Messages

[Most people don't know how and shouldn't be expected to.]

MT, you are absolutely right, I could have taken all my SS money, if I could have predicted when I would die, and made more on my own.  Most people don't know how and shouldn't be expected to.

And people wonder why we're so screwed. So you're trying to say people should not be expected to take care of themselves!?!? That instead they should expect everyone else to take care of them!?!?

In that case why don't we just hook everyone up to feeding tubes or even easier would be government provided rations. That way we only provide the absolute necessary amount of nutrition required to sustain life so absolutely no one dies due to excessive eating. No one should be expected to know how to take care of their bodies, it's clearly far too complicated and should be left to the government and their approved doctors to keep everyone healthy.

While we're at it lets quit being so conservative on helping with money. We can let the government along with approved financial experts take all of the money earned by workers and purchase only the necessities for them to live, that way they have enough for their entire lifespan and the government would also have extra money to spread around to help those that may not be able to work at all.

Instead of the overly complicated system of driving we just need government approved drivers in massive buses to commute people where they need to go, which of course would just be between work or school and home. No need to go anywhere else, that would be a waste of precious resources and not necessary to life. Naturally the proper government provided food rations will be available and automatically dispensed at each location making going out to eat or shopping completely unnecessary. Can't expect people to have to actually go and get their food, that would be ridiculous.

Business, of course, is so completely over complicated that no one should be expected to have to actually run one. Government will run businesses and will choose its employees and their work as no one should be expected to have to find a job either, they can expect it to be provided to them naturally.

The school system is already pretty well optimized for this scenario, only a few alterations would need to be made. Private and home schooling would be done away with, can't expect anyone to offer actual schooling options. Also choices of classes would be done away... of all things to expect, we certainly can't expect our children to actually decide what they want to do. No, no, no... a 100% government approved curriculum devoid of any choices will be provided so that everyone gets the same, quality schooling that everyone should expect their kids to receive. Math, science, Spanish, Olde English, atheism, history of the other great nations like England, the Soviet Union, China, etc. to better our country (absolutely none of that American history crap except to show how bad the Constitution and Capitalism is and how it destroyed the country), then of course sex education for all sex types (LGBT) with proper videos and/or demonstrations so that no one risks getting diseases or getting hurt while performing (penile fracture is no laughing matter), probably wouldn't be a bad idea to have a whole class dedicated to honoring and praying to the all mighty, all seeing, all knowing Government so that they should never have an expectation again.

Need I go on?

I can't make squat now with savings/investments because of the economic situation and the older I get, the less risk I'm willing to take.

Ready to bring back the Constitution, slashing government to the absolute minimum, and reinstate free market Capitalism yet? If not, don't expect it to ever get much better.

WTB: Flame Thrower

Regardless of what Biden says, I'll need one to battle my yard forest. Have a chance to mow it, it rains. Don't have a chance to mow it, it doesn't rain.

Absolutely happy with the rain though. Wasn't sure I could handle another year like the last two.

Read more of the article and checked out their "games". What they have on there, I'm pretty sure, wasn't what she intended. One guy made a "game" that literally consists of walking two naked people around a "level" switching male and female roles each level. Unless it wasn't done it was just walking an obstacle course. Saw a video of it on YouTube, fortunately. Had I actually played it I think my IQ would have dropped too much to even type this, though the video alone was enough to made my head hurt.

The next turned from a game to an all text "interactive story" where you simply make two choices in the story. Which character you want to play, a transgender man or a woman, and whether after reading a completely ridiculous story you get to make a choice of whether to continue the story and go on to the final, horrific part of the story, which I'll not share so as not to torture and disgust you all.

Those were the only two. May be more coming, may not... but I don't care. That was just dumb. The whole reason she started it was because a company altered the female lead character in one of their games by increasing her cup size from a C to a D (helloooooo... she aged from 21 to 521 in the game, surely she'll gain a little size in cryostasis or whatever form of extended sleep she was in ). I bet when she read that she imagined them altering her from a "decently" sized female character to one unable to run around without giving herself black eyes when actually Japanese cup sizes are different. In American sizes she was actually originally a B and is now a C, from my understanding. Not really a massive jump there, though it would probably make her look a little less girl like and more woman like.

It is kind of odd now that I think of it though. I've played a lot of Japanese games and watched a lot of their anime and they have a serious obsession with portraying young kids, generally mid-teens as the heroes. I'm surprised she even started the story at age 20. I'd say a serious majority of their stories involve kids younger than 18. Many usually involve kids while they are in our equivalent of high school and aged around 15 to 16.

Back to that particular game. They did also add "jiggling" to her character but that's actually been around for quite a while now in games and isn't even the first for this particular game's series. They actually did it in 1997 with the release of their best ever selling game of that series, and that definitely had no less than American D's. On the physics part of it, they've actually been working toward implementing more and more physics in games for quite a while now. It used to be you could shoot at a wall, for instance, and nothing would happen. Then before long you would discolor the walls. Then little bits of the wall would come out at you but they would reappear after time or if you shot other stuff. Now, they're getting to where you shoot a wall and it might be heavily damaged or even completely destroyed. As the technology gets better the physics will continue to improve and before long become more life like. Heck, even Angry Birds is completely based on physics.

