakfast or dinner,
          Or snack lunch in the hall.
          Finland, Finland, Finland.
          Finland has it all.
          You’re so sadly neglected
          And often ignored,
          A poor second to Belgium,
          When going abroad.

          Finland, Finland, Finland,
          The country where I quite want to be,
          Your mountains so lofty,
          Your treetops so tall.
          Finland, Finland, Finland.
          Finland has it all.

          Finland, Finland, Finland,
          The country where I quite want to be,
          Your mountains so lofty,
          Your treetops so tall.
          Finland, Finland, Finland.
          Finland has it all.

          Finland has it all.

          Written and performed by
          -Michael Palin

          (Gorgeous country, well I’ve seen Helsinki and thought it was pretty awesome anway)

        • #2878352

          I went

          by ansugisalas ·

          In reply to Living in Finland.

          from Wonderful Wonderful Copenhagen (with a welcome so warm and so gay!) to Finland Finland Finland 🙂

        • #2878327

          What?

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Living in Finland.

          You’re not going to accuse me of bashing FInland and tell me that Canada sucks even worse! LOL.

          Right, you have a sense of humour, I get it now. It’s just rare here sometimes. 😉

        • #2878298

          Well, that would be

          by ansugisalas ·

          In reply to Living in Finland.

          an exercise in Xtreme Futility 🙂
          “You don’t like my hat? Well your hat sucks bigtime!”
          “What?!? My hat sucks? Are you gay?!?”
          “Doood, I just said your hat sucks donkey’s balls – no need to get personal!”
          “Oh, how you gonna stop me? Throw your gayhat at me?”
          etc. etc. :p

        • #2878254

          Now that, on the other hand

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Living in Finland.

          would no be so rare.

        • #2878249

          It’s a counterexample to supply and demand…

          by ansugisalas ·

          In reply to Living in Finland.

          Futility is abundantly available, yet it’s still possible to sell it 😉

        • #2877297

          Bit unfair, that

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to You gotta’ love it when . . . . .

          Are you saying that those of us on the outside, looking in, aren’t allow to tell it as we see it?

          Well, you can ignore us, but stop me or the “guy from Finland”, if you can.

          😀

        • #2877294

          Neil, I always make an exception for you.

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Bit unfair, that

          I value your opinion. The guy from Finland, however, he hasn’t earned the same status in my eyes.

        • #2877287

          Thank you, I appreciate that

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to Neil, I always make an exception for you.

          Even when I deliberately step (throw myself) over the line?

          😀

          Bedtime, here. We haven’t had a good discussion for AGES so it will be nice to see what has become of this thread by my morning. I just may have to brush up on recent US economic policy.

        • #2877222

          You may appreciate this, Finland guy

          by delbertpgh ·

          In reply to Thank you, I appreciate that

          Tasty schadenfreude for inveterate Bush haters (like myself):
          http://www.lrb.co.uk/v33/n01/eliot-weinberger/damn-right-i-said

          Sorry, Neil, I thought I was replying to Ansu’s post. But you may like it, too.

        • #2877213

          Decision Points

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to Thank you, I appreciate that

          I had read a few excerpts and there was no way that I could believe that the book had been written by – or was even about – the bumbling idiot that was Bush. But that’s a purely subjective conclusion…

          I do remember that the book prompted Gerhard Schroeder to call Bush a liar.

          🙂

        • #2877211

          Weinberger names the ghostwriters

          by delbertpgh ·

          In reply to Thank you, I appreciate that

          It’s clear that the memoirs are sort of a historical dramatization, written by people who had talked to someone who was there, but had based substantial portions on articles and interviews written by other people. Quite a bit of dialog, including Bush’s own, was plagiarised from other works, and as you mentioned, some of the actors testify it’s simply not true.

          It’s more of a historical novel than history.

        • #2877185

          Anyone see the movie?

          by jamesrl ·

          In reply to Thank you, I appreciate that

          “The Ghost Writer” that is – its pretty transparently supposed to remind you of Blair and his memoirs, though clearly the plot slips into territory that is creative fiction. Still interesting.

        • #2877265

          I understand…

          by ansugisalas ·

          In reply to Neil, I always make an exception for you.

          I’m sorry – that’s just because you’re a dumbass!

      • #2877103

        My honest Opinion

        by tonythetiger ·

        In reply to Those who talk like that

        I think it’s an outlet… people let off steam so they WON’T do something stupid or insane.

        How many more incidents such as this occur in places where such rhetoric is restricted… where there IS no outlet for frustration?

    • #2877808

      Did You…

      by dogknees ·

      In reply to To those who voted for Democrats two years ago

      ever think that perhaps the country in question deserves to go down the tubes? If they can’t manage their affairs better than this, ….

      • #2877805

        Yea, right

        by maxwell edison ·

        In reply to Did You…

        I’ve been fighting against these things for twenty-plus years, and I deserve to go down with the ship?

        Whatever……

        • #2877804

          Bentley

          by santeewelding ·

          In reply to Yea, right

          Asks a legitimate question.

          Rise to it.

        • #2877798

          There’s that “fighting” again.

          by ansugisalas ·

          In reply to Yea, right

          You should have done something about it, not wasted your time “fighting”…dumbass.

        • #2877781

          I should have done something about it?

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to There’s that “fighting” again.

          I suspect you simply have a problem with my use of the word [i]fighting[/i]. I also suspect you take it too literal, not as being synonymous with opposing.

          But okay, I’ll play along. What should I – personally – have done that I didn’t do?

        • #2877688

          How did you fight it?

          by ansugisalas ·

          In reply to I should have done something about it?

          Did you oppose ALL of the leeches, both left and right?
          Did you call BS on superfluous war efforts, too?
          Did you set aside patriotic conditioning when the US military – too – showed signs of corruption?
          What did you do?
          It’s obvious that you alone could have done everything right, and still not have succeeded… but the Maxwell Edison I’ve seen here is not one I would suspect of choosing an efficient strategy over an idealistically approvable one.

      • #2877760

        Dig deep dear sir and tell me…

        by smartacew0lf ·

        In reply to Did You…

        why exactly do you feel this way about America and its citizens? How long have you felt this way and what precipitated this feeling? All I ask for is your honesty. Actually, I feel I probably already know the answer.

      • #2877717

        Does your country deserve the same?

        by nicknielsen ·

        In reply to Did You…

        There is no other currency with the strength to step in and carry the load if the US$ crumbles. As it stands now, if the US economy tanks, the world economy collapses with it.

        • #2877714

          I know the answer for Canada

          by jamesrl ·

          In reply to Does your country deserve the same?

          Canada is in relatively good shape economically; Canada didn’t have the bank issues that the US and many European countries had, we didn’t do any bailouts except for GM and Chrysler, our housing market is strong, unemployment is improving and the oil/gas market is very strong again. Our government is running a deficit, but we should be back to surplus and paying down the long term debt again in 5 years.

          Having said all that, we cannot have a vigourous economy in Canada without a strong US economy.

        • #2877295

          James

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to I know the answer for Canada

          I do suspect that, in a very few years, China and India will buy anything that you care to sell.

          Neil

        • #2877277

          Perhaps

          by jamesrl ·

          In reply to James

          But our economy is intergrated tightly with the US. We have a free trade agreement, we have many cross border companies, transportation costs are low and shipping is fast, the list goes on and on.

          We have ticked off China by standing up for human rights. And we have been slow to warm up to opportunities in India.

    • #2877788

      Imperial decline and fall

      by neilb@uk ·

      In reply to To those who voted for Democrats two years ago

      is the natural state.

      It happened to us. And to the Romans, Ottomans, the Soviet Union…

      Yes, Bush has contributed to the decline. On his watch you continued your bad habit of being militarily over-stretched (and I don’t just mean the two ridiculous wars that we are currently engaged in).

      The UK has been in a state of more or less steady decline since the 1880s, challenged by Germany, the US, Germany again, plus France, Italy and Japan and more recently by China, Brazil and India. Sterling ceased long ago to be the world’s trading and reserve currency. The Empire is gone. Most of our utilities, car industry, the City, even chocolate factories, are owned by foreigners. But life goes on.

      • #2877783

        U.S. Military Spending

        by maxwell edison ·

        In reply to Imperial decline and fall

        What the United States spends on all things military pales in comparison to everything else. The U.S. could have spent zero on military for the past ten years, and the Dollar’s woes would still exist, perhaps delayed just a bit.

        In 1960, the U.S. spent something like 60 percent of its budget on military. Today, it’s more like 20 percent of a much larger budget.

        The U.S. military has absolutely nothing to do with the decline and eventual fall of the U.S. Dollar and the U.S. economy. Run away social spending has everything to do with it.

        But the military will have something to do with keeping order when the eventual fall will, most likely, cause civil unrest the likes of which haven’t been seen in the United States since our own Civil War.

        Although I will agree that we spread our military too far. I would have preferred that we pulled them all out of Europe 20, 30, maybe 40 years ago years ago, out of South Korea, etc. Let the Europeans deal with their own defense.

        And to those smug know-it-alls who say stupid things like we (the U.S.) [i]deserve it[/i] won’t be so smug when they realize what will happen to the world economies when the Dollar does collapse. It will be the mother of all economic domino effects!

        P.S. another easy target to blame in addition to military spending is those [i]greedy rich people[/i] who don’t pay enough in taxes. We could cut military spending to zero AND tax EVERYONE in the U.S. 100 percent of their income, and it would STILL not be enough to pay our debt and keep the promises on all the obligations of the U.S. Government.

        • #2877779

          I didn’t say that military over-extension was the only issue

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to U.S. Military Spending

          It’s just that it’s generally been the first pointer to imperial decline. So I thought I’d start there.

          As an aside, compared to his British sheeple counterpart, the average US citizen is an optimistic, forward-looking person. This means that when the cruch really does come, the likelihood of serious civil unrest is greater. We will just sit around at ‘tut’ at the price of petrol (which is now 7.53 USD per US gallon)…

          One economic problem that I believe that we share, is an obsession with property. Successive governments have encouraged home ownership through incentives. You own your own home, you feel good, you continue to vote for the people you believe gave you this chance. If you look at the thirty years between 1950 to 1980, the world was pretty closed and protectionist and the US was at the height of its primacy. Compare this to 1980 to the present day and the growth rates of economies in these two periods have been roughly the same. But real wages didn’t rise for the majority of people as much as they should have and globalisation may not have been as beneficial to the average Westerner as we were promised. Many economists believe that housing is probably one of the main reasons we are seeing this. All that happened is that the people just got more access to debt and larege amounts of that debt was diverted towards housing, generating a property bubble.

          Pop…

          The beneficiaries from globalisation are the ones that hold capital, not the holders of labour.

          All of our successive governments have failed to address, through stupidity or just classic political and economic short-term thinking, that labour is a global commodity. American and British workers now directly compete for jobs with those making pittance wages in China and India. The fact that millions of our jobs are being offshored and outsourced does not bother advocates of globalism at all because it is supposedly a beneficial thing for the overall global economy. But, as I said above, it isn’t working that way.

          More later…

          🙂

        • #2877766

          Military spending

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to U.S. Military Spending

          700 billion USD per annum up front figures.

          During the Bush Presidency, after correcting for inflation, military spending rose at an average rate of 8.1 percent per year. During the same period, the overall US economy grew at an average annual rate of 2.4 percent.

          Plus all of the ‘extras’. Interest on the money borrowed to finance this. The necessary treatment costs for US wounded in your (mostly unnecessary) wars. Those costs are just going to keep on going UP.

          The GDP of Afghanistan, before the invasion, was around 5 billion USD with half of that coming from opium sales. You are spending ten times that figure per annum to get absolutely nowhere.

          Neil 🙂

          I’ll get on to the “greedy rich”, later.

        • #2877721

          Re: 700 billion USD military spending

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Military spending

          Like I said, 20 percent of all government spending, which is currently hovering around 3500 billion.

        • #2877682

          It’s my understanding (about that 700 billion)

          by delbertpgh ·

          In reply to Re: 700 billion USD military spending

          The current level of military spending is higher, in inflation-adjusted current dollars, than at any point in our history, except the 2nd World War. Higher than Viet Nam, higher than the cold war.

          When you talk about boots on the ground, it costs now about $500,000 per pair of boots, including soldier, excluding some other costs. Got to hope they are at least 100 times more effective than the cheaper shoes that oppose them.

        • #2877681

          You have to factor in

          by jamesrl ·

          In reply to It’s my understanding (about that 700 billion)

          The Navy and Air Force, where many of the big ticket items go.

          From what I read on Wikipedia, the cost of new equipment is almost as high as the salary cost of the US military. And some of those programs are questionable in temrs of cost effectiveness.

        • #2877298

          ONLY twenty percent

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to Re: 700 billion USD military spending

          Do you have ANY idea how much that makes me laugh?

          🙂

        • #2877293

          LOL

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to ONLY twenty percent

          Re: [i]ONLY twenty percent. Do you have ANY idea how much that makes me laugh?[/i]

          I do now!

        • #2877718

          Re: Interest on the money borrowed to finance this (military)

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Military spending

          One could certainly – and legitimately – argue that none of the military budget comes from borrowed money. Throughout the history of the United States, national defense was the primary role of the U.S. government, and, with the possible exception of WWII, it was financed without accumulating massive budget deficits.

          The huge budget deficits didn’t really start until the 1960s, 1970s range – immediately following the massive social programs implemented under LBJ. Military spending has been a constant throughout our history; social spending has not.

          Therefore, one could very reasonably – and more accurately – argue that it’s the social spending, not military spending, that is the root cause of our deficits, debt, interest payments on said debt, and current economic woes.

        • #2877212

          Legitimately? Ah, um, well, perhaps not quite so clear cut

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to Re: Interest on the money borrowed to finance this (military)

          “national defense was the primary role of the U.S. government” is one of those statements that has me muttering “theoretically, yes” and it would translate into reality if it were not for the fact that I don’t actually see your military [b]defending[/b] anything at the moment. Nor have they done so for quite a while.

          Obviously, I’m not an expert in US military history so I invite suggestions as to where and when this [b]national defense[/b] happened.

          The last half century will do…

        • #2877208

          As it happens, neil

          by nicknielsen ·

          In reply to Legitimately? Ah, um, well, perhaps not quite so clear cut

          The case being made through the collapse of the Berlin Wall was that by defending Europe and the Far East from further Communist ‘encroachment’ (isn’t that just a less offensive word for invasion?), we were defending ourselves. The domino effect, and all that.

          The problem was, of course, our leaders had (and still do have) a regrettable tendency to allow ideological rigidity to trump common sense. They very consistently chose to back people simply because they were anti-communist (or said they were). This led to the backing of repressive rightist dictators over leftist democratic reformers, while preaching “people’s choice” and “rule of law” to the world.

          This distressing hypocrisy probably contributed more to the anti-Americanism prevalent over the last century than any other factor.

