Dirt poor?
OK, I quit reading that other thread about 3 pages in, but it got me to thinking.....have you ever been dirt poor?
We we're semi-poor when I was growing up, went on food stamps awhile, didn't have much in the way of luxuries...I used to get my ass spanked big time If I so much as looked at the thermostat.
But, we always had a roof over our head, never went hungry (anyone remember those HUGE shredded wheat things? Way different than frosted minis).
Anyways, about 15 years ago I was making minimum ($2.85 I think), living on my own in my own apartment. No health insurance, no car, no savings...got paid weekly, had about $5 to spare every week. No shit, after the bills were paid I had $5 fucking dollars).
I stocked my fridge with Bread, Bologna, Mustard, Onions, Popcorn, and Kool-Aid. I made every imaginable sandwich out of ALL of the above, got very creative with toasting and what not.
But looking back, it sucked, but it wasn't all bad, I got paid every week so looked forward to what I could spend those extra dollars on, I actually won the very first Wisconsin lottery ever (not the big prize, was about $600, that's another story), and dug out from there.
To this day I LOVE MILK, I like sandwiches, but popcorn still makes me gag. Way too many nights hungry and no butter (we had salt). So that's not really dirt poor, but some of you must have been worse off?
2 adults & 2 kids in a free standing 1 car garage, with an outhouse and a pitcher pump for cold water.
But the Shredded Wheat had 2 Straight Arrow cards between the layers.
My meal plan ran out near the end of senior year, and I lived off of IBC Cream Soda and Pop-Tarts for a while.
But my parents were putting me through a very expensive school, so I don't think that counts.
I've been in a fairly similar position to blue58 when I first moved out. For me it was hummous and crackers, god I ate one shitload of hommous.
my ex-husband was in the navy. the day after we got married, he left for a 2 month cruise and he left me with $5, no job, no friends, no car. i had just moved to virginia. the guy at the convenience store gave me free cigarettes. i had to eat ramen noodles every single day, and dried beans. i had to walk up the highway to the different restaurants to apply for jobs, and i didn't have a phone, so i had to walk back in a few days to check on my applications.
about 1 1/2 - 2 years ago, my ex-boyfriend had moved out when we broke up, and i had to pay for the apartment all by myself, plus the car payment, insurance, credit card bills, etc. i was $500 short every month. one month, i had a yardsale and sold my drum set, a tv and my bike to pay the rent. the next month, the guy i was dating gave me $500 for my birhday (rent money!), i also maxxed out my credit cards, using them for daily necessities like food, gas in the car, cigarettes, etc. when i wanted to go out to a bar with my friend, i would bring little nips in my pocketbook and just order soda at the bar. then i would go into the bathroom to make my drink.
i was so poor that i agreed to marry an illegal brazilian for $5,000.
he moved in and lived here for two months. his 1/2 rent helped so much, but we didn't get married because of immigration issues..i met arsen while i was living with that brazilian guy. now arsen finally has a paying job and my finances aren't necessarily bright, but i have enough to pay the bills and buy food, and it feels good!
Originally posted by staceyv
i was so poor that i agreed to marry an illegal brazilian for $5,000.
hot_pastrami, can I borrow your 10 ft pole so i can NOT touch that with it?
as detailed in the TOUR thread, I have been poor, but it was self inflicted, and it also coincided with one of the happiest times in my life. the more i make, the more stress i have over money. i'm sure it's not always true, but in my exp, less = more
I ran out of money while touring Europe. I was no Richie Rich back home, either.
So I slept on the pavement outside Gar du Nor in Paris. Fuck it was cold at night and I had no blanket or anything. Old, drunk, homeless men smelling like stale urine use to try to go through my pockets at night and I'd have to beat them off. During the day, I'd hang out in the park - I had enough money for two cans of sardines per day and one franc for the pay toilet where I could clean up and not reek. I didn't have a can opener so I had to pry open the sardines on something. Fortunately, I already had my return plane ticket or else I suppose I'd still be there.
I had sent a buddy a letter of when I was arriving at Hartsfield and thank God he was there to pick me up - all I had left in my pocket was one Gilder (a Dutch quarter pretty much).
He took me by McDonalds and bought me a six pack - what a Samaritin! I slept for a week (after taking a looooooooooong shower).
Growing up in the early '60's I never knew how poor we really were. My Mom tells the stories about how she used to cut a can of Campbell's soup with 3 cans of water just to make it feed the 3 kids and my Dad and her. We would take Sandwich Speard, (actually it's just tarter sauce) sandwiches in our brown bag lunches to school with buttered crackers for dessert. Mom would search the couch cushions for enough loose change to buy us a popcicle from the ice cream man so we wouldn't have to watch the other neighborhood kids eat theirs. She would split the one popcicle in two so we could both have a half. Dad was a school teacher by day and always worked a part time job at night just to make ends meet so we only saw him on weekends.
Aside from all that, Mom and Dad raised 4 healthy, somewhat well adjusted kids and we were never the wiser as to how poor those times really were. We may not have had a lot of money but there was always plenty of love to go around. Nowdays people think they're poor when they have trouble paying their cable bill. Go figure!
You know I'm almost certainly going to regret this, but how you doing lately Stacey?
Originally posted by blue58
............have you ever been dirt poor?
Yah. Now. Got any spare cash bud?
Sorry man...but I'm slipping towards the poor end again myself. You'll see me on the news tho before I live off popcorn again.
404, good story...sounds like you had a wonderful Mom. I like the spread the soup thing, but buttered crackers for desert nailed it...we had those too. ;-) Anybody ever have "gravy bread" for the main course? I remember laying in the living room eating that, watching the Wizard of Oz. Good times.
Dangit, this is bringing back some old memories. I almost forgot the best, my Dad used to make poor man's soup constantly. And I shit you not, here are the ingredients:
Water
Potatoes
Onions
And you would spoon in a tablespoon of butter in your bowl, and here's the fucked up part....poor in about another tablespoon of white vinegar.
I have no idea who dreamed this shit up, but WE LOVED IT!
My Dad passed along time ago so I never got a chance to ask him, but I made poor mans soup for us one day and it wasn't half bad, considering it cost about 13 cents to feed a family.
Originally posted by staceyv
daily necessities like food, gas in the car, cigarettes,
You obviously need to learn to prioritize.
Quzah.
Originally posted by Beestie
Old, drunk, homeless men ... use to try to go through my pockets at night and I'd have to beat them off
Whose hands were in whose pockets?
Quzah.
Originally posted by quzah Whose hands were in whose pockets?
I'd be sleeping outside and homeless people would come up and reach into your pocket(s) to grab whatever they could - wallet, money, whatever. I would wake up and kick them off - some didn't take the hint and needed additional encouragement.
Unfortunately, I couldn't find a place indoors but there were a few of us broke college students out there (which is why I stayed there) and we all had to deal with them.
Originally posted by blue58
You know I'm almost certainly going to regret this, but how you doing lately Stacey?
thanks for asking...arsen and i are getting along well. i went to the gynocologist and found out i had a ruptured cyst in my uterus and that there's nothing he can do for me but prescribe pain relievers, so i will continue to work 3 weeks out of the month. my boss seems to be okay with it, as long as i ask in advance...and the week off work helps my arttitude a lot!
i am learning to speak russian. it's a challenge, but i like it.
i went to open mic this thursday and played the drums and people were dancing and everyone was saying how great i was for someone who only played for a year and doesn't own a drumset! i also sang karaoke that night at another bar and i got lots of compliments. it was the most fun i've had in a long time.
i am still living on potatoes and fish- but i found that i can eat frank's red hot sauce! yay. okay, i've covered my marriage, health, social life...oh, and financially-arsen is holding down this job and seems to be doing well. he sold a lot of cars this month.
i feel happy. there's no drama in my life right now, so i'm better able to handle all the other crap like my health...i also learned how to use a straightening iron on my hair and make it look longer, so i'm happy about that.
i guess i haven't been posting so much lately because i don't have anything major on my mind and that is always good! thanks for asking...are you sorry?
Originally posted by Beestie
I'd be sleeping outside and homeless people would come up and reach into your pocket(s) to grab whatever they could - ...
joke
--------
head
Quzah.
Originally posted by quzah
Whose hands were in whose pockets?
Quzah.
Heh, I decided to leave that one alone, gotta make your way somehow.
We didn't have money when I was a little kid but we never went hungry either. We had land to raise beef and grow veggies. My clothes weren't the coolest but they were clean and mended. I knew kids a lot worse off and my folks were always moving forward income wise.
No, I was interested. I could have done without the uterus info. Glad to hear things are looking up a little.
When I was really young, six, seven or so, my dad was fairly worthless, yet he insisted that my mom not work. He bought a house that was waaayyy beyond our means, so we rarely had sufficient food in the house. The electricity would get turned off on occasion. He was also a stinking drunk, and that made things interesting.
I didn't realize that we were hard up until I got a lot older, and compared some of the things that my mom was doing to things that I did when times were tight.
Originally posted by Elspode
I didn't realize that we were hard up until I got a lot older, and compared some of the things that my mom was doing to things that I did when times were tight.
Excellent point, Els. Basic training for hard times and appreciation for good times. :beer:
[COLOR=indigo]My dad worked 2 jobs for a long time, and my mom worked, and I didn't realize how fortunate I was to grow up in a 70's middle class household.
Then they divorced, and I was still pretty clueless about how things worked.
Then I got pregnant and married and homeless and I was brought into the wide world of "holy shit this sucks".
8 months pregnant, living in the park in southern california (there are worse places, I know), eating *cold* ramen and coconuts and drinking water out of the water fountain at the library where I would spend many days reading quietly.
My sister was in training to be a correctional officer near my mom's house, so between 12 and 1pm three times a week I would go over there and take a shower while she ate lunch. I'd bring a pack of ramen and have *hot* ramen for lunch. That was a treat! My mom never knew.