Anyway, the story did make me think of an interesting trend in gaming though... a lot of new games are starting to get a little more into adding sexual scenarios to their games. Some occasional female nudity has been around for quite some time in only the most "extreme" of games but its starting to get a little more prevalent and now there are some out there that have full blown sex scenes (movie style where you see nudity but not that full act i.e. porn). I think some though might have ventured close to or even into porn by showing more and further having you control the "motions". Even heard about one game with two guys... um, yeah.

Violence in games might have an affect on some and I think worse case might slightly desensitize people to violence but I highly doubt it would turn even 0.0001% into violent fighters or killers (side note: 0.0001% I just pulled out of nowhere but wanted to find what that number might actually be. Based on current estimates, 0.0001% of gamers worldwide would be approximately 400,000+. They estimate 60% to 70% of the world population plays video games. Means my 0.0001% might even be too high even ). Sex on the other hand, or worse porn, would have a major, harmful affect on players. Porn is absolutely known to cause major problems for people, young and old, single and married. I even know personally of a marriage destroyed by porn. It is scientifically shown to cause measurable affects on the brain, especially in teenagers that are starting to develop those types of feelings. There's nothing good that comes of it... and to put it into games? I see major trouble brewing with that one.

Porn causes enough problems with people just watching it... imagine what might happen when they get full control. If game makers so choose they could easily let a person control any and every aspect of what is happening. It would likely unlock the doors to a whole new level of porn addiction.

Actually, I recently read about a game someone is working on to nearly do just that perhaps. Its supposed to be based on Roman times sooooo... the whole point of the game is basically to have sex and even orgies. Whether they get the funding to pull it off, who knows. I don't think it would matter either way though, it will probably continue to get worse as games "progress".

I mentioned gaming technology above for physics, there's another aspect that is also worth mentioning... and that's graphics. With every new game comes more and more detailed graphics. As the hardware gets more powerful they are able to make things look more realistic. It will probably get to the point where a game character will become indistinguishable from a real human. They are already so very close that it could potentially happen in the next year or two. By that point it would most definitely be no different than porn if they so choose... worse actually. Like I said, the control part of it could take things to a whole new level. Not only could you control what happens, you could probably even design your own character as well. You can actually already do that in most games already. I definitely see very harmful addictions coming if they start doing that.


Oh yeah, suppose I should mention lolicons as well. So uh... that's a genre of Japanese anime and manga (cartoons and comic books basically, term is also used to describe those that watch it/read it) and its even getting into gaming with some Korean games so far that I've seen. In the anime and manga it, generally, consists of child-like female characters that are often portrayed in "erotic-cute", as they like to call it, manners like skimpy clothing, sexual type scenarios, some even portray them nude, and worse still in actual sexual acts. . In the first game I've seen with them they were barely clothed girls wearing basically a thong, in Korea, and in the censored American version they were wearing basically normal underwear or a bikini bottom type garment. Everyone kind of blew up about it when it first came out which resulted in the censored-version underwear change.

There have been some prosecutions in the U.S. over a few guys having animations with sexual acts but so far there are questions to the constitutionality of the law as the cases I've seen, the defendants also had real child porn, not just animated. I haven't read the law but apparently child porn, and potentially animated, is illegal when it is "obscene" (unsure of their legal definition for that) but when cases come up on the animated ones they are trying to fight the constitutionality of it under Free Speech. Not sure how that will play out.

Back to the games. In the newest one to come out of Korea they are everything but nude, wearing basically inch wide straps in some cases. In the American version their skin was changed to make it look like clothing but skimpy outfits remained. The older looking bunch were clothed but in some cases the clothing was see through in parts. What's real crazy though is you can install somewhat easily available, player made modifications to make all of the characters completely nude if so chosen. Oh, and that modification isn't available for just that game. I think people have made them available for nearly any popular game with female characters in it.

[that it was founded on the law of their great Profet: that it was written in the Koran, that all Nations who should not have acknowledged their Authority were sinners: that it was their right & duty to make war upon them whenever they could be found, & to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners; & that every Mussalman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise]

We've been dealing with the Muslims for far, far longer than I think the majority of Americans know. We've been dealing with them since before the U.S. was even the United States of America, while under British control. American trade ships had to be guarded by the British Navy from Muslim pirates. After we gained our independence a deal was struck with France for their protection. Ransoms were paid for them to leave us alone, but as time went on they kept upping the amount of money required. It actually led to us putting together our own Navy and eventually going to war with them, to put it into a short version.

Here's a quote from a letter about when Jefferson and Adams went to London to meet with Tripoli's ambassador and inquire about what had been happening.

We took the Liberty to make some Inquiries concerning the Grounds of their pretentions to make War upon Nations who had done them no Injury, & observed that we Considered all Mankind as our friends, who had done us no Wrong nor had given us any provocation—

The Ambassador answered us, that it was founded on the law of their great Profet: that it was written in the Koran, that all Nations who should not have acknowledged their Authority were sinners: that it was their right & duty to make war upon them whenever they could be found, & to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners; & that every Mussalman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise

That it was a Law, that the first who boarded an Enemy's Vessell should have one slave, more than his share with the rest, which operated as an Incentive to the Most desperate Valour & Enterprize. That it was the practice of their Corsairs to bear down upon a ship; for each sailor to take a Dagger in each hand & another in his Mouth & leap on board, which so terrified their Enemies, that very few ever stood against them, That he verily believed the Devil assisted his Country-men, for they were almost allway's successfull—

If only they would simply read history they would know EXACTLY why the Muslims do this to us everyone. It is so, so simple.