        • #2877202

          I don’t want to enter into a tangential discussion, but my point was:

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Legitimately? Ah, um, well, perhaps not quite so clear cut

          The cost of the U.S. military – for whatever purpose, right or wrong, it was being used for – has historically been paid for without creating budget deficits. Budget deficits didn’t really exist in significant numbers until we got ourselves on the road to financing myriad social programs.

          Therefore, my point that military spending today does not cause the current budget deficits, but rather social spending causes them, is a very legitimate argument that you’ve conveniently side-stepped around.

        • #2877197

          Clears legitimate arguments in a single bound.

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to I don’t want to enter into a tangential discussion, but my point was:

          Sorry, but budgets is budgets. Everything is the cause – too much of everything. If military spending had been going down over the past few years then I would grant you your point.

          Has it? According to my sources, military expenditure as a percentage of GDP rose every year that Bush was President.

          Oh, and fell, year on year, during Clinton’s watch.

        • #2877190

          Neil, your point is meaningless – and continues to evade

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to I don’t want to enter into a tangential discussion, but my point was:

          I’m quite happy looking at the numbers – ALL OF THEM – and letting them speak for themselves.

          I’ll acknowledge that military spending, as a percentage of GDP, rose from about 4 percent to 6 percent between 2000 and 2010.

          http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/downchart_gs.php?title=Military_Industrial_Complex&year=1960_2013&units=p&chart=30-total

          I’ll also point out that TOTAL government spending, as a percentage of GDP, rose from about 33 percent to about 44 percent during that same period.

          http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/downchart_gs.php?year=1900_2010&units=p&title=Spending%20as%20percent%20of%20GDP

          2 percent additional for the military versus 9 percent additional for all the rest. However, I didn’t limit my sights on only the past ten years, I looked at the past 50 years – a more accurate indicator of the overall trend.

          In 1962, when military spending was at 11 percent of the GDP, since the military consumed 60 percent of all government spending, all other government spending was only about 5 percent of the GDP. Run-away social spending started in the 1960s. Today, total military spending is ONLY 6 percent of the GDP and 20 percent of the budget, while all other government spending is 38 percent of the GDP and 80 percent of the budget.

          In a nutshell (repeating myself, I suppose):

          From 1962 to 2010, military spending, as a percentage of GDP, went from 11 percent to 6 percent – down 46 percent.

          From 1962 to 2010, all other government spending, as a percentage of GDP, went from 5 percent to 38 percent. What is that? An increase of almost 800 percent?

          Nonetheless, the United States needs to go on a serious spending diet. Your diet plan, Neil, calls for eating less of the comparative very small piece of pie. My plan, on the other hand, calls for eating less of the much bigger piece of pie. But most Americans think like you do, Neil; and our financial obesity problem not only continues, but it gets worse every year because too many Government Big Mac Meals are being handed out – Super Sized ones at that.

          Cut BOTH of those pieces by 50 percent, and I’d be tickled to death!

          But whatever; I won’t push you anymore. If you don’t want to acknowledge the obvious, then you won’t acknowledge the obvious.

        • #2877173

          Budgets, military and otherwise

          by delbertpgh ·

          In reply to I don’t want to enter into a tangential discussion, but my point was:

          At http://www.usgovernmentspending.com, you can get some historical series, on debt, deficits, and categories of spending, either in nominal or inflation-adjusted (year 2005) dollars.

          If you try to fill an eight-ounce glass with nine ounces of water, then you can reasonably blame the last ounce for the spillage. However, it seems a little false to me to be saying the bottom four ounces are a different and more virtuous kind of water than the last five. It’s all water.

          In 1945, with ten million men and women under arms, the defense budget was $846 billion (2005 dollars.) In 1962, Kennedy’s first budget year, it was $330; 1969, Viet Nam’s peak, $410; 1977, Ford’s last year, $322; 1982, Reagan’s first budget, $420; 1989, communism’s collapse, $494; 2001, Clinton’s last year, $404; 2005, the peak of Iraq, $600; 2009, the current year, $723. It’s projected to rise in two years to $823 billion, before beginning a decline of about 10% as Afghanistan winds down and 75,000 Army and Marine troops are cut.

          No way around it, we’re paying for a lot more military than we are accustomed to.

        • #2877166

          Delbert’s playing the same game

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to I don’t want to enter into a tangential discussion, but my point was:

          The Web site you mentioned was the same one I used to get my numbers. Perhaps you didn’t bother to notice or follow the link.

          Now using that Web site, since you did your exercise on military spending, do the very same thing for non-military spending. Will you come to the same conclusion?

          [i]No way around it, we’re paying for a lot more[/i] (non-military government) [i]than we are accustomed to.[/i]

        • #2877135

          Not so much a legitimate argument as a peculiar one

          by delbertpgh ·

          In reply to I don’t want to enter into a tangential discussion, but my point was:

          I can not dispute that we’re paying a lot more for social services than we ever did before. Of course, we have over 300 million people today; in 1960, I think we had about 180 million, and in 1940, about 135 million. Social service expenses properly trend upward as population increases. Particularly, it will increase even faster as our proportion of elderly citizens rises, because they absorb more in the way of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. (By the way, half of Medicaid payments, which are intended to help the poor, go to keep elderly patients in nursing homes.)

          Without saying what an appropriate level of military expenditure would be, I would have to note that the threats to our security have not increased over the last 30 years. If anything, they’ve decreased. No more Soviet bloc, etc. On the other hand, stuff costs more these days: an F-22 costs $150 million, and an F-35 Joint Strike Fighter costs $130 million, whereas a 1975 F-16 cost about $15 million, a 1960 F-4, about $2.4 million, and a 1950 F-86, about $220,000. It kind of raises questions about value for cost: is one F-22 as capable as 10 F-16s? In any case, the cost of keeping up our military has doubled since Clinton left the scene, and I suspect there’s a lot of luxury spending in that budget. (The Presidential helicopter fleet: the new set of Marine One choppers, commissioned after Bush couldn’t keep in full communication on 9/11, will break all records. The VXX program will cost $11 billion for 28 craft, about $400 million per helicopter.)

          However, all that’s beside the point. You may feel that the military, the courts, public roads, and the police are the only proper things for which government ought to pay and for which we ought to be taxed. That’s not my opinion. I don’t go to that church.

        • #2877050

          Oh My! Talk about a peculiar argument!

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to I don’t want to enter into a tangential discussion, but my point was:

          The population increase as justification for spending a greater percentage of GDP on social programs? Are you really serious?

          The population was also increasing, on average, every year for the 150 years preceding your time-frame, but there was no increase during that time.

          Moreover, an increase in population – especially productive population – will, in itself, increase the GDP; which, in turn, will automatically increase the tax revenues to government; which, therefore, would pay for the additional services, if any, provided by government to and/or for that increase in population.

          Collect the same percentage of GDP, and total revenues increase all by itself. An increase in population is no reason to increase the percentage collected – unless the role of government is expanded for reasons other than just an increase in population.

          Do you really believe some of the stuff you post? Or do you just spew it out without thinking it through?

        • #2877025

          Tracking the numbers

          by delbertpgh ·

          In reply to I don’t want to enter into a tangential discussion, but my point was:

          Again, looking at usgovernmentspending.com, percentages this time, total government spending in these years was this % of GDP:
          1900 3
          1916 2
          1919 24
          1925 4
          1939 10
          1944 46
          1947 17
          1949 15
          1952 20
          And, from there, it pretty much stays put going forward, fluctuating between 18% and 21% most years, hitting 22% several years in a row under Reagan, once dropping to 16.4% in 1965 (under LBJ). GWB drove the percentage up, and under Obama, it gets to 25%.

          Population grew: about 76 million in 1900; 132 million in 1940; 180 in 1960; 227 in 1980; 272 in 1999; 310 today. Percent 65 and older in 1960 was 9.2; in 2009, 12.9.

          Defense numbers are all over the map, fluctuating from 6% to 11% through the cold war, 4% to 5% thereafter. (Before the New Deal, it was between 1% and 2%, usually closer to 1%.)

          Deficits were pretty much under control until 1970, under 1% most years, often negative. 1979 (Carter) was the last year a deficit was under 2% of GDP, until 1996 (Clinton.) GWB proceded to borrow a ton for his wars, and slashed revenues to create tax cuts; Obama’s borrowing looks to be close to 10% of GDP, approaching war time budget dimensions.

          What does this tell us?

          Well, tax-and-spend Democrats appear to be better than borrow-and-spend Republicans on the deficit. However, the total budget goes up each year, and nobody bothers to revisit the effectiveness of existing programs. So, nothing much gets cut.

          There are a lot more Americans, and even more needing Social Security and Medicare.

          The defense budget, currently at 5.5%, is high for peace time. Once wars wind down, the war budget needs to back off, too. One thing worth bringing up, on the nation’s financing of wars: traditionally, we have raised taxes so that we won’t have to deficit-finance our complete war. We did that for WW1, WW2, Korea, and Viet Nam. (I, who paid income tax in 1968, remember computing the whole form 1040, and at the bottom, adding an extra 10% of the amount due.) For Afghanistan/Iraq, we cut taxes. It’s the opposite of how we approached all other wars.

          The numbers suggest that total government spending is within the band of normal spending that has endured since Korea. Are you suggesting we go back to Warren Harding days (and 1.5% defense) to get back to where we should be? To “normalcy”, as Harding put it?

          http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/downloadmult_gs.php?year=1890_2015&view=1&expand=&units=p&fy=fy11&chart=G0-fed_H0-fed_F0-fed_00-fed_30-fed_10-fed&bar=1&stack=1&size=m&title=&state=US&color=c&local=s

        • #2877020

          Delbert – The point is:

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to I don’t want to enter into a tangential discussion, but my point was:

          The massive spending is being funded by the accumulation of debt, not by the collection of revenue. You could eliminate ALL military spending, and there would still be debt accumulation necessary to pay for the rest . You could tax people – rich or otherwise – to their maximum possible breaking point, and there would still be debt accumulation.

          Our national debt is rapidly approaching 100 percent of our GDP. It’s simply not sustainable. It’s destroying the value of the dollar on the world currency market, and it’s put our economy on track for a massive financial train wreck.

          If you disagree with any of that, you’re either not paying attention or you have your head in the sand.

          The freedom and individual liberty arguments are secondary to that financial reality.

          And in that regard, I find it extremely sad to realize that while our founders gave their fortunes and their lives in the quest for more freedom and liberty, today’s crop of the [i]”me first – what’s in it for me”[/i] generations won’t even give up a free visit to the emergency room to get rid of a pimple on their a$$!

    • #2877773

      Panem et circenses

      by neilb@uk ·

      In reply to To those who voted for Democrats two years ago

      Is about where you’re at in the process.

      Fast food and reality television.

      🙁

      The fundamental causes for the fall of Rome:

      Over-militarisation and military over-extension

      Widespread indebtness

      A widening gap between rich and poor

      The imposition of religious fundamentalism as the state religion

      The denigration of rational thought in favour of faith

      The moral decay epitomised by Bread and Circus within the Roman Empire.

      Recognise any of these?

    • #2877770

      Not guilty! -nt-

      by jellimonsta ·

      In reply to To those who voted for Democrats two years ago

      :0

    • #2877768

      The final straw

      by dwdino ·

      In reply to To those who voted for Democrats two years ago

      Max,

      While you do present a valid point about this point in time, it is only and indicator of a graver root cause.

      This nation, for at least 5 decades has been developing a resistance to what is right. As another has posted, all other “kingdoms” have risen and fell. I therefore propose that this downfall is the just rewards for an amoral people. Throughout history, the internal degradation of the people has led to the demise of the society and nation.

      Is it possible to correct course and recover? Yes. Is it likely? Doubtful. Societies are built from the ground up. A strong people will throw off a radical government. A weak society will allow its trespasses to be replayed in its government.

      Overspending? This has been the norm for the majority for some time. Now the government is caught in the same crisis.

      Moral relativism? See above.

      Lack of self-control? See above.

      • #2877765

        Please define “right”

        by neilb@uk ·

        In reply to The final straw

        And, as you have set “amoral” as a root cause of the decline, “moral”.

        🙂

        • #2877758

          Nice hook and bait set

          by dwdino ·

          In reply to Please define “right”

          And as I have history, known to you, I see no need to revisit my stance.

          Let me return the volley in this manner. Find a nation having completed this cycle, ancient Rome perhaps. Define its height and the change leading to its demise.

          Similiarly, our nations founding and its general base in comparison to today, yields a few astounding contrasts. Some support my premise.

          So, can you, on the other hand, defend that a switch from one base to another will not topple the tower?

        • #2877754

          History

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to Nice hook and bait set

          The reasons given for the fall of Rome are many and some are disputed. One of the reasons given to which I subscribe is the adoption of an overconfident and intolerant Christianity as the State Religion (Gibbon, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire). I’m not setting this up as a precursor to a religious debate (Yet. I’m still working through my original list and this comes in at #4) but I did want to question – and still do – your use of “amoral” and see if it came from a religious perspective and if it reinforced my belief in the way your society is going.

          If you choose not to tell me what you think I already know (I don’t), then I’ll move on. Life is too short.

          🙂

        • #2877749

          Ok…

          by dwdino ·

          In reply to History

          Amoral – having no moral standards, restraints, or principles; unaware of or indifferent to questions of right or wrong

          A nation disposed to its own pleasures above all else is destined to destruction.

          “intolerant Christianity” is the fault in your premise. There are numerous examples in history of perversion of the source for a specific gain. But I digress…

        • #2877713

          What are the moral standards?

          by nicknielsen ·

          In reply to Ok…

          Who defines them? Do they extend further than “Thou shalt not kill” and “Thou shalt not steal”? Some apparently wish to progress to “Thou shalt not think differently.”

          Even better, what does “moral” mean?

          “Intolerant Christianity” is a redundancy and has been so almost since the birth of the religion.

        • #2877705

          Only one note

          by dwdino ·

          In reply to What are the moral standards?

          Christianity teaches that there are many paths and many who will find them, but only one that leads to restoration and satisfaction.

          Intolerance dictates that “no other can exist”. This creates a dichotomy as the two words are opposed.

        • #2877259

          My path

          by nicknielsen ·

          In reply to What are the moral standards?

          Love thy neighbor as thyself.

          I try, but often fail.

        • #2877253

          paths…

          by ansugisalas ·

          In reply to What are the moral standards?

          why do they look for a path to what is all about them?

        • #2877701

          Do you accept?

          by jamesrl ·

          In reply to Ok…

          Do you accept that those of other faiths and creeds can be moral?

          If I recall my history, the American founding fathers were opposed to following the principle of am official state religion as existed in England.

        • #2877700

          Agreed

          by dwdino ·

          In reply to Do you accept?

          Yes, moral is a human measurement of a persons choices. Often this measurement is aligned with a given set.

          You are the first to attempt to intertwine (sp) the two subjects. The morality of a people and the enslavement by a government has now been raised by you.