A guy my husband met let us stay there a couple weeks until he found out I was 17 then he kicked us out. The state wouldn't give me aid because my mom wouldn't let me give her address, because if I did, they wanted her social security number, and she didn't want to give it. So I couldn't get on medicaid or foodstamps or afdc or anything.
To this day, I can't eat Ramen without gagging.
The best part was giving birth on my aunt-in-law's couch tho. Go me! After that I could get a job and we moved into a 33 foot travel trailer, so things improved, but that was the "dirt Poor" period of my life. The first and last one.[/COLOR]
i cannot believe that your mother or aunt in law or sister wouldn't let you live with them when you were pregnant!! WTF???
[COLOR=indigo]My mother and I don't talk about that time, and it's mostly because if we did we'd fight and that would be the end of our relationship. At the time she told me that her landlord would not allow us to stay there unless we were married, so we got married, then two weeks later she kicked us out anyway, saying her landlord didn't want us staying there.
I didn't have the presence of mind to ask why her landlord had anything to do with who lived there in her 2 bedroom house, when it was only her living there.
My sister was already on state aid in a hud house with her three kids, and her roommate had 2 kids, and my husband didn't like kids. So we couldn't stay there.
And the Aunt in law is the one that kicked us out in the first place the previous june.[/COLOR]
Originally posted by OnyxCougar
[COLOR=indigo] my husband didn't like kids. So we couldn't stay there.[/COLOR]
You were pregnant at the time, and didn't see the doom implicit in this statement?
[COLOR=indigo]No, I was fully aware of his dislike for children when he asked me if 5 and 1/2 months was too late for an abortion. I said, "yes" and he said, "Well, you better do something or I'll kill it."
**and I really dont mean to hijack the thread, please continue this in the Philosophy forum, "Seriousness" thread.....**[/COLOR]
Originally posted by staceyv
thanks for asking...arsen and i are getting along well. i went to the gynocologist and found out i had a ruptured cyst in my uterus and that there's nothing he can do for me but prescribe pain relievers, so i will continue to work 3 weeks out of the month. my boss seems to be okay with it, as long as i ask in advance...and the week off work helps my arttitude a lot!
i am learning to speak russian. it's a challenge, but i like it.
i went to open mic this thursday and played the drums and people were dancing and everyone was saying how great i was for someone who only played for a year and doesn't own a drumset! i also sang karaoke that night at another bar and i got lots of compliments. it was the most fun i've had in a long time.
i am still living on potatoes and fish- but i found that i can eat frank's red hot sauce! yay. okay, i've covered my marriage, health, social life...oh, and financially-arsen is holding down this job and seems to be doing well. he sold a lot of cars this month.
i feel happy. there's no drama in my life right now, so i'm better able to handle all the other crap like my health...i also learned how to use a straightening iron on my hair and make it look longer, so i'm happy about that.
i guess i haven't been posting so much lately because i don't have anything major on my mind and that is always good! thanks for asking...are you sorry?
Good to hear that things are going ok. I am seeing a professional myself to help me deal better with my chronic illness. He taught me a really cool relaxation exercise to do to un-stress myself (because stress tends to exacerbate bad health). If you (or anyone else) is interested, I could share this technique with you. It's really good...the first time I tried it, I was pain free for several hours (the good doc said that it helps to release certain hormones in the brain to relieve pain). Just a suggestion to help the next time you are going through stressful times.
:)
Dirt poor eh? I'm perpetually broke, but I remember when I was in college, I was working 3 part time jobs, but couldn't keep up the pace. I quickly ran out of money and having realized I am a libertarian I would not take government loans or grants so I had to drop out. My father had money but wouldn't give me any. I ended up in a weekly apartment in a bad area of Las Vegas with this punk rocker friend of mine and his girlfriend. If we were one hour late on the rent they put a lock on the doorknob so we couldn't get in. We broke the lock on the window so we could sneak in and sleep at night until we could pay rent.
I remember having to "dine and ditch" for a 49 cent breakfast at the El Cortez once. We would donate plasma twice a week so we could eat. Eventually we got jobs at the plasma place. I later got a job at a crappy second run movie theater and the popcorn helped me survive for a long time.
It really sucked for me because at least he had a girlfriend. They'd pin up a blanket and have sex on the other side of it which only made me feel even more like a failure.
But no matter how poor I was, or how starving I was, I would never take any money from the government because I'm not a thief. In fact I even went back and paid for that 49 cent breakfast later.
Originally posted by Radar
I would never take any money from the government because I'm not a thief.
How would that make you a thief?
Post it baby. We all need a bit of pain free.
I grew up middle class, Dad 2 jobs, Mom 1. Any poverty was by choice as a young adult, and is a main reason why there are no kidlets in Warchville. (Remember I went and got that dern Art History degree to my parent's chagrin.) My rock bottom though was in the early 80s, giving plasma, ugh, for bus money to get to work. The poverty was hardly romantic.
I liked to find work at places that would feed you- small restaurants or hotels were great. I spent all of my 20s and most of my 30s with short term health insurance at best and consider myself so damn lucky nothing too terrible went down. I did some bartering for stuff and services, had my wisdom teeth out as part of a med study, at one point the Mr. found a great Dr. that was a music fan and would swap treatment for lessons. I'm big on thrift stores and reusing stuff. I can cook large batches of great, cheap, peasant food. Beans and rice.
There was no way that I could handle a classic office job on a permanent basis and the lack of $ was my choice. Now, some would probably consider me poor today, but to me, even with one rusty 20 yr old car... being able to take the Mr. to a physical therapist and get my teeth cleaned for a modest charge and hangout in a crumbling house we dont rent but will eventually own in 15 years... it feels oh so flush.
I think "poor" is really more a state of mind than just a condition of how full your wallet happens to be at a particular point in time.
For me, being poor has more to do with a feeling of hopelessness. That things are not going to get any better any time soon. There were times after I graduated college that I had zero money. I was in debt up to my eyeballs with no income, living in a shitty basement apartment, eating crap. But I knew it was just temporary. Not because I had anything specific lined up, but because I knew that I had things going for me, and that things would work out somehow. I was young, and carefree.
So, yes. There were times that I was below the official poverty level, and I lived accordingly. But even though I was technically poor, I didn't feel poor. If anything, I felt inconvenienced by a lack of money.
Now, I am the sole provider for a family of four. I have significantly more income than back then. But I feel poorer, because I don't see a potential for more in the future. I see that I'm just getting by now, and that expenses will rise in the future, and my salary probably won't be rising enough to meet them.
Don't get me wrong. I have a great life, and no complaints. It's just that in the financial area, I don't have the optimism and carefree feeling I used to have when I was young but poor.
When I was poor, I didn't feel poor. And now that I'm not poor, I do feel poor.
Interesting opinion glatt.
I have to admit, compared to most of these posts I've had it pretty damn easy, even at the worst of times.
I've lived on both ends of the scale now, being poor sucks, being in rich society sucks.
Originally posted by jaguar
Interesting opinion glatt.
Yeah. Well, maybe I just don't remember how bad it was and am all nostalgic and stuff.
But I really never felt bad back then for having no money. Maybe I wasn't poor enough to feel it.
For me, glatt, the feeling bad about being poor comes because there are other people involved. I don't mind making sacrifices myself, and I'm very good at living very cheaply--when I was poor in college I knew it, but like you said, I didn't feel bad about my situation. But when spouses and kids became involved, suddenly I was very aware of how my situation stacked up with the "average" and felt bad about where I was.
Perth and I went through a time before we were married where I had a budget of $8.00 for groceries per month. We use to fight over the sesame chicken flavored ramen and I made fried potatoes almost every night. This was about 5 years ago.
Ok, who's noshed on the dried ramen noodles when there was no hot water or no time? Scavenged restaurant crackers? Other culinary strategies: A pal of mine talks of the delicate delights of wiener water soup. And of course Kraft dinner, aka ghetto noodles, made with water only. Umm.
Cheap ass Thai restaurant strategy: get some great veggie dish with some great sauce, like pad pak. eat half and take the rest home and use as starter flavor for a whole batch of soup to last youse the rest of the week. Add broth and any veggies you can find. or Ramen or pasta.
Who amongst us has put buffet food, gingerly wrapped in paper napkin, into their pockets or bag. Fess up.
Made meals of fast food condiments? Kfc has the best...
and stole their toliet paper, too....i'm so ashamed!
How would that make you a thief?
It would make you a theif because those programs are funded with stolen money.
And man I can't even tell you how much ramen I've eaten. Even very recently. But I've become an expert at it. And I shop in Mexican or Asian markets where you get 'em really cheap. (I don't spring for the Costco membership but sometimes tag along with those who do to buy stuff). Now I make 'em with a hotdog and an egg in them with kimchi if I can afford it. That's right Korean Ghetto style. I've also recently figured out to make rice (super cheap) and put taco bell taco sauce on it for flavor. Very filling.
My dad was REAAAAAAAALLLLY poor. They got ketchup packets from a nearby restaurant and put them in hot water for tomato soup. They'd put water in cereal when they had it, or if they had milk, they would put pieces of bread and sugar in it as cereal. They grew up in Poughkeepsie, NY (where I was born) which has HUGE amounts of snow and they couldn't afford jackets. My grandfather left my grandmother and dad when my dad was 8 and my dad had to start working at age 9. That's why my dad refused to help me with college. I assumed his being poor would mean he would try to make sure I got to go, but he said, "Nobody did it for me...so you do it for yourself." And he would have a point except for the fact the he never went to college.
I know how to stretch a dollar though. Even know I know when to buy rice, potatos, and ramen.
That's not Atkins though, brother. What you need to do is get some chickens and let them go out and find the food while you mooch off them by swiping their eggs. Its funny, I've switched over to eggs in the morning and I'm losing weight because I'm not hungry at lunch, so salad is enough... Anyway, if you look around the third world chickens = cheap protein.
Originally posted by Radar
It would make you a theif because those programs are funded with stolen money.
That's not an explanation, that's bait.
I'll bite though.
*everyone join in* How is it stolen?