[entire]

As far as I know, SS, which isn't that old as far as history goes, was started as a bit of an old age pension to keep old folks from literally starving to death.

That's not quite correct. In the Social Security Act of 1935 there were numerous forms of "assistance". What you're likely talking about is just a standard government welfare for the old that were needy that they called "old-age assistance". The original act still implemented the standard "old-age benefits", which were the payments you would receive monthly after retiring. Speaking of which, the very first beneficiary paid in $24.75 over her last three years of employment and received back $22,888 till she died at 100 years of age.

Anyway... it wasn't implemented to keep them from starving. It was sold as retirement benefits and numerous forms of assistance in the form of receiving money rather than food since "a food basket doesn't help the poor". They didn't want the old to have to live in "poorhouses" but instead be able to stay in their homes.

Kind of funny... well, ok, not really... but in their explanation of it all they state that "...taxation is spread over large groups of people to carry the cost of giving some security to those who are unfortunate or incapacitated at any one time." and immediately after that state "The colonists and frontiersmen wanted independence. ... There is no reason to think that our wants have changed."

Guess the depression was bad enough they couldn't even afford a dictionary to understand what independence meant. Wow.

It was never intended to be people's only savings, just a bump.

Key word "intentions"... need I say more? I wouldn't call it a bump either, it was supposed to be a "definite income" for old-age to supplement any savings they were able to make (if they were able to make any, they knew which income brackets were and weren't able to save). It wasn't a savings program, it was a retirement program and a horrible one.

As a side note, if you used your SS money and put it into a private fund I bet you could almost double your retirement, or more.

Yes, I do understand what you meant when you said unconstitutional. BUT Thomas Jefferson also said the document should be reviewed every so many years, I think it was nine, to see what should be altered or added to as the country grew and matured.

I think the quote you're talking about is actually quite different and, I'm pretty sure, completely taken out of context to make it look like... well, you'll see.

Every constitution then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of 19 years.

From my understanding of the letter, I think people on both sides of the isle take it completely out of context. Some on the right seem to think he meant to have a constitutional convention every 19 years, some on the left seem to think he meant it should be completely rewritten every 19 years to better reflect current trends. I think both are completely wrong. You have to read the entire letter, not just the paragraph that the quote is in, and I think most clearly do not.

He's basically having a philosophical discussion with Madison, throwing him ideas based on what he's seen in France. He speaks heavily throughout on individual land rights and debts, both debts for land owners and for government. I've been trying to think of ways to do a cliff's notes version of the letter and I think the best way would be as such:

No one person or government should have a natural right to and no law shall be made that would indebt a future generation or future land owner with the current debts. On the land owner part, I'm having a hard time really coming up with a way to explain it but, essentially; At that time and all throughout history even to today, it is common practice that debts of the deceased would pass on, naturally. I think he was just trying to figure out a way to prevent that as, morally, it is wrong to pass debts to future generations. By my understanding, he spoke of land owners retaining the lands so as to keep them from being used to pay of debts, which in effect kept the land in possession of the deceased, so to speak.

On the government part of it I think he's talking about not putting future generations into debt... exactly like we are doing now. The 19 years is his estimation, based on life expectancy at that time, of essentially how long a debt should last, or how long they have to pay it off so that it isn't pushed on to the next generation.

When he's talking about the constitutions and laws, I think he's basically trying to say that any law written having to do with debt should be written to expire in 19 years, again based on the above life expectancy info. His reasoning is that it would basically be a safer way of dealing with debt than having a permanent law that, though it could be repealed later, would likely never be repealed. Which, of course, he's completely correct in that reasoning. Every time the parasites make a "temporary" law it, naturally, never goes away and become permanent until repealed (which would likely be never if it has to do with them getting more money).

Its really best to just read the letter. To me, it has absolutely nothing to do with reworking our constitution every certain period of years and has everything to do with keeping people and governments from passing debt to future generations, which as we all know is EXACTLY what is happening now to a MASSIVE extent.

I don't think the morality issue could be fixed as easily as you think unless all the TVs were turned off, or with strong parental controls, ( many parents don't care) and the violent video games outlawed and a lot of influences were eliminated.

I disagree. Sure, TV and games could affect certain people but those certain people will most likely have come from a broken home to begin with. Home is where morality will first break down, then it will be further eroded in the currently leftist public school system.

Outlaw violent video games? Seems like a bit of a rights violation right there. I play and have played quite a few video games, some rather violent (Mini-gunning police? Yeah, pretty violent). Some of them I quite enjoy playing, blowing up all of the digital pixels... because I KNOW they are digital pixels. I KNOW that is it a GAME. I can differentiate between the virtual world and the real world. Haven't killed anyone yet. Haven't even been in a fist fight honestly.

But people seem to think violence in games is something recent... has no one played Clue? Its been around since 1949. Granted, of course, that it doesn't have the visual impact that games today have but it was still a game about a murder with a certain weapon.

Comic books started booming during the WWII era and had plenty of violence tendencies yet it didn't seem to be a big issue back then.

