Like wow 'n stuff...
Uh, yeah but shouldn't we as a nation be morally obligated to help people? Why is it wrong to have social programs?
The will of the people isn't dealt with in Washingtonuh ... I'm not sure how you think this country actually functions in light of that statement. That's certainly not how it works.
Sure, that's why people are living in tents and children are only getting meals in school because charities are covering all 'em. People are just too stupid to know where to go to get this bonanza of charity.Yes, I do think there's enough charity to cover all the people who are truly needy. That's a very appropriate way of putting it.
Well, I'm glad everything is rosy in Texas.......I guess if it's not in your eyesight, then the rest of the country's problems don't exist.If they are, it's because they've chosen not to seek help from the programs that our communities have put together to help them.
Some people can't just move for a myriad reasons. I know people working 5 jobs between both parents just to survive and it's wrong. If you're so callous to believe people are getting exactly what they deserve then I really underestimated you as a person.Move. Go somewhere else and start over. People need to pick themselves up and take control of their own lives and their own destiny.
I agree.....but it's the very few that I think should be helped. It's the leaches and generational welfare recipients that need to get off their asses and work.There are very few people that lack the ability to improve their own lives. If you have the ability and still do not do it, then that is a choice.
I'd love to see a work for welfare program....like FDR had. It helped needy people while benefiting the country.
Lighten up Francis.....it was sarcasm.Ron Paul is on the record as refusing to take part in the congressional pension plan or health care plan, and in fact calls it hypocritical for other republicans to take the healthcare plan for themselves while fighting against letting the people have it (he thinks congress shouldn't have it either).
Next time a little research would go a long way.
I know what I said and it was nowhere near where you tried to take it. Nice try thoughYes, that's really what you said. You cut out the very next line which refutes what you quoted.
Big difference between morally and legally
So charities are covering them all.Sure, that's why people are living in tents and children are only getting meals in school because charities are covering all 'em. People are just too stupid to know where to go to get this bonanza of charity.
I never said people shouldn't help each other, but I did say that people shouldn't be legally required to financially support each other either.Well, I'm glad everything is rosy in Texas.......I guess if it's not in your eyesight, then the rest of the country's problems don't exist.
Some people can't just move for a myriad reasons. I know people working 5 jobs between both parents just to survive and it's wrong. If you're so callous to believe people are getting exactly what they deserve then I really underestimated you as a person.
Let the states take care of the truly needy. Wards of the state.I agree.....but it's the very few that I think should be helped. It's the leaches and generational welfare recipients that need to get off their asses and work.
Depends on the kind of work.I'd love to see a work for welfare program....like FDR had. It helped needy people while benefiting the country.
I can never tell unless you use the "I'm intentionally being a giant douche" smiley.Lighten up Francis.....it was sarcasm.
Like Lounge.
If you can't work. If you have no family to help you. Then maybe the moral thing to do is have the nation help you.
Semantics, I guess. I really have no problem with part of our tax dollars being used to help the needy. Morally I think it's the right thing to do. The abuse and fraud that's in the current system needs to be fixed but ending all social programs and saying, "Fuck you! I got mine get yours", isn't a mentality I subscribe to.
No, if charities were covering them all they won't be in the mess they are in now. Create jobs and most of this will go away. With the exception of a small few......most people want to earn a living and make it on their own. What Washington has been doing is allowing corporations to abuse the system to their benefit.So charities are covering them all.
OK, Johnny Liberty.......how do we decide what our tax dollars are spent on. If I disagree with the wars should I be able to deduct that from my taxes. What if I don't want roads, utilities, safe food, work place security.....should I be able to line item deduct that from my taxes?I never said people shouldn't help each other, but I did say that people shouldn't be legally required to financially support each other either.
Most of the States do that.....in conjunction with our Federal government.Let the states take care of the truly needy. Wards of the state.
Public works projects like FDR did.Depends on the kind of work.
Now I'm a douche because I don't believe in your fairy tales?I can never tell unless you use the "I'm intentionally being a giant douche" smiley.
Like Lounge.
There..better?
We're the richest nation in the world.....why can't we help our own?
You and I may never need help or even ask for it. I never have and never would.
I just like the idea that we as a nation can look to the greater good and help our fellow man in times of need. Stop a child from starving, give him an education and all that jazz.
If we become a nation of, "Fuck you, I got mine go get yours", then the bigger ideals and ideas we've had are lost.
The country was founded on big ideas and the greater good. We've stumbled, like with slavery but we've always been a nation striving for the good of all people.