And I'm no thief. I'm recouping some of my taxes before the cut financial aid so thin that you have to be a paraplegic, lesbian, Inuit, deaf, mute with two generations of unemployment behind you.
And in the current context...
Fried balogna sandwiches and rice by the 20 pound bag.
I started going out of state during the summer to stay with relatives that lived in areas that had jobs.
i get a rotissere chicken for lunch almost every day. I eat the whole thing, too. $5.99 and it keeps me full until I get home around 10, and then i just snack.....cost effective protien.
Originally posted by lumberjim
i get a rotissere chicken for lunch almost every day. I eat the whole thing, too. $5.99 and it keeps me full until I get home around 10, and then i just snack.....cost effective protien.
Impressive.
And I thought my hamburger po boy was bad. Two half pound patties on a foot long piece of french bread. A platter of fries and a bottomless glass of sweet iced tea.
[COLOR=indigo]Griff, you don't happen to play MUD's, do you?[/COLOR]
Nope. I was a D&D guy back in the day though. Are MUD's similar?
[COLOR=indigo]Sometimes. Just wondering because there is a Griff on a MUD I used to play, his character was a very large, very respected cat/man, who's favorite occupation was hunting down and sleeping next to all the comfy spots in the game. He was very wise. Just thought I'd ask. :)[/COLOR]
*everyone join in* How is it stolen?
Tax is theft. If you don't pay it, men with guns come to lock you up or shoot you if you resist. It's robbery.
And if you don't accept the money, you're not contributing to the theft and you're not accepting stolen property. I know a few libertarian hypocrites who make me sick. They will accept such money and say they're just getting their own money back, but by taking it, they are perpetuating the robbery. And when you take the money it's not only your own.
I seriously wasn't "baiting". I was making a statement for myself. But since you asked (and you'll be sorry you did) I've taken a little while to type of an excerpt from Robert J Ringer's Book "Restoring the American Dream"
Robert J. Ringer put it this way...
[COLOR=darkblue]
When at all possible, neither ask for nor accept government favors, handouts, or benefits of any kind. While the realities of monopoly and coercion leave you no choice but to use some government services (roads, libraries, postal system, etc), you should demonstrate your independence, individuality, and self-esteem by refusing to participate in the theft of other people's property wherever possible. Nothing can be more devastating to vote-conscious politicians than to have their free-lunch offers refused.
Remember, in the final analysis it is the voters who are responsible for deficit-spending and inflation, because it is their Expediency Factors, which encourage to take politically expedient actions. The government problem is therefore perpetuated by the fact that most citizens continue to clamor for their "share" - and more.
If you would rather be part of the solution than part of the problem, you should ask only one thing of government: to be left alone! Every individual who stops asking for and accepting handouts lessens government's motivation to steal.
The question that comes to mind of course, is who will take the first step? Who will be the first to give up his free ride, while millions of others are still benefiting from the theft? The answer is
you. If just ever person who reads this book would state his feelings to friends and acquaintances, it could cause a substantial ripple.
The cycle must be broken: politicians make politically expedient promises to get elected, violate the rights of citizens in order to carry out those promises, borrow money (which cannot be repaid) and inflate the currency (to pay for promises that cannot be covered by direct taxation and borrowing) - all of which help to destroy incentive and demoralize the public. The public in turn calls for government controls on business in response to politicians who mislead them as to the real source of their problems. The final effect of all this is to destroy production and employment.
The first step toward breaking this cycle is for you, the expediency-minded voter, to stop being fooled by short-term benefits designed only to capture votes. Start thinking long term, which means being concerned about economic collapse and loss of freedom.
Forget about what has been stolen from you in the past and what is being stolen from you right now. If one were to insist that government reimburse him for every dollar it has taken from him, he could use that as an excuse to keep accepting government benefits forever. It is true that you will have to stand by and watch others get the benefit of your stolen dollars, but if individualism and self-responsibility can be popularized once more, that situation could improve each year. The point is there has to be a first step; otherwise we shall all take the
last step - together - in the near future.
You may feel that this is totally unfair, and, in theory, you are absolutely right. Perhaps, for example, you have paid heavily to enable others to receive Social Security payments and you are looking forward to an early retirement loaded with "free" benefits. But the point I am trying to make - indeed, a central point of this book - is this: If our something-for-nothing fantasy does not soon end, there may not
be any benefits for you when your time comes; indeed, there may not be a retirement for you at all!
If the economy continues on its present course, it must self-destruct, meaning not only that you will still be working long after the time you had planned to retire, but that you will be working at a job that government chooses for you, during the working hours it dictates to you, and for the wages it decides to pay you.
Everyone who receives a government check of any kind - which includes most Americans - is contributing to the destruction of America. This includes welfare checks, subsidy checks, government payroll checks, and any other kind of government check.
This is what I believe every citizen today should ask himself: Is my pension, my welfare check, my subsidy, my government salary - is my piece of the government pie - worth it to me if it means my children will live in a police state, a police state brought on by the financial collapse of America? Is it worth it to me if such a collapse and ensuing totalitarian rule occurs during
my own lifetime?
If you now work for the government, the biggest contribution you can make to America is to quit your job and find work in the private sector. If you are responsible and conscientious, the marketplace is full of opportunities for you. And when you put your efforts into private industry, you will be producing wealth - i.e., products and services that people
want, not services people are
forced to take.
Likewise,
if you are in a financial position to do so, notify the government that you wish to forfeit Social Security and all other benefits which may be due you. Every action of this kind helps to contribute to the solution, without the need to become involved in any group movement.
Speaking for myself, I don't want any favors or benefits of any kind from government, no matter how much government takes from me by force. I do not want Social Security; I do not want subsidies; and I certainly do not want government "protecting me" from myself, whether such presumptuous "protection" involves foods, medications, or safety devices. I decline government "help" in all these areas, maintaining a staunch conviction that I am quite capable of making all decisions regarding my own well-being.
We must all grow up. We must all become wary of anyone - especially the politician - who implies that people can live without producing. Government favors, services and handouts of all kinds involve theft, and the proceeds of such theft must be refused whenever and wherever circumstances permit us to do so.
Intellectually, the morality of theft must be refuted at
all times.[/COLOR]
Originally posted by glatt
Yeah. Well, maybe I just don't remember how bad it was and am all nostalgic and stuff.
But I really never felt bad back then for having no money. Maybe I wasn't poor enough to feel it.
Off topic, glatt, I was going to ask if you were Jewish since 'glatt' is a Yiddish term used to define some of the rules for kosher.
What is Glatt Kosher?Originally posted by Radar
[COLOR=darkblue]When at all possible, neither ask for nor accept government favors, handouts, or benefits of any kind. While the realities of monopoly and coercion leave you no choice but to use some government services (roads, libraries, postal system, etc), you should demonstrate your independence, individuality, and self-esteem by refusing to participate in the theft of other people's property wherever possible. [/i][/COLOR]
Interesting concept, but it leaves me wondering how my disabled son would survive. He is cognitively incapable of sustaining anything more than the most meager job. Without his Social Security disability check, he would be forced to live on about $400 a month.
So what *is* the solution for care and feeding of the infirm amongst us in a nation with no taxation?
So what *is* the solution for care and feeding of the infirm amongst us in a nation with no taxation?
Without taxation, you would have MORE assistance for your child. People give less to charities because they actually believe government programs are helping people. If government today ended all of these programs and people could keep all of what they earn, non-profit charities would get donations through the roof. Government keeps 85 cents of every dollar collected for overhead as opposed to 12-15 cents of every dollar for non-profits. Even if only 1/3 of the money was collected that is currently being collected in taxes, the sick, elderly, and and needy would get much more help than they already do. And the people helping them would be those who genuinely care about them rather than glorified DMV workers.
Without taxation, you would have MORE assistance for your child. People give less to charities because they actually believe government programs are helping people.
Let me just say for Splode and the rest of the world ,
BULL FUCKING SHIT !!!!!!
Poeple give to chariteys because they can wright it off on their taxes , and THAT is the only reason most folks contribute .
Now i have no problem helping out some body that NEEDS help , its the low lifes that live off charity of others because they can that gripes my ass !!!!!!
Originally posted by richlevy
Off topic, glatt, I was going to ask if you were Jewish since 'glatt' is a Yiddish term used to define some of the rules for kosher.
What is Glatt Kosher?
Nope. Not Jewish. Glatt was a nickname I picked up in college. It's German for "smooth." I studied German, and was anything but smooth in college. It just kind of stuck.
None of my current friends know me as Glatt, but I figure it's a good name to use as a user ID.
Radar's political ideology is usually delivered by small fairies in a chariot drawn by unicorns, don't feed the trolls.
No, what I'm proposing is a real world solution to real world problems. Americans are the most generous people on earth. Every time there is a disaster somewhere, Americans pull together to help out. The problem is many can't afford to help out because their money is being stolen from them.
People don't give to charity only because they will get tax breaks. The Maximum tax break you can get from charity no matter how many millions you donate is $1,500 per year. And to say they only give it for tax breaks is not only a distorted and pessimistic view of people, it's also entirely inaccurate. We haven't always had income taxes, but we've always had charity. Bill Gates has given 3 BILLION DOLLARS to charity. Are you honestly stupid enough to say he did it for a tax break?
Private charities would only need to collect a fraction of what the government collects to provide MORE benefits to those in need and it would be voluntary so there wouldn't be any resentment. That's not an opinion, it's a fact. Private charities are run by people who genuinely care about those in need as opposed by those glorified DMV workers who look at needy people with contempt.
With illegal government programs funded by theft gone, the outpouring of voluntary assistance for the needy would be overwhelming. Ask yourself this question. "If every single government social program disappeared today and you got to keep every penny you had earned, would you use some of it to help the needy members of your family, friends, or community?" The vast majority of people say "Yes". But those who support government theft discussed think that they are the only people who would. Or that it's somehow impossible to do it privately, which is of course ridiculous and without merit.
If only 50% (far more than 50% do answer yes) of the people who were asked the question I previously asked said they would donate to charity knowing there were no government programs, the people in need would see their benefits more than triple.