      • #2877759

        Hmmm

        by jellimonsta ·

        In reply to The final straw

        [q]Overspending? This has been the norm for the majority for some time. Now the government is caught in the same crisis.[/q]

        I would argue that overspending has been the crux of governmental issues for a long time, and is not a recent development. Granted under the current administration, the issue has become paramount, regardless of the detractors.

      • #2877738

        Well put

        by jackofalltech ·

        In reply to The final straw

        Of course, you’re going to get complaints from the “No Absolute Truth” crowd about what’s Right.

        • #2877736

          Ha!

          by jellimonsta ·

          In reply to Well put

          Like they know!! 😉 :p

        • #2877732

          And who says we don’t

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to Ha!

          I know what’s right for ME, anyway!

          :p

        • #2877731

          Ahhh…

          by jellimonsta ·

          In reply to And who says we don’t

          But do you, really? Or do you just think you know what’s right for you, in a moment of incorrect judgement? :p 😀

        • #2877728

          That is SPOT ON, Neil

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to And who says we don’t

          You know [i]what’s right[/i] for you, I know [i]what’s right[/i] for me, and John and Jane Doe know best [i]what’s right[/i] for them.

          None of the aforementioned people should force their definition of [i]what’s right[/i] onto others – the very thing that’s necessary in any collective social system. And likewise, government shouldn’t define [i]what’s right[/i].

          That’s precisely why I’m adamantly opposed to it – collectivism, socialism, government nannyism, etc. I’m baffled as to why more people don’t agree.

          Well, no I’m not. I know why. It’s because when people define [i]what’s right[/i] for themselves, it means they must also accept responsibility for themselves – something all too many people either don’t want to do or are afraid to do. The right to define [i]what’s right[/i] for you is only one side of the coin; on the other side is responsibility. You can’t have one without accepting the other; and when you give one away one, you lose the other.

        • #2877722

          There in is the issue

          by dwdino ·

          In reply to That is SPOT ON, Neil

          “their definition of what’s right” – while this often comes into play, there is a third, outside definer of right.

          More acurrately, you are free to choose to align with right or wrong, but both have been long since defined.

        • #2877299

          “long since defined”

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to There in is the issue

          You keep implying something.

        • #2877272

          The implication…

          by dwdino ·

          In reply to There in is the issue

          …comes at the end.

          😉

    • #2877757

      WhoooWEEeeeee!

      by smartacew0lf ·

      In reply to To those who voted for Democrats two years ago

      Someone up for a fight or what? Honestly, Max, your post smacks of exactly what we have all slowly began to absorb as a normal and reasonable way of doing things. I.E. Just as it is done in the news media and even in Congress. No one is accountable for anything anymore. It’s the other sides fault.

      There is an old saying that goes like this, “Remember, when pointing fingers at others, there are 3 times as many fingers pointing back at you on the same hand” Nowhere have I witnessed this to be more self-evident than it is in present day idealogical arguments. My first choice of words to end the previous sentence with was “discussions”. But the plain and simple fact of the matter is that there is so little actually being discussed these days its pathetic. All looks like a Bill O’Reilly show where he suckers someone from the opposing faction and stacks at least 4 more people holding views close to his own up against them. And then none of the 5 against the individual will even give the person the opportunity to speak!

      Excuse the sh1t out of me for voting Democrat in our presidential election 2 years ago. But quite simply, after the exploitation of the international support we had after 911 in using it to pillage and loot another country for their wealth there was no way in hell I could vote for another Republican. Not that year anyway.

      But perhaps you truly believe in what we are doing in Iraq. Perhaps it doesn’t bother you that we let Bin Laden slip away from our grasp as some “politician” defies all known military strategy with his foolishness.

      The eyes of the world are and have been on US. Perhaps you aren’t paying attention. Our closest of Allies are beginning to distance themselves. Personally, I don’t blame them.

      • #2877729

        It’s the Democratic ‘we’

        by boxfiddler ·

        In reply to WhoooWEEeeeee!

        that let bin Laden slip away.

        http://www.infowars.com/saved%20pages/Prior_Knowledge/Clinton_let_bin_laden.htm

        The whole blame this or that is history. We’re sliding down the tubes, and whatever whoever pulls out of their hat is too little too late.

        We, the American public, are to blame, you ask me. We haven’t held our politicians and media accountable for decades. We get what we deserve. Unfortunately.

        • #2877217

          It certainly is us…

          by smartacew0lf ·

          In reply to It’s the Democratic ‘we’

          as citizens of this country we have lost not only the support of citizens around the world in other countries, but their respect as well. Indeed we do get what we deserve.

        • #2877070

          Before the event

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to It’s the Democratic ‘we’

          How and as what was Bin Laden perceived by either the American public or administration in 1996? I’d be interested to know if the US had any legal grounds for detaining bin Laden at that time. Certainly, in the UK, we’d scarcely heard of him.

          Neil 🙂

        • #2877068

          The 9-11 commission didn’t find it credible

          by jamesrl ·

          In reply to Before the event

          From Wikipedia:

          Several sources dispute Ijaz’s claim, including the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks on the U.S. (the 9?11 Commission), which concluded in part:

          Sudan’s minister of defense, Fatih Erwa, has claimed that Sudan offered to hand Bin Ladin over to the U.S. The Commission has found no credible evidence that this was so. Ambassador Carney had instructions only to push the Sudanese to expel Bin Ladin. Ambassador Carney had no legal basis to ask for more from the Sudanese since, at the time, there was no indictment out-standing

        • #2877067

          Thanks, James

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to The 9-11 commission didn’t find it credible

          I could have read the Wiki article but I’m feeling lazy, today.

          😀

        • #2877052

          1996 or so

          by delbertpgh ·

          In reply to Before the event

          In 96 Bin Laden planned an assassination of Bill Clinton, who was visiting Manila. The plot and the bomb on a bridge were discovered and no attempt was actually put into action. Also, in 96 the Khobar Towers military barracks in Arabia was blown up, killing 19 US soldiers. Al Qaeda gained a certain amount of attention.

          After the African embassy bombings in 1998 the Clinton team got a little more activist, and launched cruise missiles against a drug factory in Sudan (which had kicked Bin Laden out in 1996, under Saudi pressure), and against an Al Qaeda training camp in Khost province in Afghanistan.

          There was a reluctance under both the Clinton and Bush administrations to believe that terrorists not affiliated with a state could be effective in any large way. Our experience with Palestinians always demonstrated that the real troublemakers were the ones with a base in a country and friends in its government. Once Bin Laden was chased out of Afghanistan, the Bush team considered the problem solved, and moved its focus to Iraq.

          Bin Laden showed us that times have changed.

        • #2877026

          How can one destroy one’s protege out of hand?

          by ansugisalas ·

          In reply to It’s the Democratic ‘we’

    • #2877740

      For those who have been paying attention to my posts, they know . . .

      by maxwell edison ·

      In reply to To those who voted for Democrats two years ago

      ….. that I don’t singularly blame the current crop of Democrats or President Obama – although they did put the economic disaster plan on steroids. (Side Note: If you were to actually design an economic disaster plan for a nation, just look at what the United States is doing and has been doing for the past 40-50 years, and you have the perfect blueprint from which to copy.)

      This trend has been maintained and fed with both major parties in control of both Houses of Congress and/or the White House. I’ve been harping and warning about the same thing for two or three decades. Those who’ve been around TR as long as I have can recall the myriad discussions I’ve started and/or comments made on the subject.

      When did it start, and who do I blame?

      It started in 1865 when the Confederate States of America were militarily prevented from seceding from the Union. Abraham Lincoln was the most instrumental person in American history in squashing individual state’s rights. The one thing that could be most instrumental in keeping the federal government in check is strong and independent state governments – something long lost.

      If a territory can voluntarily join the union, then it – or the states carved from that territory – should be able to voluntarily leave if the federal government gets too powerful and tyrannical.

      I can actually envision the day when a good number of states actually attempt to secede from the United States. But instead of taking up arms, I would envision the taking back of resources, the refusal to send money and representatives to Congress; and if the federal military is sent in to put down the peaceful rebellion, instead of armed resistance, we’d probably see the proverbial lone soul standing in front of the tank in the town square.

      I blame the people who crafted, presented, and passed the 17th Amendment to the United States Constitution, something that further eroded individual states’ rights. (Note: Originally, the members of the U.S. House of Representatives were elected by direct vote of the people of their respective state, while the members of the U.S. Senate were elected by the members of the individual state legislatures.)

      I blame the people who crafted, presented, and passed the 16th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which, in essence, financially enslaved the entire U.S. population. Taxes are certainly necessary to maintain a strong and effective government, but when the collection of such is also used to control – and punish – the population, we have tyranny.

      Americans certainly love rags to riches stories, but they then like to see the rich and affluent come crashing back down. And giving government the power to seize the fruits of one’s labor IS tyranny. And in the process, we’ve indirectly given one citizen the power to vote himself the fruits of another person’s labor. That, too, is tyranny.

      I blame FDR and his merry band of Socialists who rammed through Congress and the Courts what soon became the roots of Socialism in America.

      I blame LBJ and his Great Society Programs, along with the Congress that passed them, and later ones that refused to repeal them. LBJ was probably the one person most instrumental in giving people a reason to shirk their own personal responsibility.

      I blame Republicans, in general, since 1964, who then started to run scared from their libertarian roots in favor of seeking votes. In general, Republicans since 1964 have been behaving more and more like Democrats and Socialists (but I repeat myself), and less like true Republicans.

      I blame the population that refuses to accept responsibility for their own lives. And I blame the voters who figured out that they could actually vote themselves gifts from the treasury. Moreover, these same voters seem to approach elections like they would American Idol. Principle and policy be dammed! They only want the best looking and the best sounding people with no figurative warts – a shallow and ignorant approach to one’s civic duty.

      I blame the public educational system for systematically doing away with teaching true American ideals, accurate American History, and the true intent of the Constitution.

      I blame the mainstream news media – e.g. AP, NY Times, Washington Post, CBS, ABC, NBS, et al – who’ve lost their objectivity in favor of advancing social agendas. Moreover, they’ve failed in their watch-dog role in seeking out and exposing corruption in, and mismanagement of government.

      I could go on, but that’s enough for now.

      • #2877715

        Unsurprisingly, I agree with a minority of your opinions

        by delbertpgh ·

        In reply to For those who have been paying attention to my posts, they know . . .

        I’ve often said that a thoughtful man can’t be wrong about everything, and you have again proved my point. Perhaps you are surprised that I share your view on anything. If you have paid attention to my posts, you know I am basically conservative. I may stand in the shallow end of the conservative pool, but I’m there, not somewhere else sentimentalizing Castro and 1960s Swedish socialism and believing that all people need is the right government-administered therapy to be their best.

        Like you, I’m disappointed in American education, because it has lost rigor and relevance. I am especially disappointed in what passes for history textbooks these days. (I suspect you favor a history I might consider indoctrination.) The high school texts I’ve seen are bad because they abjure almost any narrative at all, and replace it with a collage of short sidebar articles about random topics with no context, designed to uplift the spirt of any and every minor group of Americans, and to offend no group major or minor, save the ones with actively working critical brains.

        I don’t think the press (or your “mainstream media”) is working very well in keeping the citizens advised of what’s important, or keeping the hot bright lights on government. They do a lot better than Fox, which is outright dishonest on a number of accounts and is little more than a shill for the Republican party, but the mainstream still does a lousy job.

        The people have definitely lost track of what they need from government, along with their willingness to pay for what they demand. I’d agree that democracy has not functioned as well as it has at times in the past, with representatives afraid to tell a consistent story (or vote a consistent line) if it means any pain or sacrifice. The people want a happy face, and the elected bodies try to provide it.

        However, this sort of ends our sunny interlude of shared opinion. I’ll put my critiques of your position in a few other short posts. That way, it won’t mar this moment of golden harmony that we share.

      • #2877709

        Secession is an enhancement to individual rights?!

        by delbertpgh ·

        In reply to For those who have been paying attention to my posts, they know . . .

        Lincoln, our greatest president, held the union together, and we have been more prosperous and more free because of it. (He originally did nothing when Southern states seceded, until South Carolina went and started the war by shelling a Federal fort. Still, I give him the credit.) Lincoln foresaw an American continent fractured in pieces, each piece obsessed with defense (or war) against the others, each using tariffs and trade restrictions to build its wealth at the expense of others. Being split in pieces would have been expensive and tragic, with generation after generation facing the cost of going to war with other Americans.

        What greater freedom would have it promised, even if you were to disregard the suffering of a fragmented people? The states that seceded were interested only in the freedom of white people to deny dark people their rights. If you permitted secession (or nullification of Federal law by states) these days, would it lead to greater freedom for individuals in their daily lives, or just to some theoretical freedom exercised by a geographically-defined polity, which they could experience only through their legislature? Reading about the freedom your state government enjoys is to me less enabling than having freedom in my personal life.

        In the 20th century there has been a great expansion of equality, which is to say freedom, at the instigation of the Federal government over the reluctance of some of the states. Blacks, women, Catholics, Jews, Chinese, Japanese, and Hispanics have all gained titular equality in the places where white men alone had freedom. It’s part of a great story, one that is not finished and improves over time.

      • #2877706

        I like the 16th and 17th amendments!

        by delbertpgh ·

        In reply to For those who have been paying attention to my posts, they know . . .

        I don’t understand the sentimentalization of the pre-17th amendment era. (For people not up on the U.S. constitution: the 17th amendment required that Senators, like members of the House of Representatives, be elected by vote of the people of their state, and not just be appointed by the state legislature.) When senators were elected by legislatures, they were much more in the pocket of financial interests, especially banking, mining, and railroads. Half the Senate was bought and paid for by capitalists. The old system was just an open invitation to crooks. The 17th amendment was honestly a reform.

        The 16th legalized the Federal income tax as a means of funding the government. Prior to this, virtually all Federal revenues were raised from import tariffs, with a little more from various fees. You simply could not have a government large enough to run the 20th century United States paid only out of tariffs and user fees.

        Had the 16th not been passed, the Federal government would probably have had to finance itself by a national sales tax (probably in the area of 20%), or by ingenious and nefarious other techniques to confiscate wealth. The government would not, sorry to tell the conservatives, have faded away or even failed to grow had this juicy tax been abolished.

        The graduated income tax is fairer than many other taxes would have been. It’s unnecessarily complex, but it does the job. The country needs government, and the income tax assures it will be financed.

        • #2877249

          I think

          by ansugisalas ·

          In reply to I like the 16th and 17th amendments!

          Maxwell just poses as a libertarian, and is actually working for corporate rule.
          He doesn’t seem to be ranting against monopolies, nor against corporate-owned politicians and he doesn’t seem worried about the military behaving like a state within the state. But then, the military is all chummy with the corporates, since yellowfruit.

        • #2877248

          yellowfruit

          by santeewelding ·

          In reply to I think

          Is that anything like, ronkedoor?

