GIThruster wrote:Even if what you fear is true, you need to have some sort of evidence before breathing such objections aloud. Presuming some nameless group has defrauded the entire election system is paranoid enough to discredit your other positions.
Before you ever breathe charges like this, you need to have evidence. Look at how the Birthers have been marginalized and there is excellent evidence OBama was not born in this country. His parents can't agree where he was born. His grandmother says he was born in Kenya. He has never produced a real birth certificate. And yet he's been elected twice. If he can get away with all that, you need some SERIOUS evidence before breathing a word about election fraud.
I've seen enough evidence to convince me that he MIGHT have stolen the election. The latest bit that has been pointed out is the dramatic reduction in attendees and fundees at his latest coronation. For some reason, he just doesn't seem to be attracting the big audiences like he used to.
I and others have looked at the various bits and concluded that there's plenty of stuff to make you go Hmmm.....
williatw wrote:
Still don't agree Obama has the chops (or intention) to become a dictator, he just doesn't command enough respect from the military and law enforcement. His cult of personality might work (assuming that’s what he is really trying to do) if the country were 70% non-white, but he isn’t Hitler appealing to a majority ethnic/racial group he was a member of while demonizing a convenient minority. I think his gun control efforts will backfire, as witnessing guns flying off the shelf’s. He has actually inadvertently done more to energize pro-gun people than anything else would. Gun ownership had actually been on the decline for decades, but has actually soared in the last few years. His demonizing of the NRA is already failing, membership has soared since he started it. My biggest concern other than the insane debt he will leave us is the legacy of his attempt to rule by executive order. Law works on precedent, and his will be a huge expansion of the breath of presidential executive power. Building on the legacy of Clinton and Bush junior, who were no slouches using presidential orders. Rather than fearing necessarily a single dictator, a gradual transformation of us to an authoritarian quasi-democracy where people vote, different talking heads hold office, but the same groups of party bosses on both sides rule, and it makes little difference in policies. That's why I voted Libertarian in the last election, the only thing that will stop this concentration of power is a new party which doesn't have a vested interest in the current system.
Your plan would have been fine if only we had another decade or so. A lot of people seem to think this was the last chance to save us from an economic collapse. As unlikable as Romney was, his comprehension of economics was functional, as opposed to the nit-wit (Some argue he's actually a genius intentionally trying to wreck the system, ala Cloward Piven) who is currently loose at the wheel.
Insane debt is right.
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —
williatw wrote:
Still don't agree Obama has the chops (or intention) to become a dictator, he just doesn't command enough respect from the military and law enforcement. His cult of personality might work (assuming that’s what he is really trying to do) if the country were 70% non-white, but he isn’t Hitler appealing to a majority ethnic/racial group he was a member of while demonizing a convenient minority. I think his gun control efforts will backfire, as witnessing guns flying off the shelf’s. He has actually inadvertently done more to energize pro-gun people than anything else would. Gun ownership had actually been on the decline for decades, but has actually soared in the last few years. His demonizing of the NRA is already failing, membership has soared since he started it. My biggest concern other than the insane debt he will leave us is the legacy of his attempt to rule by executive order. Law works on precedent, and his will be a huge expansion of the breath of presidential executive power. Building on the legacy of Clinton and Bush junior, who were no slouches using presidential orders. Rather than fearing necessarily a single dictator, a gradual transformation of us to an authoritarian quasi-democracy where people vote, different talking heads hold office, but the same groups of party bosses on both sides rule, and it makes little difference in policies. That's why I voted Libertarian in the last election, the only thing that will stop this concentration of power is a new party which doesn't have a vested interest in the current system.
Your plan would have been fine if only we had another decade or so. A lot of people seem to think this was the last chance to save us from an economic collapse. As unlikable as Romney was, his comprehension of economics was functional, as opposed to the nit-wit (Some argue he's actually a genius intentionally trying to wreck the system, ala Cloward Piven) who is currently loose at the wheel.
Insane debt is right.