Perhaps those who support government theft think they are the only people with a conscience? Or they believe people are inheriently uncaring and bad? In either case, they are completely wrong and are living in reality. Instead they live in a nightmare and I pity them.
Some Libertarians have proposed that as long as we DO have income taxes, that we should institute a dollar-for-dollar tax break for every dollar donated to a non-profit charity that provides services people would otherwise get from the government. For instance shelters, work re-training, medical care, education, etc. This means each tax payer would have a choice to send their money to Washington D.C. where it could be sent to other countries or they can choose to send a poor American child to a private school, to get medicine to sick people, to help elderly people and poor people get electricity and food, etc. Which choice would you make?
So, Radar, how would say, road building be financed? And are you saying that education should all be private, with parents paying schools directly for their childrens' education.
Curious mind wants to know (sorry folks).
Without a single penny collected from income taxes, 100% of the Constitutional parts of government could be paid for with the tariffs and excise taxes already collected (though I would make them a flat rate for all countries for a more balanced and free trade). That includes roads, a post office, a judiciary, congress, president, defensive military, etc.
And yes, even in a fairly low income family, when people got to keep all of their own money, they would be able to afford to pay private schools (superior education) directly for their children's education. The average price currently per student is double in public schools what it is in private schools and the private school education is better. Teachers in private schools also earn more so the schools attract the best teachers. The price of private school would drop even further as more private schools opened up and competition in a free market brings new and better ways of teaching at lower prices.
The very poor people who still couldn't afford it would rely on donations to private charities as mentioned in my other post. Even when income taxes were ended, corporations would still pay taxes because they are paying for the priviledge of doing protected business. Many corporations would rather use that tax money to send needy children to school than to give it to uncle sam.
What would be the contingency plan if people did not donate enough money? Wouldn't this require people to pay toward charities at least the same amount that they pay now in taxes in order to maintain these programs at their current levels? Theoretically, the cost for these programs would be similar, so wouldn't the amount the country would need from each person be similar? How would we make up for the gap left when some people take advantage of their right not to pay taxes?
I think it is a creative idea, Radar. I think the theory works, but I have doubt that the real world implementation would be so ideal.
I think you answered some of my questions in your last post while I was typing my last. :)
just a thought:
If we didn't have to pay taxes, don't you think employers would tend to pay us less?
Why are those (excise, "tariffs", etc.) taxes not theft and why do they not have an economic impact while income taxes do?
While your economic theory is certainly from the deep end of the doomsday camp it's not fundamentally flawed. On the flipside it's been a matter of time ever since people realized they could vote themselves bread and circuses and will until fiat currency collapses. The market has a way of sorting these things out though. The biggest problem at the moment is a tad ironic: Japan is in the long term, fucking america hardcore. They're buying everything the treasury has to offer with printed yen to encourage inflation and press down the yen, thus treasury yields are shithouse (which pisses off people like me who liked them) and makes debt look cheap for governments. When they stop buying them, yeilds will rise causing MASSIVE problems for fiscal policy. The economist in particular has been harping this line for a fair while now. Don't ask me how the game ends.
So...um....how exactly does this work with essential services exactly. Do I have to pay the postman every time I want my letter delivered? Pave a road to the local store myself? Can I then charge people to use it?
Pull out of your ass social theory and fuzzy-beyond-analyisis numbers aside wouldn't this mostly result in the disadvantaged having a choice between starving and swallowing some religious bullshit to get a meal?
Look I agree good fiscal policy is needed but I do not agree with your answer.
What would be the contingency plan if people did not donate enough money? Wouldn't this require people to pay toward charities at least the same amount that they pay now in taxes in order to maintain these programs at their current levels?
Life doesn't have safety nets and government isn't here to provide them. Some people act irresponsibly, and that's unfortunate. I think if young people see that you don't have a safety net and must rely on voluntary charity from your friends, family, neighbors, churches, and non-profit charities for health care, food, shelter, etc, they will be more apt to take their personal responsibilities more seriously.
People would only have to donate a fraction of what is currently collected in taxes to maintain the same or better level of assistance currently offered by government. As I mentioned earlier, government on average keeps 85 cents of every tax dollar marked for these
charity (it's not charity if it's forced) programs and those in need get less than 15%. The opposite is true of private charities, which on average only require 12%-15% in overhead while 85% or more makes it to those in need.
Wow, you guys are posting fast and furiously, I'll try to keep up.
If we didn't have to pay taxes, don't you think employers would tend to pay us less?
Some might, but I think most would think they could pay the same amount, and have happier and more productive employees. They look like a hero and don't have to pay a dime more. In either case, the economy would be doing better because when people got to keep what they earn, more people could start new businesses offering more jobs to people. The increased competition in the market would drive wages upward.
So...um....how exactly does this work with essential services exactly. Do I have to pay the postman every time I want my letter delivered? Pave a road to the local store myself? Can I then charge people to use it?
Who pays for local roads right now? Your town or county through property taxes. Property taxes are fees to pay for police, firefighters, parks, and local roads. I don't see that changing. But I do support toll roads. All of the toll roads I've been on in CA are better maintained, traffic is smoother, etc. And with lots of them, the costs would remain very low and reasonable. That way those who use it pay for it, and those who don't do not. As far as a postal service, there would no longer be a monopoly. You could choose your postal service and arrange payments with them. My guess is some would offer a monthly fee, some would have postage meters, etc. and all would be faster, cheaper, and more efficient.
Pull out of your ass social theory and fuzzy-beyond-analyisis numbers aside wouldn't this mostly result in the disadvantaged having a choice between starving and swallowing some religious bullshit to get a meal?
There are many non-profits that are not affiliated with any religion. And those are the only ones I personally donate to. More would crop up with government out of the picture. But if I'm starving and cold and someone says I can have a hot meal, a shower, and a place to sleep in exchange for hearing thier religious pitch, I might go for it.
As far as economics are concerned, mine are extremely sound. Sadly many Americans don't understand the concept of inflation. They look at politicians on television pointing to higher prices as though
THAT were inflation. The politicians promise to fight politician, but
THEY are the cause of it. All the government would have to do to stop inflation is turn off the printing presses, cut the unconstitutional parts of government, and back our money with something of value instead of empty promises by government. We'd eliminate the illegal federal reserve system entirely.
Why are those (excise, "tariffs", etc.) taxes not theft and why do they not have an economic impact while income taxes do?
Tariffs are a fee paid for the priviledge of selling foreign goods in America. In most cases, labor in other nations is far cheaper (thanks to inflation caused by politicians) so the fee is negligable for those importing the goods and they still have a chance to compete fairly. Do these things have an economic impact? Unfortuantely yes. This is a non-direct hidden tax on consumers because the cost is passed on by those importing the goods onto them in the form of higher prices. Not necessarily higher than the goods made in America, but higher than they might have been otherwise. Income taxes aren't as much about economic impact as social impact. We each own our own bodies, minds, and labor. And nobody has a claim on the fruits of our labor but ourselves. To take it by force is theft and slavery. Some would argue that you get something back for the money that's taken so it's somehow not theft but of course they are wrong.
If I put a gun to your head and tell you to give me your watch, and then I give you money before leaving, you have still been robbed. And even if I stupidly give you more money than the watch is worth, you have still been robbed.
So they are theft, and do have an economic impact (we haven't even gone into the international value of the dollar or the impact to American trade overseas of competing tariffs)...
...but are acceptable because they do not have as deeply a social impact.
Now, what was your complaint against the Georgists again?
My complaint against Georgists is that they are socialists who think they are entitled to something for nothing. They deny that land can be owned. They might as well deny that gravity exists.
I would like to know how exactly you are qualified to judge your economics as extremely sound. They have merit but they are by no distance bulletproof, do you think you're years ahead of the entire economic world?
I work with economists, financial analysts and traders on a daily basis. What you are suggesting would cause nothing short of economic chaos, particularly the idea of abolishing reserves, how do you propose to exercise anywhere near the level of economic finesse exercised by central banks these days (which is responsible, along with a bit of luck for unparalleled economic stability) without basic tools. God knows the only reason Japan is finally crawling out of the hole is due to effective monetary policy of printing money and filling their coffers with foreign currency.
Judging by your posts and discourse I'd say you have a fairly solid understanding of rudimentry economic concepts and theory but little or no understanding of how the international financial system works on a day-to-day basis.
Economics is a fairly easy topic. The problem is you get economists, and other people trying to make it more complicated than it really is.
No Federal Reserve + Fiat Based Currency = No Inflation + Economic Stability
The only stability we've gotten from the Federal Reserve is our money steadily becoming worth less and less.
tehehehehehehehehhahahahAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
God you're a gem. Send that one off to Alan Greenspan, I'm sure the revelation that economics is quite so infantile in complexity and solutions so obvious will change his thinking entirely.
Let me revise.
Judging by your posts and discourse I'd say you have a poor and most likely deeply flawed understanding of rudimentry economic concepts and theory but little or no understanding of how the international financial system works on a day-to-day basis as well as little or no understanding of economic history.
I don't care what your opinion is of me. My knowledge of how economics works is very solid. And economics don't change when dealing internationally.
When you've got something to back your money, your money is worth something (fiat based currency). When you print more money than you have of something to back it up, money is worth less. It doesn't take a brain surgeon.
The Federal Reserve is an illegal organization in the first place and so was the Federal Reserve Act. The Constitution says that ONLY government may make money. And common sense dictates that money be worth something whether it be gold, oil, or some other commodity.
Judging by your posts, you are someone who barely knows economics but who thinks themselves above others because they know a few buzzwords and formulas that do nothing but hide what's really happening. The Federal Reserve is totally unnecessary and those who think it is, don't know shit about economics. That means you, Alan Greenspan, and anyone else who fits the description.
I'll stick with Nobel Prize winning economists like James Buchanan, Milton Friedman Friedrich Hayek, and Vernon Smith thanks.
That's nice. You go tell the fairies how Federal Reserve is illegal and if everyone stops printing money the world will exist in perfect economic peace and I'll go back to working in the real world with real money on real markets and all the complexities involved in doing so.