What's changed so much that it has gotten so much worse? Everything I've talked about above, perhaps?

No, I don't think forced euthanasia will ever happen.

Tell that to the 250,000-350,000 Germans in Nazi Germany who were put to death for disabilities, diseases, by simply being "unfit" to live in society according to the government. That was not just the elderly, it included children and infants as well and the whole thing actually began with infanticide. It was a requirement to report any newborns with disabilities and most were killed. It said that some children were even killed that didn't even have disabilities or mental issues but were deemed abnormal or anti-social. It is also said it got so bad at one point that people that just looked sick or that the doctors or nurses didn't like would be sent to the chambers.

As we all know, humans have a horrible habit of repeating history. Heck, I think Agenda 21 even alludes to using euthanasia, of course without coming out and saying it so blatantly.

What happened to the Hippocratic oath?

Prior to 1933 every German doctor took the Hippocratic Oath... but the Nazis replaced it with the Gesundheit (health) oath, an oath the the health of the Nazi state. It meant that a doctor's first duty was to promote the interests of the Nazi state, not to "do no harm".

BUT there will come a time when people who are at the end of their lives should be allowed to die with dignity. When medicine as we know it can do no more people should be allowed a good and peaceful passing without bankrupting their family. On the other hand. .How does one get past the inability of a family member to accept the passing...especially if it a child. The little girl in all the news with Cystic Fibrosis is a good example. She has had two lung transplants now...so one was 'wasted' and she is still in terrible shape. That disease is much more complicated than just a lung problem.  I wish her the best and I do understand ,but....

This is entirely different, not even remotely close to forced euthanasia. I have very little experience with it but I have gone through two cases of "pulling the plug". One there was no brain activity at all so it was quite clear they had passed. The second, he was rather young and still fully aware but his body was simply incapable of sustaining life so he was prepared and let go, receiving medication to keep the pain away during the passing. I have absolutely no issues with easing suffering in death.

As far as SS is concerned, go find the history of it and why it was started in the first place.

Started by FDR. Prior to his Presidency, while a Governor of NY, he spoke about such types of "features" of government essentially stating that the U.S. federal government didn't have the authority to implement such "features" like Social Security and even stated that "...Washington must not be encouraged to interfere.", in reference to those types of programs. Yet just two years later campaigned on the New Deal and, of course, got into office eventually got those very programs into effect... doing the very things he said should not be done.

Anyway, Social Security itself started as a simple retirement plan. It has changed drastically through the years but the basic facts remain the same:
Social Security is:
1. Blatantly unconstitutional.
2. Unsustainable.
3. Corrupt (and programs like these will always be corrupted by the government).
4. Inefficient.
5. The list can keep going but I'm too tired to at the moment.

Why it was truly started though... I have no idea. In the minds of the New Dealers it could have been a "good intentions" idea to "help" people or it could have been specifically implemented to help fund more of their big government ideals or maybe even specifically to slowly destroy the country. Can't really know for sure without traveling back in time with a mind reading device and interrogating them to find out.

I'd lean towards the "good intentions" one, as that seems to be the most common of reason they do it... at least most commonly stated reason... but either way I'd reference my list above as to the reasons why it should have never existed in the first place.

The actual Social Security Act of 1935 did more than just implement Social Security but, again, it wasn't constitutional and the federal government should have stayed out of it. Everything they did after '32 made the Depression substantially worse and irreparably harmed the country to this day and will into the future as well.

Please don't take mine away...I paid into it for many years. I could live without it but only because I planned for it. It's still my money.

Agreed. A plan would have to be put into place to essentially keep those that are on it or that will be getting it very soon within the system and for everyone else basically giving them their money back through tax credits or something similar. Basically wane everyone else off of it.

Though it may be too late to do that, not really sure as that scenario would have to be calculated. If not though it would have to be done quite soon so that it isn't too late.

It's the same with my taxes. I don't pay out more than I have to in order to get a refund. Why should I be giving the Gov't a free loan of my money until they give it back a year later? I'll keep as much of it as I can. Besides not all people are good with money.

Excellent advice. The last thing the government needs is an interest free loan. If they would simplify the current tax system it would oh so much easier to pay exactly what is "owed". Or... just do away with it to make it truly constitutional again*, like I've mentioned.

*Since it has been amended to the Constitution it is legally constitutional. When I say unconstitutional, I mean when looking at the original intent. The Framers would have never allowed such a thing to exist and for good reason too, reasons I've already explained in past posts.

Is the paperwork worse now ...Well of course. It's ridiculous!

Yep... way, way more time spent doing paperwork than is spent with the patient.

As far as people who are capable of getting help from a private entities...what private entities and how does an institutionalized person with an Infant's IQ and severe physical disabilities get the help?  Easter Seals and such can only do so much.

If the country continues on its path to the left it shouldn't be all too long before we won't have to worry about the disabled... they will simply be euthanized.

By getting the government out of it, by getting money back to the people, the amount of money through donations, businesses, NPO's, etc. that can go to help those in need would increase tremendously. Efficiency would increase, corruption would decrease, it would be substantially easier to get help and funding to those that need it and keep it away from those that don't.

There would be some pretty severe side effects to getting government out of welfare though... Morality would go up, families would be actual full families again, single parents would start to diminish, births out of wedlock would diminish, society would just get better as a whole.