You may be right...not sure if economic collapse is the word though. A national sovereign government unlike an individual or even large company doesn't have to declare bankruptcy. It can "restructure" its debt at will, deciding who gets paid, how much they get paid, when (or if) they even get paid. Most of our debt is promises the government has made to pay this or that, or provide this or that service. Can be reviewed, or changed at will by said government. Many state/local workers for instance are headed for a rude awakening when they discover what they were promised all the years they were working and what they will ultimately get upon retirement will likely be quite different. At some point delays in making Medicare payments might get so long, that health care providers just stop accepting it for instance. Maybe the money drying up will stop so much foreign interventionism. As far as I am concerned Europe, Japan, Taiwan, Korea, Turkey, etc. can defend themselves. We should be more concerned with defending our own borders and people than maintaining garrisons abroad. Also maybe just maybe end the war on drugs when it becomes just too expensive to continue.
If a government, by whatever means, defaults on debt, bond holders lose an incentive to preserve that government. And anyone with sense will hesitate to loan more to such a government. If the chosen means of doing away with the debt is currency devaluation, anyone with savings has cause for anger against the government.
hanelyp wrote:If a government, by whatever means, defaults on debt, bond holders lose an incentive to preserve that government. And anyone with sense will hesitate to loan more to such a government. If the chosen means of doing away with the debt is currency devaluation, anyone with savings has cause for anger against the government.
Assuming one has a choice about it yes. Of course while that might be true of a foreign governments not continuing to buy our T-bills, China for instance, not necessarily nearly as true in the case of domestic banks, businesses, citizens etc. Too many ways gov can arm twist the later into continuing to support the debt. Most of our debt is owned/owed domestically by entities that are subject to whatever rules the feds see fit to make. Even in the case of China, there is the implied threat that if they stop buying more T-bills, it might have an effect on their ability to redeem what they have already bought, one way or another. That whole our economies are deeply intertwined thing.
"Go, wretch, resign the Presidential Chair;
Disclose thy secret measures, foul or fair;
Go, search with curious eyes for horned frogs,
Amid the wild wastes of Louisianan Bogs,
Or where the Ohio rolls its turbid stream
Dig for huge bones, thy glory and thy theme."
-William Cullen Bryant
I leave the year off on purpose.
The development of atomic power, though it could confer unimaginable blessings on mankind, is something that is dreaded by the owners of coal mines and oil wells. (Hazlitt)
What I want to do is to look up C. . . . I call him the Forgotten Man. (Sumner)
williatw wrote:
You may be right...not sure if economic collapse is the word though. A national sovereign government unlike an individual or even large company doesn't have to declare bankruptcy. It can "restructure" its debt at will, deciding who gets paid, how much they get paid, when (or if) they even get paid. Most of our debt is promises the government has made to pay this or that, or provide this or that service. Can be reviewed, or changed at will by said government. Many state/local workers for instance are headed for a rude awakening when they discover what they were promised all the years they were working and what they will ultimately get upon retirement will likely be quite different. At some point delays in making Medicare payments might get so long, that health care providers just stop accepting it for instance. Maybe the money drying up will stop so much foreign interventionism. As far as I am concerned Europe, Japan, Taiwan, Korea, Turkey, etc. can defend themselves. We should be more concerned with defending our own borders and people than maintaining garrisons abroad. Also maybe just maybe end the war on drugs when it becomes just too expensive to continue.
It's 25 billion per year.* Yeah, we should get right on that after we pare down the 1 trillion per year we spend on entitlements.
*And I argue it's preventing a catastrophe such as what happened in China.
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —
hanelyp wrote:If a government, by whatever means, defaults on debt, bond holders lose an incentive to preserve that government. And anyone with sense will hesitate to loan more to such a government. If the chosen means of doing away with the debt is currency devaluation, anyone with savings has cause for anger against the government.
Yes, they are stealing the value of our money by inflating it away. Money I earned ten years ago is not worth what it was ten years ago. You have to keep adding money just to maintain a constant purchasing power.
When Hyperinflation kicks in, it will become extremely difficult for most people to put money in faster than it devalues.