One final question, mostly out of morbid curiosity, do you actually think there is no different between macro and micro economics?
Getting back to the how-does-Elspode's-son-live hypothetical...
(Correct me if I'm wrong on any of these steps: )
So, in your ideal world, beyond the actual goods-and-services charities, like a meal and a place to sleep for the night, would there be straight-up money charities? It sounds like his son is capable of living on his own, he just can't work at a capacity to make enough money to live. BUT... if there are charities where you can just get a check, what's to stop those who want to from collecting such a check from EVERY charity?
Right now, because there's really only one place to go and get money directly, you can't collect more than once unless you start stealing Social Security numbers (don't get me wrong, I think Social Security is a scam, I'm just trying to figure out how this new system would work.) Would all the new charities that pop up have to be sure to communicate with each other, make sure no one's taking $300 a month or whatever from all of them? I think charities that gave actual money would soon disappear.
So let's say, instead, the charities won't give you money directly, but they'll pay your landlord directly. What's to stop the landlord from collecting multiple times and giving kickbacks to the person living there?
So where does that leave Elspode's son? He would have to rely on someone providing him with all his goods-and-services directly, since in theory there's no advantage to having them duplicated. Ok, so effectively, he'd have to live in a "home" where everything would be taken care of for him.
But a lot of people simply couldn't live like that. Would someone with Multiple Sclerosis have to live in a dorm with a bunch of people with Down's Syndrome, just because his muscles wouldn't enable him to work more than part-time? A lot of folks would consider it degrading, both being lumped in with people with all sorts of disabilities, as well as giving up so much independence when they really only need a little help.
If all direct payments for people on Social Security were removed, you'd have to have a big shift in how the benefits of charity were realized. If you were put in charge of an extremely large non-profit charity group, that could cover a lot of different needs, how would you structure it?
Originally posted by jinx
I'm interested.
I'll PM ya in a bit. :)
Originally posted by Radar
Without taxation, you would have MORE assistance for your child. People give less to charities because they actually believe government programs are helping people.
Really? I thought people give less because...they just.don't.want to contribute.
If government today ended all of these programs and people could keep all of what they earn, non-profit charities would get donations through the roof.
You'd better hope they do. Misers would still exist, so donations would probably not go up THAT much....
At any rate, I'm still wondering how I'm stealing money that I put in the kitty for me to collect on anyway?
*irony: I just received my SSDI check today and put it in the bank, and no one is about to take that money away from me, or else I'll fucking stab them in the eyeball with a heated needle...point blank, end of story* :rar:
I have been avoiding this discussion as a pointless wate of time, but I guess I’m feeling self destructive today. How to set aside my feelings of rage and attempt to gain understanding? Well, I’ll practice on you guys, but I’ll say at the outset that I’m pessimistic about by ability to reach anyone.
I’ll start with the question of poverty first. For the sake of this discussion, lets set aside the percieved or real situation of welfare mom’s or illegal immigrants who come across the border solely to live at the US government’s expense. I’ll write merely of the plight of the disabled – a plight which I know intimately since I am only just now recovering from a long term disability myself. I am further going to limit my discussion to people who did not have private disability insurance at the onset of their disabling condition or become disabled due to an injury that was covered under workman’s comp.
There are about 7.5 million disabled Americans who fall under the criteria I listed above. Anyone who wishes to check this for themselves can start with the National Center for Disability Statistics
http://www.dsc.ucsf.edu/main.php?name=publications
These 7.5 million have incomes of less than $6,000 a year (There are far more than 7.5 disabled Americans, by the way. A significant presentage of these live in poverty. I’m talking only about those who live BELOW the poverty line here).
I have experienced the temporary poverty brought on by college expenses and youthful flings of adventure. I’ve eaten bean loaf and never turned the thermostat above 55 degrees because I had to buy text books. My car has broken down thousands of miles from home and I’ve had my money and passport stolen in Mexico and had to hitch hike back to the States. There were periods in my life when my income derived solely from a minimum wage job and I drove my car mostly on gas fumes and prayed for long down hill coasts. These things were trivial compared to what I experienced as a disabled individual without private insurance in the US today.
The very worst part was the despair. I knew I could get back on my feet with medical help, but there was NO medical help, just the occasional band aid here and there. I wanted to work, but I couldn’t. Time after time my neurological impairments caused employers to fire me from even the most menial jobs. After a while I lost all hope along with everything else. I went through every penny I had saved or invested, sold off every last thing I owned of any value in my bitter struggle to survive. When all my resources were exhausted I found myself out on the streets and I ended up camping on National Forest land for three months until I was able to find shelter indoors. I had food stamps but they only give you enough to buy your ramen and rice and beans for 3 weeks of the month. The final week of the month I went hungry unless somebody gave me the $3.00 to drive from my camp site to the nearest food bank in a town 30 miles from my camp. As a woman alone, I chose this isolation for reasons of personal safety. I figured my survival odds were higher than on the pavement of the urban area where I had been living. I didn’t have the money to buy a full month’s prescription of the expensive neurological meds I had been prescribed. I would run out of these at the end of each month as well, and be rendered almost incapable of functioning.
Each time I made the drive to the food bank I became an unwilling enemy of the state because I could not afford to insure my car of keep its plates current. In my state the penalty for driving without insurance is anywhere from 30 days to a year in jail. Sometimes I used to wonder if I wouldn’t be better off if I got pulled over because in jail I’d at least have shelter and a consistent (if not very good) supply of food. Despite the allure of jail, I lived in terror of being pulled over by the cops every time I made one of these survival runs.
The only source of distraction I had during this period was my car radio. In the isolated area I was camped in I was able to pick up a single radio station – a country/western one – that’s it. Even that I couldn’t listen to often for fear of running my car radio down. Every penny I had went to buying my meds. I had no choice because my neurological functioning deteriorated so much without them. I mean EVERY penny, too. I had no money for so much as an envelope and a stamp; no money for items of personal hygeine. If it didn’t come in my food bank box, I did without it. And always the despair, the despair, knowing that with proper medical evaluation and treatment I could do some sort of work again and knowing that without it I was doomed to a life spent living out of my car.
I waited 5 years to get medical assistance from this country. 5 long years, 4 of which I probably could have been a productive citizen again, standing on my own two feet just like I always had. Instead, I was in effect consigned to a human garbage heap while my health went steadily downhill for lack of proper medical care. My recovery has been made consiberably more complicated thanks to this long delay. I am not alone. My story has 7 .5 million variations but the people who could tell them lack the ability to be heard and, more importantly, the belief that anyone really cares to listen.
The disabled of this country are even more handicapped by the open prejudice they all too often encounter. People dismiss us as lazy druggies living off the government tit for lack of will to do better. We are all a bunch of shiftless cons in some people’s eyes. Let me tell you. There is NO government tit. Radar himself states this:
“Government keeps 85 cents of every dollar collected for overhead as opposed to 12-15 cents of every dollar for non-profits” Whatever the government does with this money, almost none of it is going to the needy disabled and charities are NOT taking up the slack.
Radar is espousing Libertarian beliefs with all the sunny innocence of a child. I’m sorry, but I don’t believe for a moment that Americans would take up the slack by an onslaught of charitable giving if their tax burden was taken away. For one thing most Americans find it incomprehensible that people could be reduced to such desperate circumstances in the good old US of A. For another, under libertarian anarchy people would remain largely uneducated about these and other issues. There would be no public libraries or school systems. The wealthy would give their children a good education. Everyone else would home school their children or forget about the whole thing entirely. On top of that, people would be too busy arming themselves to the teeth without police or fire protection. The disabled would be the last thing they thought about.
Radar advocates an end to all government services because he resents paying taxes. This is the real world, not some utopia. If the libertarians would put down their copies of Ayn Rand long enough to look out their windows, they might realize this. OK now, go ahead and attack me. I may respond or I may not. I’m feeling very tired.
Originally posted by Clodfobble
Would someone with Multiple Sclerosis have to live in a dorm with a bunch of people with Down's Syndrome, just because his muscles wouldn't enable him to work more than part-time? A lot of folks would consider it degrading, both being lumped in with people with all sorts of disabilities, as well as giving up so much independence when they really only need a little help.
Not to get off topic, but this reminded me a bit of when I started dialysis. I had to go to a clinic three times a week, and sit among older, more sickly people...people who were almost near death in some cases. This was not a comfortable situation for me for the last thing I wanted to think about was death during my early 30s. Thank goodness for peritoneal dialysis (where you can do the treatments at home, and on your own).
PS I just now looked at my post above and see any number of grammatical and spelling errors. My brain is still not hitting on all 6 cylinders, OK? No need for anyone to point this out to me. I may make spelling mistakes but this doesn't detract from either the reality or validity of what I describe.
Originally posted by marichiko
I waited 5 years to get medical assistance from this country. 5 long years, 4 of which I probably could have been a productive citizen again, standing on my own two feet just like I always had. Instead, I was in effect consigned to a human garbage heap while my health went steadily downhill for lack of proper medical care. My recovery has been made consiberably more complicated thanks to this long delay. I am not alone. My story has 7 .5 million variations but the people who could tell them lack the ability to be heard and, more importantly, the belief that anyone really cares to listen.
The disabled of this country are even more handicapped by the open prejudice they all too often encounter. People dismiss us as lazy druggies living off the government tit for lack of will to do better. We are all a bunch of shiftless cons in some people’s eyes.
Shout AMEN! I've heard that myself a number of times. And I tell anyone who thinks that of me that they are a pile of rancid dogshit and to go fuck themselves with an infected dick.
It was shitty that you had to wait five long years and had to suffer like you did. NO ONE should have to go through such crap. You could have died for fuck's sake!!!!
Let me tell you. There is NO government tit. Radar himself states this:
“Government keeps 85 cents of every dollar collected for overhead as opposed to 12-15 cents of every dollar for non-profits” Whatever the government does with this money, almost none of it is going to the needy disabled and charities are NOT taking up the slack.