I could bitch about how much more I have to pay in taxes, being self-employed and I do but to pay a little bit that might help another American.....I really don't mind that.
Funding wars and oil subsidies for companies making billions of dollars in profit.....not a fan. Help a family that needs help.....big fan.
There is a big amount of ideological distance between "I don't believe in funding social programs with tax payer money" and "Fuck you! I got mine get yours." with plenty of room for people to believe in helping others without being legally obligated to do so.
I don't think it's that simple. I don't disagree that those are contributing factors.No, if charities were covering them all they won't be in the mess they are in now. Create jobs and most of this will go away. With the exception of a small few......most people want to earn a living and make it on their own. What Washington has been doing is allowing corporations to abuse the system to their benefit.
At the risk of eliciting Nick's ire... we could stick to what the constitution authorizes, for a start. If you don't want to pay for the "wars", that might be the best place for you to push.OK, Johnny Liberty.......how do we decide what our tax dollars are spent on. If I disagree with the wars should I be able to deduct that from my taxes. What if I don't want roads, utilities, safe food, work place security.....should I be able to line item deduct that from my taxes?
That's not their job.Most of the States do that.....in conjunction with our Federal government.
I dunno, maybe. Texas got a huge amount of money from the federal government to build new freeways.Public works projects like FDR did.
I don't think you're doing it rightNow I'm a douche because I don't believe in your fairy tales?
There..better?
Because we can't afford it since we spend so much money overseas, for starters.
Bring the troops home, end the wars, scale back the military budget and I would be entirely on board with focusing the money here for the next decade. But at some point we need to remember we're the land of opportunity, not the land of entitlement.
There's a completely different way to look at this. People are on hard times right now because there's employment problems. Companies aren't hiring enough because people aren't buying enough because people don't have enough money because people took on too much debt.
You could certainly go to the government and say, take money from the people making money and use it to support the people not making money. They'll buy the basics and try to survive. And largely, this seems to make sense.
You could take a different tract, though. Reduce (or better, eliminate) the federal income tax, shrinking the expenditures of the government to support the cut (military and overseas spending, for one). Give people back their 15 - 35% of their income. Most of these people would in turn spend their excess money in their local economies, stimulating local growth and promoting hiring as business tries to compete for the sudden infusion of cash.
Combine that with the return of hundreds of thousands of additional consumers locally would further stimulate growth.
I would personally be fine with either approach: the former for a short period of time, the latter for the longer term.
I have no doubt that people have and will help people in their time of need.
We differ in what we see as the role of government.......I don't believe we should ever be a welfare nation but when extreme circumstances arise, like the recession, we should use our resources to help.
Government doing good with our tax dollars? The horror!
None of this is black and white but you have to admit when unemployment is low and a living wage is maintained, social serves decline in use.I don't think it's that simple. I don't disagree that those are contributing factors.
Here, I'll throw you a bone, Doc........I agree with Grandpa Paul when he said if you had a decent job you could afford health care, drive down costs and make your own choices.
Sure, the peace movement is really kicking ass and taking names, that's where I'll start!At the risk of eliciting Nick's ire... we could stick to what the constitution authorizes, for a start. If you don't want to pay for the "wars", that might be the best place for you to push.
Did I do it right?
Why not? Our own government can't aid and assist us in times of need......That's not their job.
If we invested in upgrading the inefficient electrical grid, if we repaired the roads and bridges, built our generation's Hoover Dam type thingy.....fuck! The list is endless of what we could do to....you know, benefit us all. A win, win situation.I dunno, maybe. Texas got a huge amount of money from the federal government to build new freeways.
My heart's really not in it........same with the primaries and general electionI don't think you're doing it right
Couldn't of said it better
Agreed, do something about the fact that the majority of people lack the skills to compete in a service/technology based economy and you have the start of something big.There's a completely different way to look at this. People are on hard times right now because there's employment problems. Companies aren't hiring enough because people aren't buying enough because people don't have enough money because people took on too much debt.
The transition from an agrarian society to a manufacturing society had huge bumps along the way. The transfer from a manufacturing society to a consumer society is going to be just as bumpy. It's unsustainable, IMO but.........only time will tell if we stand the test of time
I look at like this.....we all throw money in the pot [taxes] it should benefit us........we agreed to have a national defense, why can't that defense be ensuring a chance at the American Dream!You could certainly go to the government and say, take money from the people making money and use it to support the people not making money. They'll buy the basics and try to survive. And largely, this seems to make sense.
Priorities change and the times we face now are nowhere near the times of our founding fathers.