          Oh, and, did you ever get a forward of the article by Orson Welles? Whorfian Hypothesis, and all; like your post.

        • #2877247

          I did get that…

          by ansugisalas ·

          In reply to yellowfruit

          I’ve had a busy schedule lately, but I am reading it.

          I don’t follow the hardcore Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, but I do follow the later refined versions – language has an impact on thinking, but it does not categorically define thinking.

          This is yellowfruit, I know, there’s older stuff too.

          Edited for order.

        • #2877228

          Everybody in America suffers a little from cognitive dissonance

          by delbertpgh ·

          In reply to I think

          Nobody’s politics can run in a straight line, not without making one look somewhat extreme. Neither Max nor me.

          Although I believe government and other broad-shouldered institutions should be limited and should stay the hell out of my life as much as possible, I feel the same way about large companies, too. Powerful corporations under the control of greedy men can strip the liberty from your American life, much as a bunch of socialist do-gooders can, but they will do it for the sake of power and wealth. Theodore Roosevelt (maybe our 5th greatest president) recognized this, and saw that government had to stand between the people and business in the 20th century. I’m pretty much of the same mind with Teddy on that.

        • #2877193

          Too true

          by ansugisalas ·

          In reply to Everybody in America suffers a little from cognitive dissonance

          That’s why I’m against tendentious politics. If it doesn’t have a specific goal, non-directional and discrete, I won’t have it.

          But it always seems to be “less foreigners” or “less taxes” or “less government” or “more welfare” or “better education” or “more efficient education”… nobody dares say “We want an educational system exactly this big, with these specs”, or “We believe our nation can cope with, and benefit from approximately [b]this[/b] rate of foreign-to-native inhabitants” or “We want a government that can handle [b]these[/b] tasks”…
          When everybody has a “more” or “less” directional goal, there’s no true room for consensus.
          If everybody is clear about their goals they can go measure the distances, and see where the compromises can be found.
          And then people on both political wings will find that there are people on their own sides with which they have nothing in common.

        • #2877191

          Got around to Welles

          by santeewelding ·

          In reply to Too true

          Didja.

          “…with which they have nothing [else] in common.”

          The careful writer, remember.

        • #2877187

          I was thinking of the illusory nature

          by ansugisalas ·

          In reply to Got around to Welles

          of what is called a political wing.
          With “…nothing in common…” I meant that they’ll actually look at the others, actually see them – and simply go “WTF?!? What in the … Srsly, WTF!?!”

          But nothing else is good too… except it makes me think “Nothing else than what? Bipedal motility? Dependency on drawing breath? What?”

        • #2877184

          Political parties are not individuals

          by jamesrl ·

          In reply to Too true

          Even a political party as small as two people will eventually find an issue that divides it.

          Political Parties often subscribe to large scale vague principles, but differe sharply on how to achieve short or even long term goals.

          When you are a member of a political party, you have to agree that you can’t always get everything you want, but by supporting the party, you can get some of what you want, and that your party is closer to your values, ideals and goals than another party.

          In systems like the US and Canada, were a small number of parties exist, you will get broad coalition parties. Thats just human nature. So setting a specific goal is just not that easy. You can say less foreigners, but members will have different ideas and priorities about what would bring that about in the best manner.

        • #2877183

          The big parties are a problem.

          by ansugisalas ·

          In reply to Political parties are not individuals

          It means that each member is effectively resonating the least common denominator on all issues that member doesn’t care intensely about. It can never work well.
          Ideally a no-party parliament would be best; just the elected individuals following their own minds.
          Ideally. In practice it’d be too ineffective, could be a weimar mkII. It would require some seriously innovative decision processing to keep it moving.
          Perhaps a major game theory or connectivist theory breakthrough away?

        • #2877126

          From what I can see, James

          by nicknielsen ·

          In reply to Political parties are not individuals

          The current political aim of the more vocal members of the Republican party appears to be to achieve political homogeneity by ejecting all the RINOs (Republicans in name only), those who are not conservative enough and those who dare to admit that the opposition may have valid points of view. I don’t think they realize that if they succeed, they will have limited their appeal to a much smaller proportion of American voters than they expect.

          I am one of those independent ‘swing’ voters. I vote based on who I feel is the best candidate for the office in question. I have voted for both Democratic and Republican candidates in the past. If, in the future, I am continually presented with candidates such as Christine O’Donnell, Sharron Angle, or even Jim DeMint, I can’t see myself ever voting for a Republican again. Of course, if the Democrats start continually presenting candidates such as Alvin Green, I can’t see me voting for a Democrat again, either.

        • #2877072

          The Canadian experience

          by jamesrl ·

          In reply to Political parties are not individuals

          We had something similar in the 80s, a “ultra” movement started in the Progressive Conservative Party, and eventually they broke away and formed their own party, the Reform Party. They did ensure the Liberals won for a while, but clearly could not see themselves winning a majority.

          Eventually they merged with the Progressive Conservatives and became the Conservative Party, and they have been governing with a minority since 2006.

          I have always voted for the Conservative party as the best choice, though at times I’ve held my nose. But thats not guarenteed. They have to earn it every time in my books.

      • #2877703

        FDR saved democracy, freedom, and capitalism. And modernised government.

        by delbertpgh ·

        In reply to For those who have been paying attention to my posts, they know . . .

        Conservatives deplore Franklin Roosevelt because he expanded government, and legitimized intervention in society by government. However, in 1932, a lot of Americans were ready to give up on what had once worked in favor of any alternative, and for some, that meant the wilder, the better. There had been three full years of progressive economic collapse: banks failed by the thousands, and depositors’ money had simply disappeared when they closed; unemployment was at 20% nation wide; the stock market had fallen 90% from its peak. Nobody had confidence. Nobody was hiring or investing. Money, if it had not been lost, sat idle in deposits.

        Without a new activist force in government, Americans were ready for one of the European ideologies that seemed to be successful at staving off the chaos of modernism: communism, or fascism. Both are today repellent to us. In the 1930s, they weren’t as repellent as watching your children go hungry.

        Franklin saved American life. There would have been a much darker period without his leadership.

        Incidentally, in 1932, Republicans lost control of the house, senate, and presidency: 101 house seats (plus 14 more in 1934;) 12 senate seats (plus 9 more in 1934;) and Roosevelt over Hoover, 57% to 40%. Norman Thomas, a socialist, got 2%. The country was emphatic in its decision, way more than we have seen in recent decades.

      • #2877702

        As always…

        by keighlar ·

        In reply to For those who have been paying attention to my posts, they know . . .

        … you have a way of saying what I am thinking in such a way that it makes me wonder if you sometimes you sit and take lunch in my brain. I know that my presence here is mostly that of the lurker, but all my wanderings make me feel that I know most of the regulars here like those in my neighborhood. So, even knowing that I am likely to get scourged, I have to stand strongly on the side of Max’s points.

        This once great country is in its death throes and we, its citizens, are lashed to its every roiling convulsion. Since I had voice to speak I have spoken against the onslaught of governmental control in our personal lives. It’s gotten me nowhere but bitter and jaded.

        Even now, we give way in the smallest things and wonder why we have no backbone as a populace in the larger things. My daughter’s school showed a very controversial film in her Science class last week without notifying the parents of the children. She asked me to keep silent; my fiance asked me to keep silent. It’s no big deal. Leave it alone. Don’t stir the pot. Don’t create waves.

        There lies the beginning of complacency. I cannot keep silent and sleep at night even if my voice echoes in the dark. “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” [Edmund Burke]

        We have done nothing for so long that only tattered vestiges of the Spirit of America remain. Until we are ready to take responsibility for ourselves, to ourselves, I see no hope of deliverance.

    • #2877737

      Wow, Max. Now I’m depressed

      by jackofalltech ·

      In reply to To those who voted for Democrats two years ago

      Reading so many negative comments from people who just don’t get it.

      I really don’t think, outside of Divine intervention, that there is any hope for my beloved country.

      • #2877730

        I am come

        by santeewelding ·

        In reply to Wow, Max. Now I’m depressed

        But can’t get anybody to pay attention.

        • #2877697

          And have been dismissed.

          by dwdino ·

          In reply to I am come

          :p

          j/k

      • #2877685

        Divine intervention…

        by ansugisalas ·

        In reply to Wow, Max. Now I’m depressed

        You do realize that nations have gotten back on their feet even after the bankruptcy was a fact, right?

        You’re not even there, yet, and still some are already skipping forward to the “let’s place the blame, now that we’re all confined to hell for eternity” -game.

        There’s a two step program for getting back on your feet.
        Step one: Spend wisely.
        Step two: Work your ass off.
        :Repeat as needed.

        It works.

    • #2877723

      great post, all true!

      by hannibb74 ·

      In reply to To those who voted for Democrats two years ago

      The laws of economics are the same, no matter where you are. When you print too much money and don’t care about deficits, you destroy your currency!
      That day will arrive if nothing is done, the worst part is that in Latin america people are used to be poor and suffer, but in the USA people will suffer a lot more, because the standard of living will be lowered tremendously.

    • #2877707

      This kinda fits in I think

      by michael jay ·

      In reply to To those who voted for Democrats two years ago

      financial reality, perhaps, you will need 30 minutes to watch this, I found it very interesting.

    • #2877686

      Way to go

      by nexs ·

      In reply to To those who voted for Democrats two years ago

      If the person you don’t like gets voted in, you yell at all the voters who voted against your choice.

      Just classy. 😉

      But in your defense, America’s financial situation affects many countries around the world. Whether it be negative or positive, there’s no doubt that the USA still has a great effect on the world.

      • #2877289

        It’s not the people or the person I like or dislike

        by maxwell edison ·

        In reply to Way to go

        It’s their policy positions and their agendas that I don’t like.

        In a nutshell, I want government to get the hell out of my life and not infringe upon my right to take responsibility for my own life. And there are tens/hundreds of millions of people with that same attitude.

        Unfortunately for us, there are other people, both in and out of government, who simply will not allow that to happen. That’s not what America is supposed to be about. In fact, the role of government is to PROTECT and GUARANTEE that right, not infringe upon it.

        People simply say, screw you dude; you got out-voted. You have to do what the majority wants you to do. Tyranny of the majority.

        And in the process of doing all this, they have created a financial mess for the United States that will be very difficult – if not impossible – to correct before we experience an economic collapse.

        • #2877263

          Tough cookies…

          by ansugisalas ·

          In reply to It’s not the people or the person I like or dislike

          They had to suffer through the eight years of Elmer Fudd and his various military escapades and massive loanings and … [i]screwing up the economy on purpose to help his rich friends get richer[/i].
          So, now you’re having the same ride, with less of the stone-crazy, and you can’t handle it?

        • #2877243

          Again, you show that you don’t have a clue

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Tough cookies…

          I was saying exactly the same things under the previous administration.

        • #2877242

          And you

          by ansugisalas ·

          In reply to Again, you show that you don’t have a clue

          show that you have no sense of continuum.
          How will you make a change if you say “Democrats”?
          That’s the smoke-screen I’m talking about.
          You’re not only buying into this supposed “difference”, you’re selling it on, with a markup!
          There is no difference! Stop bickering about the “vote”, and start building the flucking alternative.

          If you’re not part of the solution – you’re a part of the smoke-screen.

          Sorry for shouting 😉

    • #2877280

      Ah, an opportunity to keep my 2011 resolution

      by charliespencer ·

      In reply to To those who voted for Democrats two years ago

      to not rise to this particular variety of bait / baiter. Thanks!

      • #2877276

        You’re welcome

        by maxwell edison ·

        In reply to Ah, an opportunity to keep my 2011 resolution

        Anything I can do to help.

        P.S. Gee, what happened to the lose 25 pounds resolution?

        • #2877275

          Working on it.

          by charliespencer ·

          In reply to You’re welcome

          Some take longer than others.

        • #2877273

          I’m SOooooooo disappointed. . . . .

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Working on it.

          ….. that you won’t comment on the discussion.

          I absolutely LOVE your take and opinion on my discussions. Just like I love eggs with bacon; pancakes with maple syrup; biscuits with gravy; movies with popcorn; peanut butter with jelly; golf with beer; gasoline with a 400 HP engine; cheese with crackers; coffee with a muffin; scotch with ……. ice – and more scotch.

          Not even a tease?

        • #2877186

          Race ya

          by jamesrl ·

          In reply to Working on it.

          We are having a competition at work and I’m down nearly three pounds the first week.

          I hear you on the first resolution, I’m not posting to his general premise. I think its ground we’ve been over before.

        • #2877181

          I can only stand it

          by ansugisalas ·

          In reply to Race ya

          by venting white-on-white.

    • #2877101

      LOL, like clockwork

      by oz_media ·

      In reply to To those who voted for Democrats two years ago

      I was just thinking today that I hadn’t heard much from you lately, I then realised that the political spotlight has gone pretty quiet so you didn’t really have any democratic slagging to illustrate your intense foresight into such matters.

      Lo and behold, Maxwell raises his silver hammer once again. Haven’t even read the post yet, just thought it was hilarious to see a new bash dems thread (I just assume that’s what it is, how clever you were to vote for another party, as always)and then to realize you had started it.

      Classic and so true to form.

      EDIT: Okay I read it now, but have to ask, while you ask so many rhetorical questions.

      [i]What will you do when the Dollar collapses and the United States defaults on both its debt obligations and promises to its citizens? What will you do when the Dollar is devalued? What will you do when the World Reserve Currency is no longer the Dollar? It will happen, you know; it’s just a matter of time. And it will happen sooner rather than later. (And why is George Soros, Democrat’s favorite billionaire, buying up all the gold and silver he can get his hands on – all the while, advocating MORE government spending and debt accumulation?)[/i]

      What will you do? Finally give up and leave for another nation or stick around and moan about how the majority of US voters don’t know what they are doing?

      I don’t think it’s all about Bush, I don’t think many do, nor is it all about dems or Obama either. You complain that nobody has listened to you for the last 20 years, however you have had a lot of different people in office all contributing to the state of affasirs you are in today, you’ve never questioned spending trillions on war, just programs to support yoru own citizens.
      Do you feel a different party would have prevented this or do you concede that Americans, as a society on a whole, have put themselves in this mess and really it is only the fault of government for encouraging such unresourceful actions?

      What will I do? Buy more gas over the border, once they settle down and start encouraging Canadian visitors and revenue instead of making them so resentful of horrific security measures that they don’t even want to cross a border.

      I may begin to shop more stateside where our dollar is worth at least a dollar and roll with the punches, as society has done since the dawn of time.

      • #2877056

        Ditto – LOL like clockwork

        by maxwell edison ·

        In reply to LOL, like clockwork

        You’re so predictable, and you’ve done it all again.

        And take your own damn teeth out of the glass!

      • #2848165

        Simple solution: take over Mexico and Canada

        by robo_dev ·

        In reply to LOL, like clockwork

        Ummmm….guys, the US has the largest and most powerful military in the world.