Radar is espousing Libertarian beliefs with all the sunny innocence of a child. I’m sorry, but I don’t believe for a moment that Americans would take up the slack by an onslaught of charitable giving if their tax burden was taken away.
Neither do I. Think about it: suddenly, Americans can keep every single dime that they work for?? Well shit! "Hey honey, let's go on that vacation we've been dreaming about." "Wow, now we can get that luxury item that we've been saving up for!!" "How about we get that expensive bike that Johnny's been asking us about for ages?" Please! Reality check folks: as it stands now, people pick and choose which charities they want to donate to, and there are plenty that need money and don't get it.
For one thing most Americans find it incomprehensible that people could be reduced to such desperate circumstances in the good old US of A. For another, under libertarian anarchy people would remain largely uneducated about these and other issues. There would be no public libraries or school systems. The wealthy would give their children a good education. Everyone else would home school their children or forget about the whole thing entirely. On top of that, people would be too busy arming themselves to the teeth without police or fire protection. The disabled would be the last thing they thought about.
*standing ovation*
Radar advocates an end to all government services because he resents paying taxes. This is the real world, not some utopia. If the libertarians would put down their copies of Ayn Rand long enough to look out their windows, they might realize this. OK now, go ahead and attack me. I may respond or I may not. I’m feeling very tired.
Don't even sweat it. The world he's taking about won't even begin to happen in our lifetimes anyway. We're all living on borrowed time...who has time to wait for change? (at least, for THAT kind of change??)
Chronic illness has opened my eyes to a lot of things, and most of them are not so pretty. :mad:
Originally posted by marichiko
PS I just now looked at my post above and see any number of grammatical and spelling errors. My brain is still not hitting on all 6 cylinders, OK? No need for anyone to point this out to me. I may make spelling mistakes but this doesn't detract from either the reality or validity of what I describe.
If your own grammatical errors bother you then the edit button is your friend, if not then let them be. It's only really a problem if they can't be deciphered.
Originally posted by Troubleshooter
If your own grammatical errors bother you then the edit button is your friend, if not then let them be. It's only really a problem if they can't be deciphered.
Yep, and I didn't even notice any, because the message came through louder than and errors.
That's nice. You go tell the fairies how Federal Reserve is illegal and if everyone stops printing money the world will exist in perfect economic peace and I'll go back to working in the real world with real money on real markets and all the complexities involved in doing so.
You wish it was a fairy tale. The U.S. Constitution, Article 1 Section 8 gives
ONLY the U.S. Government the legal authority to make money and in Section 10, clause 1 the Constitution even goes further to prevent the states or anyone else from making money.
And I'll go on agreeing with those Nobel Prize winning economists who agree with what I'm saying and who would laugh at you.
Article 1 Section Clause 5: To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
Clause 6: To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
Section 10 - Clause 1: No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.
One final question, mostly out of morbid curiosity, do you actually think there is no different between macro and micro economics?
Fundamentally, all economics are the same.
Radar himself states this:
“Government keeps 85 cents of every dollar collected for overhead as opposed to 12-15 cents of every dollar for non-profits” Whatever the government does with this money, almost none of it is going to the needy disabled and charities are NOT taking up the slack.
The government taking so much there isn't enough left over to "take up the slack". With government gone and not taking the vast majority of money for charity, there wouldn't be any slack. And even when Americans are forced to work two jobs...one to pay the taxes...and the other to pay the bills, they still give generously to charities in America and abroad.
Radar is espousing Libertarian beliefs with all the sunny innocence of a child. I’m sorry, but I don’t believe for a moment that Americans would take up the slack by an onslaught of charitable giving if their tax burden was taken away
I am not espousing beliefs, I'm espousing facts. You are free to be a pessimist all you like. But nobody's needs regardless of how badly off they are, entitle them to rob others and no amount of rationalization will turn income taxes into anything but theft and slavery. Do you think because you are handicapped, you are entitled to rob others?
For another, under libertarian anarchy people would remain largely uneducated about these and other issues. There would be no public libraries or school systems.
That's laughable. First off with very few exceptions, libertarians are not anarchists. They advocate a small government that does only what it is allowed to do in the Constitution and nothing else. Smaller government = more freedom. Second, we'd have superior school systems that even poor families could attend, and privately owned libraries that were available to the public or public libraries that are funded locally instead of federally.
The wealthy would give their children a good education. Everyone else would home school their children or forget about the whole thing entirely. On top of that, people would be too busy arming themselves to the teeth without police or fire protection. The disabled would be the last thing they thought about.
Put down the crack pipe before you burn your lip. You start off by saying the wealthy would have a good education and the poor would be home schooled. Home-schooled kids perform better than those educated in private and in public schools. Watch the national spelling bee, geography bee, etc. so even if your false world were true, those who were home schooled would have a good education. But the truth is we'd have more schools with better teachers that even the poorest family could attend because they would be cheaper, and because companies would choose to use their tax money to send kids to school instead of sending it to the government. All kids of all income levels would have access to a far better education than the failed and worthless system currently in place, but kids wouldn't be COMPELLED to go by force. Libertarians certainly support anyone's right to home school their children without government oversight.
And the most ludicrous statement you've made is the one painting a post apocalyptic frenzy of people running through stores grabbing guns to defend themselves against the onslaught of marauding bandits. What a crock of shit. Apparently you think before the invention of income taxes we didn't have roads, libraries, a post office, police, or firefighters and the streets were full of people who would shoot you just as soon as look at you. But in reality (something you don't seem to know much about) crime was far lower before income taxes, education was better, and people had more freedom. For the record, I have no problem with people buying as many guns of any type they choose with any kind of ammo.
Your attempts to paint a libertarian America as a lawless America won't fly here chief so try selling that shit to someone else.
Radar advocates an end to all government services because he resents paying taxes.
No, I advocate an end to all unconstitutional government programs because they are illegal, and they are funded with stolen money. It's theft. You seem to think there is something wrong with someone resenting a person who is robbing them at the point of a gun. Your values are completely out of whack. You think the thief should be respected instead of resented, and there is something wrong with the person who dislikes being robbed or seeing others be robbed.
Your type are hilarious. You attempt to rationalize your desire to rob others. You think that if someone is against the government educating people poorly with stolen money, they are against people getting an education. You think if someone is against the government helping out the needy, they are against charity. I suppose you think if someone is against the government using stolen money to feed people, they are against eating.
This is the real world, not some utopia.
That's funny coming from you. Libertarians are the only people who don't believe in utopia. Libertarians are the only one offering real solutions that work in the real world right now. Not some fantasy where people are happy to be robbed and the government is actually helping people.
OK now, go ahead and attack me. I may respond or I may not. I’m feeling very tired.
I haven't attacked you, I've responded to your offensive diatribe promoting theft and attacked your warped value system….ok, I attacked you a little bit, but you deserved it. :) But it's ok, go ahead and continue your martyr bit. You're so good at it.
So let's say, instead, the charities won't give you money directly, but they'll pay your landlord directly. What's to stop the landlord from collecting multiple times and giving kickbacks to the person living there?
What's to stop someone from taking a chainsaw to every baby they see on the street? A conscience. But some might be unscroupulous. Do you think there aren't people who get away with that kind of stuff right now using the current system?
So where does that leave Elspode's son? He would have to rely on someone providing him with all his goods-and-services directly, since in theory there's no advantage to having them duplicated. Ok, so effectively, he'd have to live in a "home" where everything would be taken care of for him.
As far as I am concerned, charities are there to help people help themselves. I would imagine she would have to provide
some things for her son. And what makes you think businesses and people with lots of money since they aren't being robbed anymore won't give to a charity that does medical research, and builds large homes where parents can live with their kids like the Ronald McDonald house charities?
A lot of folks would consider it degrading, both being lumped in with people with all sorts of disabilities, as well as giving up so much independence when they really only need a little help.
A person would be free to approach as many charities as they like if they think they could get more assistance in living the lifestyle they wanted, but help wouldn't and shouldn't be guaranteed because nothing
entitles you to charity.
Don't even sweat it. The world he's taking about won't even begin to happen in our lifetimes anyway.
The
America I'm talking about was a reality for more than 100 years and it will be again.
Fundamentally, all economics are the same.
Well fundamentally, all languages are the same too, they consist of blocks that carry meaning. This does not however mean I can speak Russian because I speak English. You largely sidestepped my question.
Originally posted by Radar
those who genuinely care about them rather than glorified DMV workers.
There are some not-so-great people in social services, ones who have been in it too long, who are burned out, and who do just plain suck.
However, that is not true of the majority.
Actually, the ones who burn out (especially early) are the ones who DO care about their clients and truly bust their asses on their clients behalf.
I can assure you, radar, that I know a lot more case managers and direct care staff than you do ... from my own and other agencies.
Your "assessment" is without merit.
People who truly don't care can't do this kind of work.
Well fundamentally, all languages are the same too, they consist of blocks that carry meaning. This does not however mean I can speak Russian because I speak English. You largely sidestepped my question.
Actually I didn't sidestep the question, I've said that all economics are the same. It's funny that you should use the different language analogy though because that's all the difference between macro and micro economics....the language associated with it. Economics are the same whether you're handling your family budget or the budget for an huge international conglomerate.
I can assure you, radar, that I know a lot more case managers and direct care staff than you do ... from my own and other agencies.
I have had to wait in government lines and know of what I speak. I couldn't believe the rudeness and gall of some of the bureaucrats who are my civil
servants.
But it's just great that the people who are case workers in your area are so caring. Perhaps they'd do the same job well in the private charity arena with money given in good will rather than that stolen from people.
"But in reality (something you don't seem to know much about) crime was far lower before income taxes, education was better, and people had more freedom."
Class, please give a brief one page analysis of the population size and composition in the United States in the 19th versus 21st centuries. Extra credit: Discuss civil liberties in the two times.