That's the beauty of the Document.....it lives and breathes. The Constitution of the 1800's is not the Constitution of the 1900's.....it changes with the times. Always has always will. So when people long for that old timey religion and a return to the Constitution.....what parts are they talking about? That's a Pandora's box that better be opened carefully!
Always been a fan of that.........was back in the day and am now.You could take a different tract, though. Reduce (or better, eliminate) the federal income tax, shrinking the expenditures of the government to support the cut (military and overseas spending, for one). Give people back their 15 - 35% of their income. Most of these people would in turn spend their excess money in their local economies, stimulating local growth and promoting hiring as business tries to compete for the sudden infusion of cash.
Combine that with the return of hundreds of thousands of additional consumers locally would further stimulate growth.
I would personally be fine with either approach: the former for a short period of time, the latter for the longer term.
I'd couple that with a serious goal of improving our infrastructure and developing holographic porn.....hell, I'd vote for ya
Last edited by kwame k; 03-08-2012 at 01:38 AM.
wheeew. that was a bit long. almost nodded off twice and had to take a shit break, but an interesting read. not entirely accurate, but interesting. but a couple of issues...
this is only a partial understanding of how the government works. yes, it's intragovernmental transfers, so one COULD argue that it's a case of the government paying itself.
Cost-Benefit Analysis for Monetary Reform:
Monetary reform would nationalize the Federal Reserve (this name is deceptive so the public would perceive it as a government entity) and retain its use for bank administrative functions. Fractional reserve lending by private banks would be made illegal, with the US Treasury having sole legal authority to issue new money for the benefit of the American public rather than the benefit of the banking industry. About 40% of the national debt is intra-governmental transfers and 10% held by the Fed; this debt would be cancelled as it becomes a bookkeeping entry with nationalization. Of the publicly-held debt of various parties holding US Securities, the US Treasury would monetize (pay) the debt in proportion to fractional reserves being replaced with full reserves over a period of one to two years to monitor money supply and avoid inflation. The American Monetary Institute has a proposal called The American Monetary Act.[11] Ellen Brown has extensive articles, including how states can act now rather than waiting for federal reform.[12]
The governmental cost of this reform is negligible. The benefits are astounding: the American public would no longer pay over $400 billion every year for national debt interest payments (because 30% of the debt is intra-governmental transfers, this is a savings of ~$300 billion/year). If lending is run at a non-profit rate or at nominal interest returned to the American public (for infrastructure, schools, fire and police protection, etc.) rather than profiting the banks, the savings to the US public is conservatively $500 billion.[13] If the US Federal government increased the money supply by 3% a year to keep up with population increase and economic growth, we could spend an additional $400 billion yearly into public programs or refund it as a public dividend.[14] This savings would allow us to simplify or eliminate the income tax.[15] The estimated savings of eliminating the income tax with all its complexity, loopholes, and evasion is $250 billion/year.[16] The total benefits for monetary reform are conservatively over a trillion dollars every year to the American public. One trillion is $1,000,000,000,000. I invite professional economists and committed citizens to analyze and comment on my observation of costs and benefits.
except that's not the whole story. the intragovernmental interest payments are to the social security trust fund. as has been the case for decades, social security surpluses are invested in a safe place - treasury bonds. that way, the trust fund can grow a little bit and counteract inflation. if you simply canceled intragovernmental debt, then the trust fund would deplete far more quickly. unless this proposal is coupled with serious social security reform, then it's a simply a math trick that is highly irresponsible in practice.
uh...they've done a solid job with inflation. the real problem with inflation is unpredictable levels. if businesses and workers know the general levels of inflation, then they can plan for it. which they do. if inflation goes up 2.5% a year, yes, the value of a dollar over 40 years is vastly degraded, but so what? incomes almost certainly have gone up. and many investments beat inflation. so what's the real problem?The statutory purposes of the Fed are stable prices, maximum employment, and moderate interest rates. For prices, consider for yourself how well they’ve done since the Fed began in 1913. Ask parents and grandparents if prices have remained stable in their lifetimes or if they’ve increased just a teensy-weensy little bit. You could, of course, also check the data and confirm that the dollar has lost over 95% of its value since the Fed went to work for stable prices.[18]
this is a horribly misguided understanding (loosely called) of the job market. simply put, california (and every other state) laid off teachers because of a decrease in revenue, not because the U.S. dollar is based on debt. and the fact that the fed could create money was one of the biggest reasons we don't have MORE unemployed. when liquidity dried up and the availability of capital was dramatically restricted, job cuts accelerated. the fed's loose money policy did not replace that capital, but it definitely mitigated the loss.