        Surely Canada and Mexico would fall quickly when attacked. I mean Canada would never see it coming, and we treat Mexico like $#%$% anyway, so they could not even tell they were under attack.

        Canada has some great natural resources, some good clean water, cold beer, and lots of neat stuff like hockey, people with respect for the law, and some cool trains.

        Mexico has a large workforce, plenty of sunshine, some great resort spots, and a great variety of spicy foods.

        I’m sure the US could gain a considerable amount of capital, gold reserves, and the like when they took over. Plus they could sell off some of the hot properties like Cozumel to Japanese or Arab investors.

        This solves many problems: the Mexico immigration issue, the high cost of Molson in the States, and any concerns about clean water. The US could just put a big intake hose into the former Canada for clean water, and another pipe into the Gulf of Mexico for the waste (whoops….we do that already)

        • #2848157

          LOL, you think?

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Simple solution: take over Mexico and Canada

          Yes you currently have the largest military in the world, but that’s good because you need it. Last time America attempted to take Canadian soil, the White House was burned down. When you attack Canada, you attack most of the free world, Canada’s military history is one of very strong global support of many nations and thusly is the support [i]for[/i] Canada.

          Right from the get go, how would you power all of your military vehicles without Canadian or European oil? How would you feed your troops without Canadian food?

          Now if you’re naive enough to actually believe you would win a world war [i]against[/i]America, then I can see how you would dream up such images of total control.
          Not very well thought through but taken as the joke it was intended to be anyway.

        • #2848146

          I wonder, Oz

          by nicknielsen ·

          In reply to LOL, you think?

          Have you ever read Jonathan Swift’s “A Modest Proposal”?

        • #2848036

          States of Canada and Mexico

          by generalist ·

          In reply to LOL, you think?

          Wait a minute! I thought that Canada was a part of the United States that wasn’t formally recognized as such. There are times that I see more Canadian license plates on vehicles in my area than I see Idaho plates and Idaho is less than twenty miles away. (Are the exchange rates that good now-a-days?)

          Why invade when you provide economic incentives?

          Now as far as Mexico is concerned, there are times when it would be tempting to offer US statehood to various Mexican states. Once accepted, the US could ‘legally’ move in and do something about the drug lords.

          Alas, there would probably be a lot more problems than it is worth.

        • #2848018

          The exchange rates are now in our favour

          by jamesrl ·

          In reply to States of Canada and Mexico

          Yesterday our dollar was 1.01 US. Just imagine if you bought Canadian dollars 3 or 4 years back when it was 70 cents.

          We earned it though, we paid down our debt (from 95 till 2009), we increased our oil production, and our banks made money and didn’t do shady stuff so no government bailouts required.

        • #2848141

          I was going to suggest

          by drowningnotwaving ·

          In reply to Simple solution: take over Mexico and Canada

          you’d end up with a better sense of humour, and then I read Oz’s reply …

          🙂

        • #2848132

          Yah, well, Oz ain’t Canadian

          by nicknielsen ·

          In reply to I was going to suggest

          He’s a British expat and you know what THEY’re like… 😉

        • #2848083

          Well, as a Brit, surely he could appreciate the appeal of colonial power?

          by robo_dev ·

          In reply to Yah, well, Oz ain’t Canadian

          As I recall there was the saying “the sun never sets on the British Empire”, as there were colonies around the world:

          “By 1922 the British Empire held sway over about 458 million people, one-quarter of the world’s population at the time,and covered more than 13 million square miles (34 million km2), almost a quarter of the Earth’s total land area. As a result, its political, linguistic and cultural legacy is widespread. At the peak of its power, it was often said that “the sun never sets on the British Empire” because its span across the globe ensured that the sun was always shining on at least one of its numerous territories.”

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

          So again, it’s about ‘bang for the buck’ (pun intended). As a US taxpayer, our military costs me a lot of money. Surely we can practice some imperialism now and again, strictly for the economic benefits??

          I’m sure there are parts of the world with clean water and air as well as other natural resources the US could acquire with minimal casualties.

          And while we’re at it, lets adopt another British invention, prison colonies. Instead of some air-conditioned luxo-prison here in the States, use something like the Bikini islands. I believe the radiation levels are pretty much OK there at this point, making it suitable to be used as a prison colony.

        • #2848077

          Well in fact

          by jamesrl ·

          In reply to Well, as a Brit, surely he could appreciate the appeal of colonial power?

          Retired Canadian General Richard Rohmer actually wrote a book called “Exxoneration” which had the US invading Canada for oil after OPEC jacks the price of oil skywards. It was written in the 70s. Rohmer isn’t a bad author, he has lots of non-fiction WWII history to his credit. He was a fighter pilot in WWII and while flying a recon plane (no guns just cameras) he spotted and officers car going down the road, and reported it. It was Rommel’s car and was strafed, taking Rommel out of France for weeks.

          I will spoil the book a bit, the Canadians resist long enough for the Russians to get nervous about it, and Russia threatens nuclear war, not wanting to share the arctic with just the US.

          Canada is a biiig place, easy to invade, hard to police. I can only speculate that only a small minority would welcome invasion.

          And Mexico – they can’t seem to be able to keep the druglords down whent they use the army. I don’t think it would be of net benefit, just more headaches.

        • #2848048

          Awww, and it seemed like such a perfect plan :)

          by robo_dev ·

          In reply to Well in fact

          And it’s been tried before and did not go so well….

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_1812#Invasions_of_Upper_and_Lower_Canada.2C_1812

        • #2848042

          Things are different now

          by jamesrl ·

          In reply to Well in fact

          In 1812, Canada (Upper and Lower) had three main inhabitant groups;

          Loyalists who had left the US, some forcably, some who felt the revolution stole their valuable property.

          French Canadians, who found Yankee anti-Catholic rhetoric troublesome

          Natives, many of whom had left the US becausee they had fought for the British in the Revolution, or had had their land taken over and homes burned.

          All of those groups were inclined to resist American invasion.

          I’m not sure today that the French or the Natives feel the same way.I don’t think they are necessarily pro American, but more indiffernt. While many Quebecers did fight in WWII for example, Quebec was also the province which had a big movement to resist the draft.

          I’ve posted many times here about the war of 1812, one of the periods I’ve continued to read about after university. Heck we gave back Detroit, doesn’t that move look brilliant now.

        • #2848006

          Re: “Things are different now”

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Well in fact

          But people are not.

        • #2847950

          How so Max?

          by jamesrl ·

          In reply to Well in fact

          Of the groups I mentioned, lets do a quick recap.

          French Canadians, less worried about religion than langauge, worried about losing their cultural identity. Joining an even bigger english speaking country wouldn’t help. Same result perhaps, different reason.

          Loyalists, well few people would call themselves that these days. Few Canadians really identify with the Queen except as figurehead, and except for those who immigrated from Great Britain, few feel “loyalty” to a power across the ocean.

          Canadians complain about Americans, but in the end need them.

          Just watched a news piece last nigth that said the soaring dollar will hurt Canadians selling into the US market and they projected that Canada’s economic growth will be less than US growth as a result.

        • #2847947

          James, a risky way out of that predicament…

          by ansugisalas ·

          In reply to Well in fact

          Lend them some money, in US currency of course. If you lend them a loaf’s worth today, it’ll be a bakery’s worth next year.
          Unless it goes kablooie, of course.

          But then, it was only a loaf’s worth.

    • #2877051

      A toe in the water

      by jamesrl ·

      In reply to To those who voted for Democrats two years ago

      If I look at the myriad of facts and figures on Wikipedia, most from reliable US government sources, there are a few takeaways.

      One, if you look at the “Recent additions to Public Debt” chart, you can see that during the late 90s, the increases in the debt went from 4% in 1994 to .2% in the year 2000. They subsequently go up.

      But that should give us some hope that those types of reduction can happen again. Yes Clinton reduced spending in many areas, but the country did not fall apart, and the direction was headed towards a budget surplus.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt#cite_note-67

      I will also note that there are countries who are in a better position, and those with a worse position. Japan is particularly hard hit.

    • #2878381

      S&P, Moody’s Warn On U.S. Credit Rating .

      by maxwell edison ·

      In reply to To those who voted for Democrats two years ago

      http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703583404576079311379009904.html?mod=WSJ_hp_LEFTWhatsNewsCollection

      Why is this not obvious to everyone?

      Democrats, and their ilk either keep their heads in the sand OR are intentionally trying to destroy the financial well-being of America’s future. If it’s the former, it can be chalked up to ignorance, I suppose; if it’s the latter, however, it’s _______ (fill in the blank).

      Delbert, which are you?

      • #2878294

        Max

        by nicknielsen ·

        In reply to S&P, Moody’s Warn On U.S. Credit Rating .

        You keep writing “Democrats” when what you appear to really mean is “politicians.”

        • #2878291

          I totally tried to tell him that…

          by ansugisalas ·

          In reply to Max

          but then I realized: it’s Max – he put me on “ignore” a year ago already… :p

          Because he so loves constructive discussion 😉

          But people blaming “democrats” instead of “politicians” are contributing to the problem. They just help the Republicons get their turn of robbing the grave pre-emptively (after the Democrumms are done with theirs).
          All the time spent bickering uselessly is time not spent figuring out how to fix a broken system.

          There may be (theoretically) honest members of both parties, maybe even representatives… but they’re caught up in the broken mechanics of a system best suited for pork distribution.

        • #2878288

          You don’t get it

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to I totally tried to tell him that…

          And you never will

        • #2878260

          I don’t

          by ansugisalas ·

          In reply to You don’t get it

          need to either.
          It’s not like it’s difficult to see what you mean, it’s just difficult to see why you can’t see through it yourself.
          You have the posturing of an independent thinker but the habits of a wooden puppet.

        • #2878255

          The written

          by santeewelding ·

          In reply to I don’t

          Is a minuet, compared to a grind.

          Should you go up against anyone, not that Max is a dance master, pay complete attention to every of your devices.

          It’s the old song: have your ducks precisely in row, else somebody like me says, “Erm…”

        • #2878248

          I admit

          by ansugisalas ·

          In reply to The written

          to the barbarian’s fault.
          But – if you show me how my ducks are out of quack, you will be appreciated.

        • #2878186

          Obviously polarization

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to I totally tried to tell him that…

          When merely focused on being a drama queen, specific political blame game opens the floodgates.

        • #2878290

          Nick – the bottom line

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Max

          I want government out of my life. Democrat or Republican, I don’t give a rat’s a$$.

          Is that too much to ask? Really! Is that too much to ask?

          On a scale of 1-10, Republicans are a 7, Democrats are a 10 – give or take whatever.

          Do you really not get it? Big government is destroying our economy, our way of life, our freedom, and our future.

          Just GTFO!

          P.S. Quit trying to be a “moderate”. TAKE A STAND!!!!!!!

          P.P.S. And those who take the opposing position are BANKRUPTING our country. I want to leave more than a mere shell of freedom to my kids. What about you?

          Perhaps I should say nothing, and leave a bankrupt country, a dollar that has no value, a future that’s bleak, no freedom, no liberty.

          I shake my head in disbelief.

          P.P.P.S. People are AFRAID to take a stand, because they don’t want to deal with the onslaught of criticism. TAKE A !@#$%^&* STAND!

        • #2878285

          Taking a stand

          by santeewelding ·

          In reply to Nick – the bottom line

          Is to take a position, which is to posit, which is wholly unlike your bastardized logical positivism.

        • #2878283

          Cowards

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Taking a stand

          Intellectual or otherwise.

          They know who they are.

          P.S. And they can’t face it.

        • #2878281

          One thing you got

          by santeewelding ·

          In reply to Cowards

          Irrepressibility.

        • #2878279

          I’ve taken a stand

          by nicknielsen ·

          In reply to Nick – the bottom line

          That you don’t agree with it is obvious.

          That you feel anybody who doesn’t agree with you hasn’t taken a stand is even more obvious.

          I’ve also noticed that each new discussion becomes less moderate (read: rational) and more extreme (read: emotional) as time passes.

        • #2878277

          If you’ve taken a stand on anything

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to I’ve taken a stand

          I couldn’t define what it is.

          Moreover, you’ve neither agreed nor disagreed with me on anything, at least that I can recall. Take a stand, Nick – specifically agree or disagree with ANYTHING I might espouse. I’ll respect either one. But you’ve done neither.

          And [i]moderate[/i] is not taking a stand. It’s NOT taking a stand. Moderate is being afraid to take a stand, probably the fear of being challenged for taking it.

          Moderate is a cop-out.

        • #2878274

          Moderate

          by santeewelding ·

          In reply to If you’ve taken a stand on anything

          Assumes dwelling in the spectrum. I’m not so sure Nick does.

          I sure as hell don’t.

        • #2878267

          The spectrum

          by ansugisalas ·

          In reply to Moderate

          is one-dimensional… two-, or god forbid, three-dimensional persons cannot fit there, only potentially be bi- or intersected by it.

          Unless they happen to be entirely above or entirely below it, which isn’t that difficult.

        • #2878264

          Thumb, again

          by santeewelding ·

          In reply to Moderate

          Flatlander.

        • #2878220

          Flatlander

          by ansugisalas ·

          In reply to Moderate

          True as it is, hearsay or firsthand?

        • #2878232

          You dream the impossible

          by nicknielsen ·

          In reply to If you’ve taken a stand on anything

          [i]I want government out of my life.[/i]

          If you wish to live in a society of any kind, you will have government of one form or another. The only way to get government out of your life is to move to where there are no other people.

          You want a stand, Max? Okay, here it is. I want my government to:
          – provide defense
          – support commerce
          – provide for the general welfare. This includes:
          — ensuring everybody has the same opportunities in education and health,
          — protecting the public from business misconduct (the much-maligned “regulation”),
          — food and product safety
          — encourage innovation and support research

          There’s more, but that’s a nutshell.

          Unlike some here, [b]I’m willing to help pay for it[/b]. Otherwise, I want it to leave me alone, without passing stupid, intrusive laws like the Patriot or Defense of Marriage Acts.

          There’s your phucking stand. Put it where it will do you the most good.

        • #2878161
        • #2878224

          Moderates

          by jamesrl ·

          In reply to If you’ve taken a stand on anything

          Of course Max moderate is a relative thing.

          John Adams was a moderate, often forging a path between the more radical federalists and the Jeffersonians. I would argue it was harder for him to be a moderate than to have joined one of the other 2 camps.

          In his time, Teddy Roosevelt was a moderate. A republican who railled against the corrupt alliance between governments and business, the “invisible” government. Wise man, and that fight needs a champion today. It was certainly harder for him to strike out on his own and form his own party than it would have been for him to bow to the pressures of his party.

          Truman was a moderate Democrat. More Liberal democrats wanted him out, and Republicans painted him as another New Dealer.