You know, one reason why Ayn Rand could write as she did was because she was a Russian with little grounding in the American experience or American history. Presumably you don’t have the same excuse, Mr. Reality, I mean Radar. Yeah, the US and every other country in the world could get away with all sorts of things in the 19th century, including the abuse of personal liberties of which slavery is only the most obvious example. And if I go along with your theory that life was so much better in 19th century America before income taxes with no other economic or sociological factors taken into account, then I get to say stuff like “Well, you see, when they didn’t have income taxes, they had slaves. QED!” It makes as much of a logical argument as you do.
I want to see your statistics on literacy rates in the 1850’s versus the 1950’s. I want to see your analyses of the crime rate and personal safety, especially that of black Americans. I want you to give concrete examples of how people like child factory workers and slaves had more personal freedoms. If you are going to make such a statement, I want you to back it up with solid evidence, not rhetoric. When you have proved to me what a great place 19th century America was, I want you to prove that this was directly the result of no income taxes. I want hard facts and the use of logic in your conclusions.
You bet I cherish my right to keep and bear arms. I’ll need weapons in the case of any potential libertarian take-over. As a matter of fact, let the Libertarians and all those who espouse similar beliefs set up their own state or their own area of anarchy – however they would define it. Since we all live in the REAL world, I’m sure the good people of say, New Jersey or New Mexico would happily cede a portion of their state to the Libertarians since everyone is so disposed to be in a frenzy of charitable giving. And since the Libertarians are opposed to government handouts, we’ll even let them pay fair market value for their little bit of New Jersey. The sole stipulation will be that they leave for their new territory and never come back. I for one am sick and tired of having to engage with the libertarian voice in matters of national dialog. Bottom line, you don’t WANT a nation, so why don’t you retire from the scene and leave the rest of us in peace?
Go live in your “Libertaria” with no public schools or libraries or system of highways. No public health facilities or police protection or national mail distribution. These things should be no problem in the REAL world, right? There will be no tariffs, so anything and everything will flow freely both ways across their borders. Except people out – you’ve all signed an agreement, remember?
After five years of this experiment with everyone building their own roads and hiring their own thugs to protect them, sending their children to school while the children of the working class be damned (just how many of the working class will sign on for “Libertaria,” anyhow? The American worker is not as dumb as he may look), just how strong a border patrol will the US have to have to keep you crack pots from coming back in to the system you so despise? The current problem on our border with Mexico would pale by comparison. But its OK, Radar, I promise you that in such an event we’ll show you all the sympathy and compassion you have shown for the poor and disabled of your former country. Don’t let the door hit you in the ass when you go. After all, “America – love it or leave it!” Right?
“I suppose you think if someone is against the government using stolen money to feed people, they are against eating.”
Frankly, if that’s the only way people can be fed, then so be it. There’s a reason why Robin Hood became a cultural icon. By the way, they didn’t have income taxes back in Robin’s time, so why wasn’t he a bit merrier about the whole thing?
I couldn't believe the rudeness and gall of some of the bureaucrats who are my civil servants.
I'd love to hear what they say about you.:haha:
Originally posted by xoxoxoBruce
I'd love to hear what they say about you.:haha:
DITTO! ;)
Damn I started a shit storm !!!!!
Some body get Radar a cork for his mouth so it will quit raining shit !!!!
Radar, some kids have parents that are dumber than blocks of wood. Their children wouldn't learn to read if it was not for public education obligating those parents to take their children to school. Even then, these kids struggle because at home, education is not given any respect. Your brand of crazy would give those parents the freedom to give their children NO education whatsoever. That doesn't fly in my book, even if I have to pay a tax to insure the system is in place to guarantee education is available to everyone. You want to home school or private school, fine, but there has to be a way to insure that ALL children get educated. Here we can argue if the childless should have to pay into this, but that does not change the fact that this should exist even if only parents were obligated to pay into it.
Then we have the issue the disabled, the sick, the elderly. The government (if it worked properly), is a safety net for these people. Your brand of crazy would say these people are fucked if they have no insurance or family. That doesn't fly in my book, even if I have to pay a tax to insure the system is in place to provide a safety net for those who need it. And this should not be an optional charity donation. Everyone runs the risk of falling into an illness where the cost to get out is insurmountable, so everyone should pay into this safety net.
I'm not saying this bloated, bureaucratic mess of a government is doing a great job in the above functions, but a more ideal government would provide these functions efficiently.
Originally posted by zippyt
Damn I started a shit storm !!!!!
Some body get Radar a cork for his mouth so it will quit raining shit !!!!
No, no, no!!! This is great.
I'm making popcorn!!
GET THE FUCK OUTTA MY THREAD!!!
You bastards....last damn thread I start for you ingrates...I'm taking my ball and going home.
There is a fine, old, established cellar tradition of tread piracy.
Taxation and entitlements just happen to be a certain bull named Radar's red flag.
Originally posted by blue58
GET THE FUCK OUTTA MY THREAD!!!
You bastards....last damn thread I start for you ingrates...I'm taking my ball and going home.
Well, there goes blue ball(s):worried:
Whenever real change is necessary, one or two generations have to take it in the ass as payment for the following generations.
The trick is convincing those generations to bend over for it.
You also have to be sure that the price doesn't put the following generations so far back that they can't recover.
Originally posted by Troubleshooter
Whenever real change is necessary, one or two generations have to take it in the ass as payment for the following generations.
Er, might I ask what change you are referring to? (I always like to know the reason when someone walks up and wants everyone to take it up the poop shoot one more time)
Originally posted by marichiko
Er, might I ask what change you are referring to? (I always like to know the reason when someone walks up and wants everyone to take it up the poop shoot one more time)
I was of course speaking metaphorically, but say for instance that we all quit paying taxes.
When that source of funding dried up, and it would quickly dry up, we'd lose a bunch of the money going to education (as only one example). What would happen until something took up the slack?
We'd take it up the poop shoot as one of the sevices that, while they do suck, fills a necessary role is gone and then we end up with a generation of semi to non-literate, unskilled children to take up our banner into the next millenium.
Edit: grammatical issue corrected
Originally posted by Radar
Life doesn't have safety nets and government isn't here to provide them. Some people act irresponsibly, and that's unfortunate. I think if young people see that you don't have a safety net and must rely on voluntary charity from your friends, family, neighbors, churches, and non-profit charities for health care, food, shelter, etc, they will be more apt to take their personal responsibilities more seriously.
People would only have to donate a fraction of what is currently collected in taxes to maintain the same or better level of assistance currently offered by government. As I mentioned earlier, government on average keeps 85 cents of every tax dollar marked for these charity (it's not charity if it's forced) programs and those in need get less than 15%. The opposite is true of private charities, which on average only require 12%-15% in overhead while 85% or more makes it to those in need.
So how about some historical citation about how the disabled or handicapped were better off before big Federal government?
And I disagree that people will eagerly rush to do more charitable giving if they aren't taxed. We may be generous, but are we consistent? And will anyone distribute relief funds without hanging some sort of philosophical or theological baggage on it?
No one gives something for nothing now, I don't see how a lack of taxes is going to change that.
Now I'm a little more awake I feel I am going to have to call you on your dated theory. Doing otherwise I'm simply leaving the possability that others will fall from your simplistic understanding of economic texts that some feel were made a little to accessaible for those with not enough background.
What you are espousing is a very narrow view of an economic school of thought called monetarism that developed initially as opposition to Keynesian policies of demand management. This of course goes back further into older debates (Mercantilism vs Classical Economics in particular) but that's not relevant here. Of course even Friedman understood that the supply of money had to grow a little each year in line with the economy otherwise you get ickyicky deflation like Japan.
The theory goes that if you do that, market forces will solve pretty much everything else. Nice idea. Pity it never worked and certainly doesn't today. It was very trendy for a while, particularly around the early 1980s resulting in overanalyisis of every new money-supply stat for intel of interest rates movements.
The problem with this theory is relies on the basis that the relationship between money supply, nominal GDP and therefore inflation is stable. This is simply not the case in the real world. Velocity of circulation can simply change too rapidly and this can have a significant impact on the way money supply affects prices and output making it a very hamfisted approach.
There is a good reason central banks the world over dropped this policy in favor of simply setting target rates of inflation.
You would be well advised to look up more recent comments by Friedman in particular who admitted in 2003 that targeting money supply had not been a success. In particular:
'The use of quantity of money as a target has not been a success.' He added: 'I'm not sure I would as of today push it as hard as I once did.' (FT, 7 June 2003).
I can understand how you became attached to the passion of Friedman in particular but that's no excuse for expousing economic theory from the 70s, let's keep retro to flares thanks.
(edited for typos and clarification/extension of a couple of points)
Wow, I didn't check this thread all day yesterday and today, and man a lot of stuff went down. I am enjoying the exchange on this thread a great deal.
I just want to point out one little insignificant detail.
The Postal System is a self funded entity of the government. They take no tax or government money of any kind, and have been that way for a number of years now. While they don't get any money from the government they still have to ask congress if they want to raise the cost of stamps. In 2002 the Postal System went into the red with their finances. They asked congress for money to help them out of the red, and were turned down. They then asked congress if they could raise the cost of stamps a few cents to help them out of the red. Congress told them to reorganize there budget, because there would be no raise on the cost of stamps.
Like I said, an insignificant detail, but I just wanted to point out that the Postal System does not need government money to function.
Remember the names of these people who disagree with you Radar: they are called voters and governing them without their consent is the worst foul possible in politics.
Originally posted by jaguar
...
I can understand how you became attached to the passion of Friedman in particular but that's no excuse for expousing economic theory from the 70s, let's keep retro to flares thanks.
JAAGUAR! JAAGUAR! JAAGUAR! (Cheering loudly and jumping to her feet with arms over head, applauding wildly)
Thank you for the expert rebuttal of Libertarian economic so-called thought.
And to the poster who pointed out the way in which the postal service actually works these days, its not a minor point. If one is going to debate an issue, one better get the facts straight from the outset in order to make rational statements and conclusions.