[or give up a lot of what folks are used to?]

Um, so you'd rather have huge increases in state taxes rather than have federal taxes...or give up a lot of what folks are used to? I happen to think tax reform would be a very good thing. States should have more to say about how taxes are collected and redistributed. I don't even have a problem with flat taxes.

I take it you mean social security and medicare/medicaid, correct? If so, yes! Absolutely yes! They are unconstitutional plain and simple. The federal government absolutely does NOT have the authority to enact such programs on the people. It does not exist, period, end of story.

Depending on their constitutions and laws, the States are allowed to enact such programs if they want but it would be a horrible idea for them to. Welfare (note: the General Welfare clause uses an entirely different definition of welfare, these are not to be confused with each other) is something that simply never works. It wastes money, encourages parasites to take the money and use it on other projects, oppresses the tax payers, it ruins lives, families, is just very harmful to those receiving the benefits by encouraging bad behavior to receive the benefits. There's absolutely nothing good that comes out of welfare.

Now, I'm not saying there is never anyone in true need of help because that couldn't be further from the truth. Those in true need of help are fully capable of getting help from a private entity that would be much, much, much better suited to helping them than a bloated government that doesn't even know who they are helping. When the government forcefully takes away money from the people, organizations, and business that makes it that much harder for private entities to help and is exactly why we're in the situation we are now.

When it comes to Medicare/Medicaid... just, what a complete joke. The only thing those are good at is closing medical facilities. You want to know why health care is so high? Those two are some top reasons right there. They are not sustainable, the take profit away from the medical industry, there is absolutely nothing good about them... they are disastrous and dangerous and should not exist at any level of government.

I could keep going about these government programs but its just common sense:
They aren't constitutional.
They don't work.
They will never work.
Period.

As far as the medical folks I know, mostly professionally from teaching their recert classes... why snipe at them? I didn't get to disallow them in my classes because I thought they were quacks! They are who they are. Go to your choice or don't!

Good luck having choice before long. Insurance companies make choice difficult, just wait until the government steps in.

If I start to tell you what I know about the business end of it, it would take about three pages and you'd be bored stiff!
Many docs have business managers ,or they do here, because they tend to not have the best business sense and the rules change so fast it's hard to run a practice and do that too.

In our immediate family we have or had two dentists, two hygienists, a podiatrist, and several others. As close friends (extended family) we had a surgeon (yes, he started as an MD..DUH!) Stating the obvious much?  and several other medical professionals .And what do people talk about when they get together? Yup...business.

Honestly... I doubt it would take three pages, it would probably take thirty, probably more, to really lay out what the medical industry has to go through. I'm sure you're knowledgeable about the medical industry but I doubt you'll be able to scratch the surface of just how many government regulations there are on the medical industry that actually affects the business end.

Further reason why medical costs are so high.

As far as being able to pay for things, we assumed when we were young things might not do well from time to time and we saved like crazy and invested well. I've told this before, but the business about social security failing has been with us our entire adult lives, so we planned as if we would never get it.  Now it's extra money for us.

And that extra money could have been used in an ACTUAL retirement plan that would net you EVEN MORE money. Exactly why social security needs to end, permanently.

This isn't my first recession or "inconvenience." Remember the oil embargo? People sitting in line for gas? Sugar went up, coffee went up and other things too? Remember when Nixon took us off the gold standard? Huge changes.

Nail in the coffin for the U.S. Dollar.

The difference now is we are drowning in uninformed opinions, information, misinformation and outright lies constantly 24 hours a day. That cannot be healthy. Then there are the bloggers who will say anything for money and feed certain groups whatever they want to hear.

Get government out of the schools and that would diminish so rapidly... would be like a nice breath of fresh air.

As far as changes I'd like to see..tell the congressmen to stop demanding "pork'' for their constituents at the expense of other areas and states. Drop ALL the subsidies, including farming, fishing, oil and any more I've missed.  Kick the banks and make them loosen up some lending money to good risks, and let interest rates go up enough so people can invest and make enough to make it worthwhile. Don't let the bundling business with mortgages and mortgage risks start all over again with the exact same rating agencies...that is criminal!

Which would require reducing the size of government, getting it out of all of those industries. If that were to happen, things would improve.

The pork spending is another constitutional nightmare. The majority of what those parasites spend money on is not even remotely in the government's constitutional authority to do so. Bring the Constitution back into play and that pork spending will stop, instantly.

There is another sector that isn't being considered here.The extremely wealthy, well connected and powerful won't let things go to far or they will be affected and unless they get together and colonize the moon, they won't let themselves be affected too far...or perhaps they will all bail and go to other countries like Brazil.

That's what we keep telling people. Punish them too much and they'll just leave... then who employs the workers?

Besides, politial wheels go slow at best and now neither side seems to be letting much happen. As with any president, no matter how much you hate him, he'll be gone in three years.

When they do irreparable harm to the country, it doesn't matter when they'll be gone. He could suddenly have a heart attack tomorrow... doesn't matter. Damage done. It would take a massive cleansing of D.C. to fix what has happened over the past 100+ years.

Let's bring the manufacturing jobs back home, and stop pretending the underemployed are middle class. How many people go from one poorly paid job to another to make ends not quite meet. I know some people holding down three minimum wage jobs!