          John Anderson, who ran for President in 1980 was a moderate Republican(didn’t get the nomination and left the party), someone who I identified with at the time. He didn’t chose an easy path, he could have stayed a comfortable senator and remained a leader within the party, but chose to fight the more difficult fight, and strike out on his own.

          I am a moderate.

          Being moderate is far from “not taking a stand”. Thats a simplistic facile argument that assumes that every thing is black and white, with me or against me, for big government or for individual liberties.

          Life is not that simple and never was. It is often easier to look at life as black and white and its easier to put yourself in one camp or the other. Being a political moderate at times is to be demeaned by many or even most. It often takes courage to tell both major camps they are both more wrong than right. It comes at a cost.

          When I started my political involvement, I came to find myself most allied to a political movement called “Red Tories”. These were conservatives, in a tradition going back to England centuries before, who believed in fiscal convervatism and individual rights, but who also believed that the state had a role in balancing the interests of businesses and individuals. I share many similar beliefs with our first Prime Minister, Sir John A MacDonald, who is probably the individual who did the most to move Canada from a colony to an independant nation. While it was the dominant political philosophy for many years, its now taken a back seat to a more American style conservatism, and there is a stigma to being considered a red tory. It would be easy for me to deny or downplay that today, but I wouldn’t be true to myself, so I remain proud to be what I am, even if it limits my involvement in the party.

          Do you wonder why people refrain from engaging you when you call people cowards or cop outs, or “forgive” someone who doesn’t agree with you? Perhaps thats why people don’t challenge you, because they are tired of being dismissed as wrong headed, cowardly, indecisive.

          Perhaps Palmetto has the right idea.

        • #2878162

          An analogy on being moderate

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Moderates

          As it pertains to the topic of my initial message, of course.

          Imagine that a jet plane represents the forward progress of a nation and a society. It can’t stop, nor can it land. It must remain moving, and it must remain moving forward.

          Now further imagine that this jet has historically been cruising at an air speed of around 600 knots and an altitude of about 40,000 feet. It’s been cruising in the jet stream, traveling west to east, with very little resistance, having a lot of success moving forward.

          Over time, however, this jet has taken on board more and more people, as well as more and more cargo. Eventually, the jet reached a point where it’s actually taken on more weight than it was designed to carry. Moreover, there’s even more people and cargo waiting – and being promised – to be beamed aboard. (Hey, they did it in Star Trek!)

          As a result and over time, this jet has been losing both speed and altitude, but it’s still, somehow, plugging along. However, warning bells have been sounding in the cockpit! Controllers on the ground have been urging caution! But alas, all the warnings have been ignored. In fact, the crew has turned off the radio so they can’t hear the ground controllers, and they’ve turned off the volume of the cockpit alarms so they can’t hear them either.

          We suddenly find our jet over the middle of Utah traveling due east at a speed of only 250 knots and at an altitude of only 6,000 feet above sea level. The engines are very close to stalling because of both the lack of air speed and as a result of being over loaded. But worse yet, directly in its current path are the Rocky Mountains and its 14,000 foot peaks – rapidly closing in with each passing moment.

          The pilots – one in the right seat, the other in the left – are debating over which way to turn the jet so as to avoid a collision with the Rocky Mountains. (Both pilots, it might be noted, are not considering the excess weight which is still causing a loss of altitude.) The debate is getting quite nasty. The Navigator, the person in the jump seat, is advocating no change in bearing at all. Full speed ahead, he suggests, and just pull back on the controls to regain our previous altitude (also ignoring the weight problem that would prevent such a solution).

          The passengers, meanwhile, hearing all of the debate going on in the cockpit over the speakers, are getting tired of all the bickering and divisiveness going on around them, and they’re tired of the warnings being sounded. As such, they turn off the speakers so they can no longer hear it, and they close their window shades so they can no longer see where they’re headed.

          Can’t they all just get along, they ask?

          Finally, the moderate among the group steps up and suggests a compromise. Come on, guys, he says. Let’s work together. Let’s go back and forth between a heading that falls between either 5 degrees to the left or 5 degrees to the right. That way you will show the passengers that you’re willing to compromise and work together. Wouldn’t that be nice?

          Back to reality, and the [i]moderate[/i] choices at hand:

          1. Go straight ahead, and the jet will crash into the Rocky Mountains in western Colorado.

          2. Turn 5-10 degrees to the left, and the jet crashes into the Rocky Mountains in western Wyoming.

          3. Turn 5-10 degrees to the right, and the jet crashes into the Rocky Mountains in Southern Colorado.

          The REAL solution, however, is to stop taking aboard more people and cargo – and even to jettison much of the weight that caused the loss of altitude and jet speed in the first place, so it might find its way back into the jet stream, thereby regaining its optimal cruising speed and altitude.

          But no, the [i]moderates[/i] will have none of that nonsense! Moreover, the [i]moderates[/i] are relentlessly criticizing those people who are actually heeding the warnings.

        • #2878160

          Re: Do you ( I ) wonder why people refrain from engaging ?

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Moderates

          No I don’t.

          I have to wonder, however, why you don’t criticize those other people who consider ME the one who is [i]wrong headed, cowardly, and indecisive. [/i]

        • #2878159

          Re: why I “forgive” someone

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Moderates

          That was done with a chuckle. Apparently you missed it.

          That person is a new member (according to the date on his alias), and he made assertions about me that simply were not true or accurate. Therefore, I “forgive him” for not being privy to all I have said.

          You present an assertion (a false one), and argue against it – just like that new member did. That straw-man don’t hunt.

        • #2878157

          My choice, Max

          by nicknielsen ·

          In reply to Moderates

          Dispose of half the cargo and the loudest 10 percent of those screaming to turn the plane. From each side.

          Piece of cake.

          Outside that, your analogy fails, both in your choice of vehicle and your estimation of moderates.

        • #2878155

          Nick

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Moderates

          Re: [i]Dispose of half the cargo and the loudest 10 percent of those screaming to turn the plane. From each side.[/i]

          I’m actually good with that.

          In other words, cut the size, scope, and cost of government by 50 percent, and figure out how to render that 10 percent who bich impotent.

          That’s what I’ve been suggesting all along!!!!

        • #2878154

          Your manner of doing so

          by nicknielsen ·

          In reply to Moderates

          implies otherwise.

          There are many things I feel we can cut at the federal level.
          – Education should be an agency under the Department of Commerce. Its sole functions should be to set national standards for primary and secondary education and to verify states are meeting those standards.
          – Commerce. Eliminate the subsidies. All of them. The political right is particularly fond of bringing up the ‘free market’. Time to get the government out and let it work; no more de facto choice of solutions by legislative fiat.
          – Military. Although I am retired, I think a substantial part of the active military mission can be fulfilled by the Guard and Reserves. All we have to do is get out of these two wars I was against in the first place.
          – Social programs (excluding Social Security). I haven’t examined all of these programs, but I’m reasonably sure that many of the programs now in existence are not meeting their intended objectives. I don’t know which programs or to what extent.
          – Homeland security. The Department of Paranoia plays right into terrorists ends. Get rid of the bureaucracy and move all the agencies that make it up back under their original cabinet departments. Disband the TSA.

          Social Security was actually almost paying its way until this latest payroll tax cut. With increased retirement ages and slower increases in benefits, it would return to the black and stay there until the Baby Boomers all die out of the system.

          Health care is a hot-button, but something needs to be done. The combined government-private insurance system we currently have is unsustainable. Certain things do need to change.
          – Focus on wellness and prevention. Annual exams, cancer screening (breast, colon, prostate, uterine, etc.), smoking cessation, weight management, and related programs should be covered 100%.
          – A major contributor to medical costs is malpractice insurance; that system needs to change somehow, whether through caps on awards or setting a higher bar for an award. Fixing this would also likely reduce the amount of preventive testing.
          – Lifetime caps and pre-existing conditions clauses allow insurance companies to take our money, then say, “Oh, well, we don’t have to cover that because…”
          – Insurance regulation should be at the national level. State-level licensing forces companies to meet 50 sets of requirements with 50 different bureaucracies and the related inefficiencies.

          Certain other things are the purview of government, to a greater or lesser extent:
          – Consumer protection. The focus of all regulation—banking and finance, food safety, product safety, drug safety—should be to protect the American public. That’s not the way it’s set up now.
          – Transportation. The government should be working to make transportation more efficient and economical. This includes making sure the national highway system is built [u]and maintained[/u] to a consistent standard state by state.

          Oh, yeah, and the tax system needs to be fixed.

          We don’t disagree, Max, on whether our government spending is out of control. Where we disagree is how bad it is and what it will take to fix it.

        • #2878213

          I am truly amazed at how…

          by fregeus ·

          In reply to If you’ve taken a stand on anything

          …one-dimensional you are. Left or right and nothing else. Dem or rep, American or not, etc, etc, etc.

          I TOTALLY disagree with most of what you propose and disagree with the examples you put forth to support your views.

          I, on the other hand, am not one-dimensional. I’m not even bi-dimensional. I am multidimensional. I don’t see black and white. I see a great deal of shade of those colors. I see a whole slew of other colors. Each of those creates unimaginable number of shades. I also know that there are colors I cannot see myself, which creates a whole new slew of other shades.

          Moderate is not cowardly or not taking a stand. Moderate is a different direction all together.

          You are entitled to your views Max. You are even entitled to take them to the extreme. But what you are not entitled to is to treat anyone who views differently as weak, cowardly, stupid, ignorant, and delusional or any other negative qualifier you can think of.

          A little civility please.

          Thank you

          TCB
          Edited for grammar

        • #2878158
        • #2849068

          The difference..

          by fregeus ·

          In reply to I am truly amazed at how…

          ..Max, is that moderates want to throw out cargo first while extremist, like you, seem to want to throw people first.

          Sorry if we think people are worth more than your possesions.

          Hehehe.

          TCB

        • #2848999

          Fregeus – don’t overlook . . . . .

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to I am truly amazed at how…

          ….. the [i]Star Trek type transporter[/i] that’s on board. If it’s used to beam people on board, it can be used to transport them off.

          Where to transport them, however? That is the question. Maybe California!

      • #2848028

        Credit rating and spending

        by generalist ·

        In reply to S&P, Moody’s Warn On U.S. Credit Rating .

        I would say that the report applies to Democrats, Republicans, Liberals and Conservatives, as well as everybody else.

        As one candidate running in the 2008 election phrased it, “the only difference between Democrats and Republicans is Democrats want to tax and spend and Republicans want to borrow and spend.”

        In either case, spending gets out of hand. With the Democrats, you are at least attempting to pay for the spending through higher taxes, though those taxes may slow down economic growth. On the Republican side, the lenders get a piece of the action while you HOPE that the spending encourages economic growth which means that more taxes can be collected without increasing tax rates. You get less bang for your buck though, because you and your children and perhaps even your grandchildren are paying for the borrowing.

        Cutting spending will help some, but not enough to handle the current debt loads. Odds are that raising taxes will also be needed.

        • #2848003

          Odds are

          by santeewelding ·

          In reply to Credit rating and spending

          You will have no stomach for an ugliness come to pass.

        • #2847953

          Odds are…

          by generalist ·

          In reply to Odds are

          Odds are that not very many people will like what needs to be done, nor will they like the consequences of not doing what needs to be done.

    • #2878370

      You wear blinders and no doubt also vote party lines.

      by mike.pulaski ·

      In reply to To those who voted for Democrats two years ago

      Heres your choices to vote: extreme liberal Democrats or ultra conservative Republicans. Both suck, yet you sit here and point your fingers at the voters as if its their fault.

      There are no easy solutions to the problems, but over spending by the Democrats is not the way to fix it, nor are your ultra conservative ways of doing nothing and saying “let the market police itself”.

      Too many windbags in politics and experts telling us how we voted the Democrats in. Did you ever stop to think that if we voted the Republicans out in a landslide, maybe…just maybe the Republicans did an awful job leading up to that with their agenda? So lets vote them all back in!!

      We need moderates…not political affiliations to get us back on track. The All or Nothing approach is ludicrous.

      • #2878361

        I’ll forgive you

        by maxwell edison ·

        In reply to You wear blinders and no doubt also vote party lines.

        Since you’re so new around here, you obviously haven’t read a lot of my stuff. Considering as much, however, I have to wonder why you decided to extract a pound of speculation from a mere gram of content.

        Nonetheless, suffice it to say, you missed the target.

        Your next assignment, should you decide to accept: Read one page (out of 273 pages) of Thomas Sowell’s book, [i]A Conflict of Visions[/i] and write a thorough and complete book report on it.

        • #2848053

          Thomas Sowell

          by generalist ·

          In reply to I’ll forgive you

          Unfortunately, Thomas Sowell lost a lot of credibility in my eyes when he claimed that ag zoning was tied to racism in one of his editorials. I got the impression that he thinks that all land is suitable for agriculture given the way that he mentioned the vast acreage available in the rest of the country.

          I’d love to see him try to profitably grow truck crops in some of the western states where water is rare, the weather is harsh and prime ag land extremely limited.

        • #2848007

          Typical – You can’t debate the argument . . . . .

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Thomas Sowell

          ….. so you attempt to discredit the presenter.

        • #2847954

          First impressions count

          by generalist ·

          In reply to Typical – You can’t debate the argument . . . . .

          I’m just reporting my impressions of one of his editorials.

          Some of his editorials are reasonable though. But if he can’t get the facts right on something as basic as ag land usage, he is going to have to work hard to make up the deficit.

        • #2847949

          I’ll give him points on the book

          by generalist ·

          In reply to Typical – You can’t debate the argument . . . . .

          The preface to the 1987 edition is good.

          I also like the aspect of the ‘unintentional benefits’ of capitalism that seem to be ignored by a lot of people. (Capitalism can benefit people other than those directly tied to a capitalist enterprise.)

          Then there is the core part of ‘constrained’ versus ‘unconstrained’ vision.

          The constrained vision is a tragic vision of the human condition. The unconstrained vision is a moral vision of human intentions, which are viewed as ultimately decisive. The unconstrained vision promotes pursuit of the highest ideals and the best solutions. By contrast, the constrained vision sees the best as the enemy of the good–a vain attempt to reach the unattainable being seen as not only futile but often counterproductive, while the same efforts could have produced a more viable and beneficial trade-off.

          I like what I’m seeing thus far. But he does need to learn about ag lands and the fact that all ag lands are NOT created equal. (He sounds like he may be a city boy. There are, unfortunately, a lot of people like that.)

      • #2878360

        By the way, regarding “moderates”

        by maxwell edison ·

        In reply to You wear blinders and no doubt also vote party lines.

        How do political “moderates” view the U.S. Constitution?

        What’s a political “moderate’s” stance on abortion?

        What’s a political “moderate’s” view of individual liberty and self-responsibility?

        In short, what are some of the philosophies, ideologies, and convictions of political “moderates”?

        And who represents one of the great ideological moderates of our time and/or all time?

        Enough for now…..

      • #2878221

        Most of those using labels such as extreme liberal…

        by smartacew0lf ·

        In reply to You wear blinders and no doubt also vote party lines.