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —
I saw Jessie on Hannity and was taken with her poise, common sense and the fact she had obviously taken the time to prepare properly in order to demonstrate to her audience some salient gun function issues. Unfortunately, Sean is too stupid to know not to talk over her and injured her presentation pretty badly. Still, this is a knowledgable, accomplished, poised, lovely spokesperson for our 2nd amendment rights who anyone concerned with the assault on our rights ought to keep an eye on. Highly recommended you catch the vid of her on FOX. The guys here will enjoy it even if they turn the sound off. If you own a sports bar you could loop the vid, leave Jessie on all day and I promise no guys will complain!
We should be more concerned with defending our own borders and people than maintaining garrisons abroad.
You are neglecting the knock on effect of not having a working international system on trade. The Roman Empire fell (and civilization with it) when the Romans could no longer protect the trade routes.
Would you be willing to go through a very uncivilized period if your attitude about "maintaining garrisons" proves incorrect.
The system of "maintaining garrisons" was designed to prevent a world war. It has done that moderately well. Are you willing to risk a world war to find out if those garrisons are necessary? Seems like a lot of risk for little reward to me.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
It's 25 billion per year.* Yeah, we should get right on that after we pare down the 1 trillion per year we spend on entitlements.
$25 bn Federally. If you count all the costs - Federal, State, Local, Prisons. Reduced earning power of those with prison records. The welfare required to support families whose bread winner is in prison etc. The break down in family structure from having a large number of men in prison. And all the rest - the costs are considerably higher than $25 bn a year.
In any case it is a start. You don't fix these things by a stroke of the pen. You whittle away at them. A $75 bn (all direct costs) whittle is not a bad start.
And in fact the States are taking the lead on this. They can't print money. So they are opting out. The same happened to alcohol prohibition.
I argue prohibition is preventing what happened in Portugal.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
But let us look at the question from an 19th century perspective.
In America the drug of choice was alcohol - opiates were freely available in that era. And we had a terrible alcohol problem that receded as per capita income rose.
I believe the same is true of the opiates. As the rigor of living declines so does the level of drug use in society. It is not the drug per se. It is the need to escape from almost uniformly dreary living conditions.
Once those conditions are gone you get only residual use. "Abuse" declines significantly. People with PTSD mostly are what you have left. Look at Russia - alcohol abuse is rampant because it is still a dreary place to live.
I believe that explains why opiate use hasn't changed in America in over 100 years. (1.3% before prohibition - 1.3% now). I believe it also explains Portugal. Drug use declines when you eliminate a lot of the black market incentives.
The error prohibitionists uniformly make is ascribing to a drug what is caused by other things. Or in the words of Bill Clinton (Carville):
It's the economy stupid.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
The Federal Government in America used to subsist on alcohol taxes and import duties.
As alcohol use declined and the importance of world trade increased those sources of income became insufficient. Thus we got an income tax. Which was probably a bad idea.
Once taxes get high enough you get a static society. And in a static society socialism becomes attractive. That was the whole point Marx made. His theory was not for economically expanding societies. And he pointed that out. Something that until recently most communist countries missed.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
The Federal Government in America used to subsist on alcohol taxes and import duties.
As alcohol use declined and the importance of world trade increased those sources of income became insufficient. Thus we got an income tax. Which was probably a bad idea.
You really need to study up on your history here. The Federal Government has gone through a lot of pain in regards to what to tax and when. Take a look at my quote above. That was in regard to the Embargo Act of 1807. Secretary Gallatin and others jumped many hoops on deciding how to fund various Federal needs.
Full on multi-modal taxation at the Federal and State levels is a relatively new thing. Previous to that there were targeted taxations that came and went.
The single biggest expense the the nation faced in the early days was a navy. After the War of 1812, the navy became a political (Domestic & International) and geographic neccessity. The bulk of Federal desires for funding revolved around building and maintaining the navy. This was done primarily through Import and Export levies. Alcohol is not worth noting. International Cargo was a blanket target and primary funding source. Property taxes and others were minor players that supplemented the trade taxes periodically.
You misrepresent once again.
The development of atomic power, though it could confer unimaginable blessings on mankind, is something that is dreaded by the owners of coal mines and oil wells. (Hazlitt)
What I want to do is to look up C. . . . I call him the Forgotten Man. (Sumner)
If you own a sports bar you could loop the vid, leave Jessie on all day and I promise no guys will complain!