Remove regulations and lower taxes at every level of government and they'll come flocking back. Will probably have to do something about China too but the first part would be the absolute best start.

It'll get better..eventually...so why didn't more people plan for it? What happened to planning for a rainy day? Too much advertizing influence? Too much believing the "You deserve it" advertizing?  Dark days? Yup, we've had 'em before The great depression, WWII, and real ration books. Korea

It will get better... for whom? Maybe for the parasites and the rich in their pockets, for a short while. A massive crash is coming though, one that will make the Great Depression look like a minor recession. It is unavoidable.

Now please don't do what Ross does to me and pick apart every sentence and say it wasn't clear. I'd like to assume you can read so I don't have to make everything third grade "wordy".... makes my posts too long and tedious. We probably won't agree on all, but that's all right as long as it doesn't turn into personal attacks.

You say you'd like it not to turn to personal attacks, which is fine, but immediately prior are essentially implying that Ross can only read at the third grade level. Umm... ok...

[NOT]

MT at least you can disagree and not get nasty about it.

I didn't intend for it to be nasty really, though I'm sure it definitely came off that way as this is a very sore subject for me. Once you realize just how much has been lost, how much you've been lied to, and realize the likelihood that it actually is not going to get better you might just feel the same way.

It would be like being married for a very long time then finding out your significant other is a lying, cheating, stealing, axe murderer that's just using you to get their way... much like what the government is doing now, just that the government is doing it on a scale of, these days, over 300 million times larger. 7.103 Billion times larger if you include the world economy.

I agree with much of what you say, but I'm an optimist about this country. If the bottom hasn't happened yet, perhaps it never will. There are checks and balances in place and I do believe that slowly ,over time, things will get better.

I cannot agree at all. I don't think its possible for this country to ever become what it used to be. The bottom certainly hasn't happened yet and it most certainly will happen. Could be 2 years 1 month from now, could be 10 years, could be 100 years... no one knows when God's will will be fulfilled, we just know that it will eventually happen... and those will be some very, very dark days. Our country is being perfectly setup for those dark days to be able to even occur really. All of the laws, the regulations, even the ideas that people are trying to force into becoming more "mainstream" all fit perfectly into it, like puzzle pieces, unavoidable, and perhaps even making what I'm saying a waste of time... but if it maybe helps someone to realize the truth and maybe even prepare, then its time I'll gladly waste.

I have said many times that Obama care is a bad deal.

Yes, Obamacare is a massive violation of our rights but is still only one of countless laws or regulations that keep us from being free. I think what people may not realize is, even if Obamacare were to suddenly be taken off the books, it still wouldn't matter in the end... the floodgates for the rights violations have been opened wide and has been given the green light as being constitutional, even though it isn't, by the SCOTUS. The fight to regain those rights will likely fail without the States themselves stepping in to finally say no... and I doubt even that would happen.

As long as the tops (CEOs) of the big companies are getting obscene money with lots of tax escape clauses, the middle class will have a hard time.

The issue isn't profits, nor even obscene profits. With obscene profits can easily come obscene donations with those profits... what is so bad about that? Sure, not all of them would do that nor are they truly obligated to but it is not within the government's power to force that person or businesses into giving their money away.

The true issue is business and government getting into bed with each other. Cronyism, really, though perhaps just as one of many descriptions of it. Just so we're clear as well... it is NOT... I repeat... NOT crony capitalism. That is an oxymoron in its truest sense, its like fitting a square peg in a round hole, like the egg coming before the chicken, like 1 + 1 equaling 16,890,956,124,251. Capitalism, by absolute nature, would disallow such a thing to even exist, meaning it would never have any possibility of existing under true capitalism.

The Constitution itself disallows such a thing to exist yet through lying, cheating, altering perceptions of the words, by whatever method the politicians parasites (there's probably a better word to use for them but this will work great for now) use to get around such Constitutional prohibitions, they further degrade our country, our rights, our economy... they ruin everything.

Contrary to the parasites' lies, the free market would naturally close the "income gap" that people have such issues with. Most of the issues people tend to have with big corps, doing the good ol' corrupt things they do, would naturally go away because the market, by nature, wouldn't let them survive pulling the stunts they do (government getting out of business would stop a ton of corruption alone). The people have simply been lied to into thinking Capitalism caused this when in FACT it is the moving away from Capitalism and towards big government control that has caused it.

Clarification: The moving away from Capitalism isn't something that happened over night, within the past few years or even few decades... no... 100 years ago this year is when things really got out of hand and its only got exponentially worse since.

But without some taxes how would we pay for the things that help the common folks? Will every bridge and road and library have to have user fees? Will every zoo and park have to have fees too?I sure don't know, but I refuse to believe the sky is falling.

I don't know how to make it any more clear... if the government were to stop funding everything it isn't Constitutionally allowed to fund... the need for income tax would instantly disappear. Tariffs and excise tax, properly apportioned property tax if absolutely needed, can fund the government when it is running as it was intended to.

Allowing income tax is simply throwing out the welcome mat for the government to abuse the people.

[B]

Oh well. I won't even ask if you think you get any services for the tax money you spend.