        Democrats, fancy themselves conservatives. They are not. Much less Ultra-Conservative. The purpose behind all of this bickering will reveal itself soon. I suspect it isn’t going to be a pretty sight. And here we set, practicing our own little renditions of Fox News with each other while there is an enemy at the gate. People better start using their minds again and “think” about the things they are being told. It may already be too late. After more than 200 years of liberty, if we let this slip down the tubes so easily, we never deserved it to begin with.

        The line isn’t drawn across party lines. Those fools on Capitol Hill, the ones telling you that you are either one or the other, no in between, they aren’t going to be down in the trenches with you when the sh1t hits the fan. And you can take that figuratively or literally. It isn’t their table that will be bare during dinner time. Isn’t members of their families who won’t be able to afford Health Care. Just as it isn’t them that go to jail for the crimes they commit.

        And until they are held personally accountable for everything they do on that Hill, comfortable in the knowledge that, that which they set forth for others to live by, applies equally to them as well, nothing will change here. At least not in a reasonable manner.

    • #2878209

      What I believe

      by jck ·

      In reply to To those who voted for Democrats two years ago

      – There are idiots on both sides.
      – There are people who value themselves way too much.
      – There are people who think God values them, where they live, and their choices more than anyone else.

      The fix:

      Get the corrupt scum out of Washington.

      Republicans can whine all day about “liberals”, but they have spent for the past decade.

      Democrats can whine about “conservatives” blocking progress when they spent 20 months in Congress stopping any effort to make efforts bipartisan rather than one sided.

      The majority up there are a bunch of selfish, self-serving ninnies.

      I say get rid of the whole bunch of them, and do it draft style. Send farmers, barbers, housewives, garbagemen, teachers and secretaries to create the laws in this country…rather than a bunch of spoon-fed, closed-society aristocrats.

      Until you do that, you can hate whoever til you’re blue in the face.

      You turn your face to keep one side from screwing you, the other side is gonna screw you twice as hard.

      Welcome to America…land of the greed, home of the depraved.

      • #2878203

        Sadly

        by jamesrl ·

        In reply to What I believe

        I think if you managed to do what you suggest, it would start off well, but within a few elections, you’d be back to square one.

        I’ve mentioned before, the thing that strikes me about US politics is the freewheeling funding and political spending that goes on. To the extent that a politician must decide to represent the people who elected him or the people who funded his/her election campaign (and we know who usually wins). Political Action Comittees, large corporations etc have undue influence on US lawmakers. It shows up in pork barrel legislation and bad decision making. You can bet the people make $200 hammers for the airforce spend millions of dollars lobbying those who make the decisions on defense spending.

        Limit what people can spend so that there can be a level playing field. Limit what people can donate to elminate undue influence. Publish every cent that comes in, and every expense a congressperson spends. Separate out what is an expense the government should pay as part of the job, and what is a political task which should not be paid for by government funds.

        Make them accountable. Have strongly enforced ethical guidelines.

        • #2878156

          The simplest solution, James

          by nicknielsen ·

          In reply to Sadly

          My preferred campaign finance rules:

          1. You may contribute as much money as you like, but you can only contribute to a candidate if your residence allows you to vote for that candidate.

          2. If you are not eligible to vote, you do not have the right to political speech.

          3. A candidate may spend no more than $1 per registered voter for a primary or general election. The count of registered voters will be as of the last legal date for voters to register for the election in question.

          I think these rules would have the effect of limiting the bulk of political advertising to the last few weeks before an election. As written, though, they would have the effect of allowing a Senate candidate in California to spend $14 million-plus and limiting Senate candidates in the least-populous states to less than $500,000. A properly-worded exceptions for Senate campaigns might be appropriate.

          All I need to do is convince Congress to cut its own throat and the Supreme Court to apply some common sense.

          .
          .
          .

          Hey, everybody needs a dream.

        • #2848869

          The Supreme Court to apply some common sense?.

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to The simplest solution, James

          Did you really say that?

          Is it the function of the Supreme Court to apply common sense? Should it be? Common sense as defined by whom?

          Silly me. I always thought that the true function of the Supreme Court was uphold and apply the Constitution.

        • #2848866

          Common Sense to me:

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to The simplest solution, James

          Is to reference the Constitution for all laws and legislation.

          Where, specifically, in the Constitution does it give government the power to ___________ (fill in the blank)?

          If the answer is nowhere, then government should not have the power to ___________ (fill in the blank).

          But then, that’s a strict constitutionalist’s view. And it won’t allow for people to interpret to their own desired end result.

        • #2848145

          You forget two words

          by nicknielsen ·

          In reply to Common Sense to me:

          “the federal”

        • #2848137

          Feel free to elaborate, Nick

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to You forget two words

          I forget two words, you say? [i]The Federal[/i] are those two words?

          Let Santee post those kinds of messages. If you have a point to make, then make it.

          Are you suggesting that there are both federal and state constitutions? If so, that’s all great – because I agree!!!!!

          But don’t play games. You and I both know that I was referring to the federal constitution.

          If I read your cryptic message incorrectly, please set me straight.

          P.S. I hate evasive or elusive comments. Say what you mean and mean what you say – plain spoken and clear; and make sure there’s no chance of misinterpretation. (That’s why Santee’s style doesn’t always agree with me.) Please don’t try to play the same game.

        • #2848135

          That was unkind

          by santeewelding ·

          In reply to Feel free to elaborate, Nick

          You, using me as foil to your foibles.

        • #2848131

          You get the picture

          by nicknielsen ·

          In reply to Feel free to elaborate, Nick

          Where, in the federal Constitution, does it give the federal government the power to _____?

          On further thought, I retract my previous post. I don’t like the direction those thoughts are taking.

          Carry on, Max.

        • #2848121

          Solely on that P.S. max…

          by ansugisalas ·

          In reply to Feel free to elaborate, Nick

          [b]”P.S. I hate evasive or elusive comments. Say what you mean and mean what you say – plain spoken and clear; and make sure there’s no chance of misinterpretation. (That’s why Santee’s style doesn’t always agree with me.) Please don’t try to play the same game.”[/b]
          Seems to me (but I’m biased) that you tend to figure the Dean is agreeing with you most of the time, especially when he’s the most cryptic.
          I’ve mostly seen you disagree with him when he’s making those “no chance of misinterpretation” death threats…
          Or am I wrong? 😉 :p

        • #2848023

          Okay, Santee and Nick – You threw a penalty flag . . . .

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Feel free to elaborate, Nick

          ….. and I won’t argue with it. I’ll walk off, myself, the 15 yard penalty for unsportsmanlike conduct.

        • #2847952

          Taking a penalty to avoid the uncomfortable, eh?

          by ansugisalas ·

          In reply to Feel free to elaborate, Nick

          Don’t worry about it – it’s a common malady.

        • #2847937

          Ansu – Re: Taking a penalty to avoid the uncomfortable

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Feel free to elaborate, Nick

          I had to chuckle! And I can neither confirm nor deny your suggestion (another chuckle)!

          Did you know that the game of golf is the only sport in which the players penalize themselves? (At least the only one that comes to mind.) And in this golfer’s opinion, the game of golf, in many ways, is a lot like life – including, but not limited to, recognizing one’s own infraction; some people acknowledge them, while others don’t.

          Perhaps instead of a penalty flag it should have been a two stroke penalty for having too many clubs in my bag! Four strokes, actually, because I had too many over two holes!

        • #2848911

          What I’d like to see is…

          by jck ·

          In reply to Sadly

          Not elected people, but do it like a draft…or more accurately…make serving like jury duty.

          You register to vote. Then at one time in your life after the age of 18, you are subject to be responsible to go serve 2 years of your life in Washington DC as a representative to your state district.

          Then, there’s no more money influencing from campaigns. After that, just make all lobbying illegal. Local, open, public town halls… and open-to-the-public communications (recorded phonecalls, mail, email, etc.) would be the only legal means of an official being accessed by anyone.

          I agree with your last line though, no matter what the system…make them accountable, and have strongly enforced ethical guidelines. 🙂

        • #2848872

          Make all lobbying illegal? Reduce communication possibilities?

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to What I’d like to see is…

          A little thing called the First Amendment be damned, I suppose?

          And do away with elections? Oh my! Make it like Jury Duty? You’ve got to be kidding? (Shaking my head in disbelief!)

        • #2848865

          Should corporations have free speech rights?

          by delbertpgh ·

          In reply to Make all lobbying illegal? Reduce communication possibilities?

          Assuming that writing a check is the same as political speech, and that all flesh-and-blood Americans have the right of free speech, does that include non-flesh-and-blood Americans? I.e., Americans whose body exists only as an incorporated business entity?

          I don’t think so. Screw the corps. They have the right to make money, not to buy the vote. Goes just as well for any other incorporated entity, such as labor unions, PACs, and the Sierra Club.

          I do see lobbying as a valuable service. Explaining an industry’s analysis of proposed legislation over lunch and drinks is perfectly appropriate. How else is a congressman going to figure out how business and constituents are impacted? However, campaign contributions aren’t the same as explanatory speech.

        • #2848161

          The First Amendment is more than just Free Speech

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Should corporations have free speech rights?

          [i]Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

          …..to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.[/i]

          For all the problems and issues that might arise in some cases, having lobbies and donations is better than not being able to have them.

        • #2848062

          Lobby, yes. Donate, no.

          by delbertpgh ·

          In reply to The First Amendment is more than just Free Speech

          Corporations should have certain rights that are customary to the protection of wealth and to encourage prosperity. The right to free access to the courts, and to equal treatment before the law are two that come to mind.

          However, corporations can become huge and can swing around a lot more money than all but a few individuals, and can drown out individual voices in venues where money buys attention. The protections of the constitution were designed for flesh and blood people, not to serve the interests of paper fictions with no souls.

        • #2848020

          Delbert – when you start limiting to one . . . .

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to The First Amendment is more than just Free Speech

          ….. you open the door of limiting to all.

          You don’t like corporations spending millions on political campaigns? What about candidates who spend millions (or tens or hundreds of million) of their own dollars? Individual donations can’t compete with that kind of thing.

          You may not like the free-flow of money in political campaigns – from whatever source – but a worse scenario is government making laws to prohibit it.

        • #2848016

          You argue alongside the Devil, Max

          by santeewelding ·

          In reply to The First Amendment is more than just Free Speech

          And, I have to go along with it, unless somebody comes up with something better, which I have not seen in all the time I have pondered it.

          I have ideas about it, too, just as others here have expressed theirs. Trouble is, everytime I examine my own too closely, I find fatalities.

        • #2848008

          Santee:

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to The First Amendment is more than just Free Speech

          The Devil is in the details. And the Devil tries to hide them.

        • #2847946

          yeah

          by jck ·

          In reply to The First Amendment is more than just Free Speech

          It’s a lot better to have bribery than not have it.

          It’s like giving a room of murderers an ice pick for chipping ice, and assuming that they’ll all only use it for chipping ice.

          By the way, you may redress your grievances at public meetings, Max. You don’t need a private $1000 a plate dinner to do so.

        • #2847923

          The “If you prick us, do we not bleed?” test of personhood

          by delbertpgh ·

          In reply to The First Amendment is more than just Free Speech

          I’d prefer the risk of an individual rich guy (or gal, in the case of Meg Whitman) spending a fortune to influence politics, over the risk of handing the polity over to corporations. The whole of EBay could assemble much more cash over a longer period than could Meg, to engage in politics if it found it to its benefit.

          It’s no slippery slope to restrict first amendment (or other consitutional) rights to corporations. It’s definitely a slippery slope if you do extend such rights to paper entities, such as corporations. A corporation is a made-up thing, not a person.

        • #2847948

          typical twisting

          by jck ·

          In reply to Make all lobbying illegal? Reduce communication possibilities?

          There’s a time and place for communications with public representatives to happen, and that is in the public view.

          Fact is, you don’t have a right to speak to anyone anytime in real life. You can’t just go into someone’s office or home and talk to them at your leisure.

          I suppose that violates your freedom of speech too?

          You’re such a sensationalist. Go watch more Beck and Limbaugh and pump your false ego up some more.

        • #2847945

          Who claimed it was under “freedom of speech”?

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to typical twisting

          The First Amendment is more than just Free Speech:

          [i]Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

          …..to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.[/i]

          For all the problems and issues that might arise in some cases, having lobbies and donations is better than not being able to have them.

          And your [i]Beck and Limbaugh[/i] comments only go to show your inability to discuss issues without attacking the person.

        • #2847944

          and again…

          by jck ·

          In reply to Who claimed it was under “freedom of speech”?

          I will point out what I did in another post:

          You do not need private meetings or private $1000 a plate dinners to redress grievances with your government.

          A public servant should have all their affairs in government be public. It is the PEOPLES’ right, not just those who have money or influence, to know what their representative does on their behalf.

          It in no way would restrict anyone’s right to redress grievances if you eliminate lobbying, private meetings, etc.

          It would simply eliminate one of the most-used means for corruption to occur.

          Freedom of speech never guaranteed you how you got to redress your grievance. Only that you are allowed to do so in what manner possible.

          And, my Beck and Limbaugh comment is not an inability to discuss issues. It points out your inflamatory, sensationalistic twist that is much akin to their brash means of attention grabbing.

          Your type of privileged attitude is what fosters bribery and corruption.

          Just remember this too:

          It’s a government “of the people, by the people, and for the people”.

          Nowhere in that does it specify influence, money, status, race, gender, religion or heritage.

          So getting to buy your way into favor by meeting privately and discussing how beneficial passing legislation is to someone’s next campaign…is in NO way better than not having it.

        • #2847942

          Where are all the laws disrespecting an establishment of religion, then?

          by ansugisalas ·

          In reply to Who claimed it was under “freedom of speech”?

          I can’t seem to find any.

          Jest aside; the people’s right to petition the Government for a redress of grievances shall not be abridged. How do donations figure in?
          How do taking congressmen out for Lunch figure in? How do all the other crap the lobbies do figure in?

          And which lobbies are run by the people, to petition the Government for a redress of grievances?
          Asking the Government to not block a land development project is hardly “redress of grievances”.

          That part smacks of a defense of the little people – but a defense that never came to fruition, given as it was, to the high and to the mighty in stead. :p

        • #2847939

          Ansu

          by santeewelding ·

          In reply to Who claimed it was under “freedom of speech”?

          Around these here parts, ultimate redress for the little people is found in the Second Amendment. Of course, it may be misapplied from time to time…

        • #2847918

          I am familiar with the well tempered

          by ansugisalas ·

          In reply to Who claimed it was under “freedom of speech”?

          Doesn’t say nothing about using them, though.
          Nor is there much redress in bearing arms when outnumbered and outgunned.

          If someone were to try and apply the second in conjunction with petitioning the Government for redress of grievances, things won’t end well.
          Either the someone meets with a sticky end – or Obama will run out of outstanding orations.