For employment, consider that we have unemployed people in this country, resources to put to work, and infrastructure to improve; then judge the Fed’s effectiveness in creating money only as debt. For example, consider in California that 20,000 teachers were scheduled to be laid-off in 2008 and again in 2009 because of government budget cuts.[19] We have the need for teachers, the teachers are available, but we have unemployed teachers because the government must borrow its money to hire them rather than issue money directly. Nationally, the US had over 11 million unemployed workers at the end of 2008,[20] and perhaps up to 30 million at the end of 2009.[21] These millions of individuals are key income earners to a multiple average of 2.5 additional Americans. This unemployment rate puts these Americans livelihoods at risk. This only occurs because money is debt in our current system; we would not have this problem if government restored this Constitutional power and issued money directly. If we were serious about achieving the goal of full employment, OBVIOULSY the only way to achieve it is for government to be the employer of last resort. In market failure of what free-market capitalism cannot employ, we either put people to work on infrastructure/public service jobs or we don’t achieve our goal of full employment. Please ponder that idea to full realization. If the public jobs provided to the unemployed and funded by government-created money provide greater economic benefit than their cost, then inflation will actually decrease from creating those jobs. That is conservative definition of how inflation/deflation works.
Forrest, are you that fucking stupid that you believe the Constitution shouldn't change?
It was created with the express purpose of being able to be amended......you know, Forrest ......Amendments. Do you need me to sound that out for you
Please baby Jesus........don't let this idiot breed!
Yup. You can amend the US Constitution to make alcohol illegal and after deciding that was a dumb ass idea that didn't work, amend it again and make booze legal again.
KB, thanks for reading it. Yeah, it was long.
But, I think the article was well-written, non-inflammatory and backed up with plenty of citations for his facts from other sources to support his position. I'd be more than happy to read a different point of view if you find anything that is well-cited so I can research their sources and read for myself, as well.
Yeah I watched a program on George Washington. When he campaigned for president he bought all the drinks and the campaigning was done in pubs. At one pub Washington rolled in with nine barrels of whiskey. The Star Spangled Banner was put to a drinking song the drunks used to sing in the pubs. This country was founded on alcohol.
God bless America!
So the machine chugs on.The mainstream media got the Super Tuesday story wrong. Very wrong. Again.
I'm sure you heard them gleefully talk about which establishment candidate "won" which primary or caucus Tuesday night, if you were even watching. Most Americans thankfully had more sense and switched on something else.
The fact is, just like in many of the earlier contests, very few delegates to the Republican National Convention were decided on Tuesday. Most will be decided several weeks, or even months, from now at District and State conventions - conventions where our local delegates will have a big say in who goes to Tampa.
In fact, while I didn't win any state's straw polls, my team expects me to win a plurality of delegates in at least three states, as well as outright majorities in two more of the states that have already started their process.
Of course, the media totally ignores this story - as they have consistently ignored our message, our passion, and our grassroots army.
Even more lost in the shuffle is that no candidate for President has even made it one-third of the way toward the number of delegates needed to win the nomination.
And for that reason I am determined to proudly battle on, picking up more delegates and skewering the pretensions and historical rewrites of ALL the establishment candidates – Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, and Newt Gingrich.
And I will continue to proudly speak up for liberty, respecting the Constitution in domestic and foreign policy, and returning to a limited government that acts and spends within its means.
All I heard was prohibition...man, talk about dark days for the U.S.
American by birth. Southern by the grace of God.
Oddly enough, my great grandfather was a bootlegger.
Where he lived you could throw a baseball across the river and hit Canada.
There were some crazy motherfuckers around there......the Purple Gang. Capone wouldn't even fuck with those guys.
There's 37 fucking pages of this shit derail away!
Who'd miss a page or two
It's quite evident you were not babbling about the amendment process when you were discussing a "living, breathing document" but one of interpretation and activist judges. That's what the vast majority of people of your ilk (and no doubt was your intent)mean when they refer to the Constitution in that way since Constitutional amendments, the only legal way to change the Constitution, are very few and so far in between. suggest you read up on what Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia says about the Constitution being a "living, breathing document." Google it and/or read THIS BOOK.
I suggested to FORD long ago after the 2000 election when he was whining about the Electoral College process that he write his Congressman and ask him to get the ball rolling on sponsoring legislation to change the Constitution with an amendment calling for an end to the EC process and go strictly by a popular vote.
Have a good day, Shortbus!
For the record, I voted for Ron Paul in Virginia's Presidential Primary this past Tuesday.
There are currently 7 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 7 guests)