Oh well? OH WELL? Are you serious? Its like you're not even comprehending just how serious this issue is. What rights must you lose before you say, or even think, enough is enough? Will it be the loss of the freedom of speech? Will it be when prayer becomes a crime? Maybe when police are allowed to walk into your home anytime they want and arrest you for no reason? What exactly would it take for you to open your eyes, seriously? Do you think these services we get for our tax money makes up for the loss of our freedom or something? Would it make up for further losses of our rights?

For my taxes I get a neutered military, am forced into an unconstitutional "retirement plan" that is absolute junk, am forced to pay for medical coverage for others while having hardly enough money to pay for my own, pay for people to eat whatever they want, to get the internet, have a cell phone, get drugs, my money goes towards keeping the border open to those that would do people harm or that get paid by simply being here all the while to turn around and send it out of the country, goes towards sending legitimate immigrants back where they came because the current admin doesn't agree with their views, goes towards horrible roads, its sent to countries that would like to see us dead, goes to countries that act as our allies yet betray us, is used to gives weapons to our enemies, pays to endlessly spy on the American people, funds a police force that seems to be moving closer to having no other job than to violate our rights on a daily basis, funds massive agencies to further take away our freedom, pays the salary of politicians at every level of government who are violating the law (a federal felony to be exact) every day by taking away more and more of our rights, and on and on and on and on and on...

Wow, you're right! I never realized just how awesome a deal it was, losing freedom but getting services back for my taxes! Totally worth it!

You still have the freedom to make all kind of purchases. If you choose to, if they are associated with taxes and fees,you are agreeing to pay...you know the costs are there. That's one of the reasons I get a car I like and don't buy another until I run the wheels off this one.

Of course I can purchase stuff... its one of the most basic of our rights! The government feels as though it can tell us "Yeah, you can purchase that gizmo buuuut... NO you absolutely cannot purchase that widget!" - "But why?" - "...Um... well.. because we said so! Its for the safety of the children you know!" - "But the gizmo and widget do the exact same thing!" - "How's jail time sound to you?" - "...".

Considering the American way of paying things off over time, many don't care what the total cost is, just if they can make the payments. One can thank the business and advertizing industry for that. Do you know how much less a heavily advertized car would cost if we didn't all share in the cost of those hugely expensive car commercials? Including the dealer?

Are you serious? You think the cost of cars is higher because of advertising? So by that thinking GM should have the most expensive cars on the planet... considering that between 2011 and 2012 they had an ad budget of $3.1... BILLION... yes, with a B... They were second on a list of 36 companies that had ad budgets of over $1 Billion. Of that 36, including GM, 5 other auto manufacturers were on that list. Ford, Fiat/Chrysler, Toyota, and Honda being the others. Which of those 5 has the most expensive cars for sale in the U.S.? NONE! They make some cars that can be quite expensive, but not even remotely close to being the most expensive.

Now... how many in that list of 5 has some of the most affordable cars for sale in the U.S.? All 5... every single car manufacturer in that list has cars that are just as affordable as manufacturers that don't spend as much on advertising. All 5 have cars under $17,000. 4 of them under $16,000. The biggest spenders, Ford and Chevy, have cars under $15,000. They are 2 of only 7 manufacturers selling cars in the U.S. with offerings below $15,000.

Just to add to how ridiculous that statement was:
- Google's budget was $1.005 Billion... searches are still free.
- Microsoft spent $667 million more than Apple... Microsoft products still substantially cheaper.
- Verizon, at number 3 on the list, was at $2.52 Billion yet I'm spending less through them than on the local and regional offerings with much, much, much better service.
- Walt Disney - $2.112 Billion yet I never once have had to pay more money for a movie ticket or DVD/Blu-Ray from them than any of the other studios.
- McDonald's - $1.37 Billion yet they're still cheaper than most local and regional offerings and still thoroughly competitive with, and on top of, all of the other major chains burger chains.

I don't know of anyone who WANTS to pay taxes. It's even fashionable to complain... CCTP   But then how often does one hear "why don't they do something about that?" Who is "they?"

If the government wasn't allowed to get away with what they do, we wouldn't even have to pay the outrageous taxes that we do. That is what is so ridiculous about it all. The more government expands, unconstitutionally, the more we have to pay and the worse it gets. The federal government used to, for 126 years, run perfectly fine on just tariffs and excise taxes. If its not wasting money on things its not even allowed to spend money on, we could easily do away with the income tax... and we should.

As I said before, I don't mind most things having to do with health and safety. I haven't had to scrape a child off the road in years because they rarely fall out car doors any longer. Very few door related spleen injuries either.

Its not the governments job to take over everything to "increase safety". If a manufacturer makes a defective product that injures someone and doesn't do what is right to help those involved and fix the problem, then the government should step in and tell them to get it dealt with properly or else. That's it.

Sure. We have travel limited only by ones ability to pay.

There are certain things that, of course, one must pay to travel being whatever form of transportation you want to use, whatever form of fuel that transportation requires, and whatever else might be needed... however... for the government to require us to pay THEM to travel... that is blatantly unconstitutional and here in Kansas even goes against state law (as well as most other states' law).

Unless you are using the roads for commercial purposes the government(s) CANNOT make you pay money to exercise your right to travel. No driver's licenses, no registration, no license plates, not even can they require you to carry insurance.

You can choose your own line of work. The Gov't doesn't assign you your job.