          So, with all due respect and idolation – pull the other one. And no, I do not mean the 45.

        • #2848868

          I find it mind-boggeling . . . .

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Sadly

          ….. that SO MANY people point out the greed, corruption, and mismanagement in government; they come up with all sorts of lame-brain ideas to weed out the greed, corruption, and mismanagement in government (regardless of a little thing called our Constitution); and they say that government will always be filled with greed, corruption, and mismanagement.

          But yet, they oppose the one thing – about the only thing – that will truly reduce greed, corruption, and mismanagement in government. Make it smaller in size, scope, influence, and budget.

          But no, they want it even bigger! As such, they’ll get even MORE greed, corruption, and mismanagement in government.

    • #2878133

      Is America’s fiscal future doomed?

      by maxwell edison ·

      In reply to To those who voted for Democrats two years ago

      America: Paydown problems by Financial Times

      http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/31dbce8a-1f52-11e0-8c1c-00144feab49a.html#axzz1B6kramxQ

      I sound the warnings and seek solutions, but around this water cooler, most people either criticize me for being narrow minded and/or accuse me of being partisan.

      It really is unbelievable to see how so many people are in total denial. And I suppose I’ll get further criticized for saying that as well.

      Note about link: If, by clicking on the link, you’re directed to a registration page of Financial Times, search for key words [i]America: Paydown problems[/i] and it will probably be accessible from there.

      • #2847891

        Narrow minded and partisan?

        by generalist ·

        In reply to Is America’s fiscal future doomed?

        The partisan part may come from your headline where you appear to be blaming just the Democrats for the debt problems. I do appreciate the fact that you mention the Republicans and the rest of us.

        Getting back to the http://www.cnsnews.com article that spawned this, the Democratic controlled 111th Congress (2009-2011) has the current debt record, breaking the record set by the Democratic controlled 110th Congress (2007-2009). At the same time, the Republican controlled 108th Congress holds third place and the Republican controlled 109th Congress holds fourth place.

        The pace of debt has been accelerating. The recession, and bailouts, didn’t help.

        As far as solutions are concerned, they may involve doing strange things like bringing jobs back to the United States so people can earn a living and pay taxes as opposed to living off unemployment and welfare. If a good sized chunk of the world’s economic growth is dependent upon American consumers but the good paying American jobs are outsourced, then you eventually run into a limit where you exhaust your source of customers.

        • #2847861

          That’s not exactly how it is…

          by ansugisalas ·

          In reply to Narrow minded and partisan?

          It doesn’t matter to the world economy if it’s 2,5*10^8 americans earning 5*10^12 dollars a year, or 1*10^9 Chinese earning the 5*10^12 dollars a year…
          Of course, since the average wage is one fourth, the Chinese will tend to buy less expensive goods, which of course will hurt some industries more than others.

          Also, the US corporations are sending jobs overseas to increase their profits. So, you’ll need to make that particular move quite costly if you want to bring those jobs back. Like tax the corporations on a Profit/Employee basis for domestic operations. That’d make the Indian Help-desk savings disappear like smoke, as the overseas employees aren’t counted for domestic operations.
          Or something.
          Sounds socialist, doesn’t it?

        • #2847824

          Consumers versus production

          by generalist ·

          In reply to That’s not exactly how it is…

          Companies need consumers to buy the products they produce. By outsourcing the jobs that some of your consumers have to other countries, you reduce the amount of cash available to buy the products. If you do it too long, you end up killing your profits because your consumers are out of work.

          Look back in history. Henry Ford increased the pay of his workers so they could afford the products they were manufacturing. It worked quite well for a number of years.

          As far as things being socialist, consider the following:

          If you are the owner or stock holder in a company that is outsourcing jobs, or a person who is part of the companies getting the jobs being outsourced, a Profit/Employee based corporation tax IS socialism.

          If you are the person training your outsourced replacement, a Profit/Employee based corporation tax can look tempting. You might consider it to be socialism, but many people would favor it, especially if they are going to be out of work when the training is over.

          If you are the government official who is trying to pay for basic services, like roads, schools and public safety, it is a way to balance the budget.

    • #2878123

      You Owe $50,000

      by maxwell edison ·

      In reply to To those who voted for Democrats two years ago

      Did you know that you’ve been issued a National Credit Card? It’s not in your pocket, however, but rather it’s being held in Washington D.C. – for safe-keeping, you know.

      You can’t use it, but people in Congress do use it on your behalf, for whatever they deem your own good.

      And when you die, just like whatever inheritance you might leave to your kids (assuming it’s not taken away by way of any sort of death tax or inheritance tax), the balance on your National Credit Card will be bequeathed to your kids!

      So far, your share of the balance that you are passing onto your kids is about $50,000.

      http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110115/ap_on_re_us/us_debt_wars

      • #2849142

        Not to worry

        by oz_media ·

        In reply to You Owe $50,000

        The people that issue the cards will just increase your limit as needed.

        Your kids get their own card when they are born and your debts will be split up amongst all living Americans, who will also have their debt limit increased to accomodate it.

        It’s a fine system, like the banking and mortgage systems in place too. Just spend, if they don’t have the money to cover your debt, the government will waive it while increasing their own debt limit to cover it.

        Wish I could just conjur up money that way.

        But its not party specific, as the article states, you have been working on this debt since the days of Washington, with both Bush and Obama racking it up nicely with two wars during their watch.

        • #2849130

          Re: “working on this debt since the days of Washington”

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Not to worry

          Not exactly.

          Although the United States has always carried somewhat of a debt burden, it’s been, relatively speaking, small and manageable. Between 1789 and 1932, carrying a debt burden was limited to financing wars, after which, it was repaid and paid down.

          From 1932 to today, however, assuming debt has been used to finance just about everything else the government has become involved in. The run-away debt started in the 1970s, and continues out-of-control today.

          http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/debt_deficit_history

          [i]”No pecuniary consideration is more urgent, than the regular redemption and discharge of the public debt: on none can delay be more injurious, or an economy of time more valuable.”[/i]

          -George Washington

          [i]”But with respect to future debt; would it not be wise and just for that nation to declare in the constitution they are forming that neither the legislature, nor the nation itself can validly contract more debt, than they may pay within their own age, or within the term of 19 years.”[/i]

          -Thomas Jefferson

        • #2848961

          Questioning your own sources?

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Re: “working on this debt since the days of Washington”

          I didn’t think the link you provided above offered much to support the comment that you posted it for. I paraphrased it to support my own comment but you seem to doubt the accuracy, validity of it though. You feel it is accurate support for your preceding comment though?

          Were you posting links again that weren’t read through and don’t support your objective?

          I didn’t question the fact that debt was at one time paid up, the system of accruing debt to support the nation is still the same, is it not?

        • #2848934

          There’s a difference between . . . .

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Questioning your own sources?

          ….. accumulating debt, which we both acknowledged, and unsustainable debt, which is only a most recent occurrence in the U.S. – starting in the 1970s, which, for some reason, you won’t acknowledge.

        • #2848878

          What do you mean I won’t acknolwedge it?

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to There’s a difference between . . . .

          I don’t care if you’ve been in debt, 3 years, 8 years or 50 years, it makes little difference to me.

          Okay so for the last 30 years you have accrued an unmanageable debt. Hooray!

          The article you linked to said that debt began in the initial days of the USA Washington; I merely echoed that seemingly incorrectl comment that you provided.

          Mind you, if you don’t agree with some of the content that you linked to, how does it retain credibility to support your previous comment, where you offered it as some form of support? When links are provided to support comments, should people just take a line or two that you agree with or just throw it all out as an unsupported comment?

          I guess it has to be either fact or fiction.

        • #2848919

          Couple of things

          by delbertpgh ·

          In reply to Re: “working on this debt since the days of Washington”

          Andrew Jackson deplored debt and banking. Alexander Hamilton thought that a strong central bank able to print money would empower the country, and he thought that government bonds would be a stupendous idea because banks could hold them as reserves because the government would always be there to make good on them. Thereby, he figured, the United States would have an expanded money supply, stronger banks, and a banking system that looked toward the national center for leadership.

          Jackson got elected on a platform of bank hatred, dissolved the Bank of the United States, and got the national debt down to $10,000, I believe. He thereby brought on a recession, and threw the United States backward financially. Of course he didn’t see it that way; he believed smaller and more local in all ways, including the money supply and the finance of the nation, was more democratic and freedom-promoting. For some reason we have chosen to honor Jackson on the $20 bill. The logic escapes me. I guess it is along the lines of a house guest saying, “I really like your beautiful home,” when what actually came first to their mind was, “What a tasteless dump.” There by, we pay this financial crackpot our false compliments.

          Incidentally, back in the days of a gold-based money supply, there never seemed to be enough money to support commerce. Bankers and merchants kept printing their own: bankers, issuing gold demand certificates with fractional deposit lending (i.e., only having 10% of depositors’ gold on hand in the vault, while issuing them all paper drawing rights on the gold, which were used just like gold); and merchants, who would write each other promissory notes in payment, which they then traded to each other as though they were cash. Every bank and every businessman thus printed money, which was unsecured, and only as good as the bank and the men behind it. These gold (and also silver) certificates and promissory notes were traded for cash at discounts from face value by financial professionals, i.e. bankers. Having a currency based on precious metals never stopped a much larger quantity of paper money from being an essential part of finance.

          By the way, I think that the go-wild debt that (you claim) started in the 1970s was due to tax cut ideologues insisting that we could borrow all this money without the need to pay it back.

        • #2848873

          Trading unsecured debt?

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Couple of things

          Gee, where have I seen that before? Oh yeah, everywhere.

        • #2848870

          That’s what the national currency was, pre-civil war

          by delbertpgh ·

          In reply to Trading unsecured debt?

          Every bank in the country printed U.S. dollars, limited by the reserves in its vaults, and the integrity of its owners. Every merchant could create dollar equivalents, in the form of I.O.U.s. A paper dollar was not worth a dollar, unless you were redeeming it at the office of its issuer for dollars in gold. If you were some distance away from the issuer’s office, say you were in Buffalo trying to get gold for an Alabama bank’s gold certificate, you would take it to a bank that specialized in this sort of business, and they would give you less than the face value of the note (in the language of the trade, discounting the note.) Or, if the Alabama bank made a practice of depositing gold with the bank where you were presenting the note (i.e., they had a “correspondent bank” relationship,) you could get full face value, maybe.

        • #2848138

          Again, Delbert

          by santeewelding ·

          In reply to That’s what the national currency was, pre-civil war

          Thank you for your reminder of how it was. Well, your familiarity is, in that it lends ballast to the discussion.

          I appreciate the work.

        • #2848041

          Just like the Medici and the Hanseates…

          by ansugisalas ·

          In reply to That’s what the national currency was, pre-civil war

          And before them, the Templars.
          I remember seeing one of those old “paper money” bills. A little contract on parchment: “The issuer of this note is hereby obliged to pay unto the presenter of this note, the sum of 1 pistole”
          Something like that. Save the specifics.
          Heard the wings of history on that one…

    • #2848002

      World needs $100 trillion more credit, says World Economic Forum

      by maxwell edison ·

      In reply to To those who voted for Democrats two years ago

      Re:

      http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/davos/8267768/World-needs-100-trillion-more-credit-says-World-Economic-Forum.html

      Wonderful! Who are we (the world) going to borrow it from? Mars? [ sarcasm ] And how will we pay them back? [/sarcasm ]

      When will people wake up and smell the destructiveness of socialism – democratic or otherwise?

      • #2847995

        Non sequitur

        by nicknielsen ·

        In reply to World needs $100 trillion more credit, says World Economic Forum

        The linked article merely discusses the amount of credit required to sustain the expected growth of the world economy over the next decade. Not only is government spending not even mentioned, increased credit does not equal socialism.

        Our modern economy runs on credit, including the almost ubiquitous “Net 30” payment terms for business to business transactions. Without credit, no economy; there simply isn’t enough cash to back it.

        This has more to do with capitalism than socialism. It also implies growth in the value of the world economy. Not a bad thing, Max.

      • #2847922

        So where’s the socialism?

        by delbertpgh ·

        In reply to World needs $100 trillion more credit, says World Economic Forum

        Governments supply money to banks (in the States, usually via loans to the bank, or sometimes by deposit) so that banks can offer credit to their other customers. By this mechanism, creditworthy borrowers capitalize profitable businesses and build the country’s wealth. I guess you could say that when a government provides a money supply, it’s socialism. If we were all depending on privately amassed gold, silver, and cowrie shells to found steel mills and buy groceries with, it would be non-socialist money. But we’d be a much smaller economy and a much poorer people, overshadowed by those countries who mastered and sustained the tricks of fiat money.

      • #2847919

        I have to admit…

        by fregeus ·

        In reply to World needs $100 trillion more credit, says World Economic Forum

        ..that article makes no sense to me. Its like curing a cut (on a body) by making more cuts, or stopping a fire by setting everything ablaze.

        Doesn’t make sense to me.

        Nothing to do with socialism however.

        TCB

        • #2847915

          It has everything to do with socialism . . . . .

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to I have to admit…

          ….. because the borrowed money is used to pay for socialism.

        • #2847908

          Max?!?!

          by fregeus ·

          In reply to It has everything to do with socialism . . . . .

          The article talks about supporting the future economy, not government!! Supporting the economy is not socialism, its capitalism. To my knowledge, that’s good.

          But lending huge amount of money that banks don’t have is not good.

          TCB

        • #2847894

          Borrowed money pays for capitalism and speculation too

          by generalist ·

          In reply to It has everything to do with socialism . . . . .

          Borrowed money is also used to pay for capitalism and speculation.

          But socialism, capitalism, speculation, and other items of that sort are not specifically mentioned in the article.

          Now there is a warning that leaders will have to be wary of credit hot spots where too much lending takes place.

          The United States would certainly qualify, especially with the housing market bubble and the increase in personal debt. The economies of places like Ireland and Greece, who also have economic problems, would also qualify. But these aren’t specifically mentioned in the article.

          The article does say that the global credit stock doubled between 2000 and 2009 going from $57 trillion to $109 trillion. The additional $100 trillion over the next decade is another near doubling.

          While doubling cannot be sustained indefinitely, there are economies in the world whose annual GDP increases are at or above the doubling in a decade rate. Since two of them, China and India, are roughly a third of the population of the planet, and their growth has been more capitalistic than socialistic, a lot of the extra credit could be needed to sustain the growth in those areas.

          I’m guessing that part of that $100 trillion dollar credit ‘need’ increase is capitalism based. I’m also guessing that another part is socialism based. And then there are the speculators who gamble that the assets they are buying will go up in price faster than the cost of the money they borrow. They also contribute to the credit ‘need’ increase.

          But they are educated guesses and not specifically mentioned in the article.

        • #2850169

          Not always…

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to It has everything to do with socialism . . . . .

          Sometimes it’s STOLEN money 🙂

Viewing 21 reply threads