Yet if you want to start your own business the government(s) will require some form of license (i.e. permission) to operate many different types of business. If I were to want to start selling cars, if I sell over 5 a year, Kansas would require me to become a dealer... which, I refuse to do. Not even allowed sell my own property without permission.

Your housing is what ever you can afford. The Gov't doen't' assign your housing by how valuable you are to the party. You can own land if you choose to.

Yet the government seems to want to control as much of the housing market as it can, causing house prices to become ridiculously high, so high that many can't even afford one at all without getting credit... if they have good enough credit to begin with. If they can't then they have to look into government housing... interesting.

Don't leave out regulations though. Try building a house in some areas without the government meddling "in the name of safety". In many places you'll be punished for not mowing your grass.

Then of course there's taxation on property, where I'm pretty sure most places aren't doing it even remotely legally, or rather constitutionally.

You can educate your kids any way you want or can afford to.

Just wait until they start to really go after home schooling, which they already highly dislike. Tell me you can educate them any way you want then. Some states have regulations on home schooling already, some rather dumb regulations in a few states I've seen.

There is no state religion . You get to choose where to go or not go at all.

You're leaving out the massive attack on religion though, the so called "separation of church and state" nonsense. Trying to pray at a public school anymore is becoming more and more of an issue. Only going to get worse I imagine. So much for freedom of religion.

Oh, and choose where to go... uh, yeah I seem to recall a family being fined for having a Bible study group at their house. Violated some insane city ordinance.

The Gov't doesn't tell you what kind of vehicle you are allowed to have, how much mileage it has to get, and how often you can "earn" a new one.

Yes, the government does tell us what kind of vehicles we can and cannot have. I cannot purchase one of my dream cars because the government does not want me to have it, not without spending insane amount of money to get it "legalized" for use in the U.S. because it may or may not meet the U.S.'s emissions and/or safety standards. Last I heard it was actually completely banned from being imported but that could be until the changes were made to the car.

To import them you must go through an insane series of absolute BS. A company wanted to import them to sell so had to run a car through crash tests... no I'm not kidding... and if it failed at any point (which it did on the side impact tests) they were required to modify the vehicle to pass. Once this was complete and it passed they had to do emissions testing. This particular car was required to add 3 catalytic converters to pass. After a bunch of other nonsense they were finally allowed to import and sell these cars... or so they thought. Turns out the nonsense was worse than anyone imagined. This particular car, we'll car the "2nd gen", had the exact same engine and transmission as the 1st gen and 3rd gen versions of the car, only the bodies were different. Little did they know they were actually required to do all of the nonsense (crash testing, emissions testing, red tape after red tape) on all three generations of this car but since they didn't to the tests to the 1st and 3rd gen essentially the owner of said business was throw in jail, owner's of the cars had their cars taken away by the government, this and that and everyone is pissed and doesn't know what to do.

Did I forget to mention that some of these cars were worth less than $10,000 if you were to go to the originating country to buy them but for the company here to make any sort of profit had to sell them for a minimum of $50,000 for the older versions (starting with the 1989 model year versions) and nearly $100,000 for the newest version. If one wanted to have them convert a car you bought yourself it would be $16,000. Good luck trying to do it yourself, you'd have to go through the same process they did.

If you wait until the car is 25 years old supposedly you can import it just fine then. We'll know for sure next year if that ends up being true with these particular cars.

Anyway... no... you absolutely are NOT allowed to own whatever vehicle you want.


Its already been mentioned but car manufacturers are REQUIRED to meet fuel economy standards. Worse part about that is these complete, utter MORONS in government don't understand that a car that is coming out next year was designed probably a good 5 years ago, maybe more or less for some... but regardless they keep throwing out these higher and higher requirements every year and the manufacturers basically have to sort of panic and meet the new requirements on cars that are way past the development stage. Sure now they are probably used to it enough that they can cope.

I'm just waiting for the politicians to go even dumber and start trying to require fuel economy numbers that aren't technologically possible yet sit there dumbfounded as to why and start punishing the manufacturers because of it.

Your health issues are your own.

Where were you for all of this Obamacare BS??? I mean... really!?!? The government sure doesn't seem to think so. They have their tentacles so deep into health care its THE reason no one can afford it. I'm just... completely out of words for this one.

Want more ? I'm out of time. OK, now I'm sure you won't miss the chance to rip me a new one. Remember ,you asked!

I'd love more, but I won't wait.

Lets do... the Right to Life and Liberty!

The Right to Life, nope... gone... abortion anyone?

Liberty... already covered. Just think about this for a moment, its pretty easy. Are you required to get permission to exercise a right? I'll help you, just in case... the answer is yes. We've already covered a small section of this above. Driver's licenses, business licenses, a "permit" (cough license cough permission cough) to conceal carry a firearm, and the list goes on and on. Liberty extends to so much more but its already thoroughly diminished and getting worse every day.

We've already lost so much of our freedom yet so many think we're still free. I'm sorry, its a joke. We may be "more free" than many other countries (and that's nice and all) but we are NOT anymore, truly free. I sadly believe it is only going to get worse. Our liberties are attacked every, single, day. It's truly quite sad that people don't want to be free anymore and don't know just what they've lost.


Oh and hi everyone! Figured I'd lurk a little bit.