I would also like to note that Radar is dead wrong about the funding of your local public library. As a former professional librarian I can state for a fact that public libraries are funded almost exclusively by the communities they serve. The amount they get from the Federal government is negligible. When a public library feels the need to increase the size of its collection or build a branch to serve a growing area of the community, the library board has to put the added expenditure to a vote of the people. If the community votes to tax itself for library services, it gets them. If not, it doesn't.
Libraries are a wonderful example of representative democracy at its finest. Go down and check yours out. The books on its shelves YOU paid for (if you want more, vote in an increase in the library's budget). YOU paid for the public internet service the library offers, YOU pay the salary of the person at the desk. The Feds don't. If you got a beef, you can go talk to the director or board yourself. YOU and every other voter in your town directly approved the existence of this building with all its books and tapes and videos and CD's. The public library is a far cry from government theft. If voters at the local level didn't approve it, it wouldn't be there.
Get your facts straight, Radar.
:beer: marichiko ;)
I should point out I'm not formally trained in Economics (to any degree of completion anyway), my experience is largely practical with most of the deeper theory coming later. For me this kind of theory is useful insofar as it helps me understand the logic of the day behind the moves and shakes of central banks.
I always assumed library funding was federal. I'm now wondering what it is in Australia (or Switzerland for that matter).
From exhibit A here it appears libertarians main platform is recycling outdated grandiose ideas that have no place in the real world as a moral platform.
I dug out some old textbooks on Keynes and others out of curiousity about a couple of points to do with this and I found this gem from Keynes himself:
"Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influences are usually slaves of some defunct economist"
Need I say more?
Originally posted by Radar
The America I'm talking about was a reality for more than 100 years and it will be again.
Well after we ALL are dead. You honestly think that the US government is suddenly NOW, after all this time having such power, is going to give that up??? Please. They are drunk with the power that they hold, and no one is going to "make" them give that up.
I have other things to worry about than to dream that this country is going to change THAT dramatically. :rolleyes:
Originally posted by marichiko
You bet I cherish my right to keep and bear arms. I’ll need weapons in the case of any potential libertarian take-over. As a matter of fact, let the Libertarians and all those who espouse similar beliefs set up their own state or their own area of anarchy – however they would define it. Since we all live in the REAL world, I’m sure the good people of say, New Jersey or New Mexico would happily cede a portion of their state to the Libertarians since everyone is so disposed to be in a frenzy of charitable giving. And since the Libertarians are opposed to government handouts, we’ll even let them pay fair market value for their little bit of New Jersey. The sole stipulation will be that they leave for their new territory and never come back. I for one am sick and tired of having to engage with the libertarian voice in matters of national dialog. Bottom line, you don’t WANT a nation, so why don’t you retire from the scene and leave the rest of us in peace?
Go live in your “Libertaria” with no public schools or libraries or system of highways. No public health facilities or police protection or national mail distribution. These things should be no problem in the REAL world, right? There will be no tariffs, so anything and everything will flow freely both ways across their borders. Except people out – you’ve all signed an agreement, remember?
After five years of this experiment with everyone building their own roads and hiring their own thugs to protect them, sending their children to school while the children of the working class be damned (just how many of the working class will sign on for “Libertaria,” anyhow? The American worker is not as dumb as he may look), just how strong a border patrol will the US have to have to keep you crack pots from coming back in to the system you so despise? The current problem on our border with Mexico would pale by comparison. But its OK, Radar, I promise you that in such an event we’ll show you all the sympathy and compassion you have shown for the poor and disabled of your former country. Don’t let the door hit you in the ass when you go. After all, “America – love it or leave it!” Right?
*STANDING OVATION GODDAMNIT!!!* :beer:
My God, I was nearly screaming when I read this (not in a bad way). I get so tired of his temper tantrums about how this country should be run, knowing that it's not going to happen anytime soon, and certainly, not THAT many people would agree to it. Hell, as many times as I been told to "go back to Africa", why doesn't he just leave and create his
OWN goddamned land, since this land isn't "good enough", or whatever the fuck. :rolleyes: Motherfuckdamnittohell already! {/rant} Ok, I'm done now. ;)
Originally posted by Undertoad
Remember the names of these people who disagree with you Radar: they are called voters and governing them without their consent is the worst foul possible in politics.
*applause*
That's an awesome statement UT (and perhaps a brilliant sig line as well). :thumb:
You OK now LadySyc??
You do have a way with words. :)
Originally posted by blue58
You OK now LadySyc??
You do have a way with words. :)
:haha: Yeah, I'm cool now. Just letting off a bit of steam.
Now back to our regularly scheduled program. :D
why doesn't he just leave and create his OWN goddamned land, since this land isn't "good enough", or whatever the fuck.
Actually, some national Libertarian organization (I forget which one) sort of decided to do just that. They chose New Hampshire, because it's the state with the laws already most closely matching their goals, and also because the population is small enough that several thousand people of a like mindset moving in could genuinely affect things.
Thousands have already moved, and around ten thousand have pledged to do so, IIRC.
Originally posted by Clodfobble
why doesn't he just leave and create his OWN goddamned land, since this land isn't "good enough", or whatever the fuck.
Actually, some national Libertarian organization (I forget which one) sort of decided to do just that. They chose New Hampshire, because it's the state with the laws already most closely matching their goals, and also because the population is small enough that several thousand people of a like mindset moving in could genuinely affect things.
Thousands have already moved, and around ten thousand have pledged to do so, IIRC.
You're referring to
The Free State Project.
The Free State Project is a plan in which 20,000 or more liberty-oriented people will move to New Hampshire, where they may work within the political system to reduce the size and scope of government. The success of the Free State Project would likely entail reductions in burdensome taxation and regulation, reforms in state and local law, an end to federal mandates, and a restoration of constitutional federalism, demonstrating the benefits of liberty to the rest of the nation and the world.
These people seem a little more reasonable than Radar though, on the surface at least.
Get your facts straight, Radar.
My facts are straight. I was the one who said we DID have public libraries before income taxes and I said they were funded locally. Pay attention.
I should point out I'm not formally trained in Economics
That's very apparent from your completely erroneous and backward critique of Nobel prize winning economists whose shadows you wouldn't be worthy to stand in and whose theories are as fresh today as the day they were written. Instead you go with the status quo which has been failing for decades.
As a matter of fact, let the Libertarians and all those who espouse similar beliefs set up their own state or their own area of anarchy – however they would define
You are genuinely insane. I don't mean that facetiously. Libertarians don't promote anarchy. Although it might seem that way to a statist who wants to benefit from robbery.
Since we all live in the REAL world, I’m sure the good people of say, New Jersey or New Mexico would happily cede a portion of their state to the Libertarians since everyone is so disposed to be in a frenzy of charitable giving.
Sorry, but you don't live in the real world. You live in a fantasy world and don't have a grasp on reality.
I for one am sick and tired of having to engage with the libertarian voice in matters of national dialog. Bottom line, you don’t WANT a nation, so why don’t you retire from the scene and leave the rest of us in peace?
You're sick and tired because you will always look stupid compared to libertarians. It must make you sick and tired to be proven wrong constantly. It must make you sick and tired to know that libertarians have always had real world solutions that actually work when you are promoting everything wrong in the world.
Libertarians
DO want a nation! We want the nation our founders fought and died to give us. We want the freedom, liberty, and justice that was stolen from us by the likes of YOU. If you don't want the freedom we are promoting, feel free to pack your bags and move to one of the failing socialist nations where they have so-called "free healthcare" like Canada that actually costs more than American healthcare.
Go live in your “Libertaria” with no public schools or libraries or system of highways. No public health facilities or police protection or national mail distribution.
Wow, you genuinely don't know shit about libertarianism (along with most other things). And knock off your lame ass bullshit of "libertaria". Libertarians DO NOT require or believe in utopia. People like you believe in utopia. You use false sayings like "free education" or "free healthcare". You live in a utopian fantasy where nobody minds being robbed. Well it's about time you woke up and took a look at the real world. Libertarians would have plenty of mail distribution of superior quality when compared to the USPS, a far better highway system, and better libraries. STOP TELLING YOUR BULLSHIT LIES TO THE CONTRARY!!!
You think if we don't want government to do something, that we won't have it at all. How typical of a statist. If you love nanny states so much, move to Vietnam or Cuba.
There will be no tariffs, so anything and everything will flow freely both ways across their borders. Except people out – you’ve all signed an agreement, remember?
Now you've gone off the deep end. I can't even figure out what the hell you're talking about. Did this happen in one of your drug induced hallucinations? What the hell agreement are you talking about?
After five years of this experiment with everyone building their own roads and hiring their own thugs to protect them, sending their children to school while the children of the working class be damned (just how many of the working class will sign on for “Libertaria,” anyhow? The American worker is not as dumb as he may look), just how strong a border patrol will the US have to have to keep you crack pots from coming back in to the system you so despise? The current problem on our border with Mexico would pale by comparison.
Put down the crack pipe and step away from it slowly. After 5 years of people having superior roads, more professional police, better schools for people of every class, more jobs, financial prosperity, and freedom, people all over the world will be clamoring to have a taste of the liberty, freedom, and opportunity offered in this country. The working class will be doing far better than they are now. And our borders would be open to all who would want to come to live and work here and to contribute just as they were when our nation was created. Immigrants created this country and made it the best on earth.
But its OK, Radar, I promise you that in such an event we’ll show you all the sympathy and compassion you have shown for the poor and disabled of your former country. Don’t let the door hit you in the ass when you go. After all, “America – love it or leave it!” Right?
I've shown
FAR MORE sympathy, compassion, and understanding to the plight of the elderly, disabled, and poor than you ever have. I am offering a system in which they will have better healthcare, more assistance than they have now, and more freedom for all Americans. I didn't say America love it or leave it, but America
WILL return to a Constitutional republic during my lifetime even if it requires a bloody revolution to make it happen. If you think you are owed something just because you have a perceived need you think you have, you won't be happy living in a free country. You are free to stay in America as long as you like as long as you don't expect to reach into someone else's pocket to take what they've earned by force. You're free to ask for help, but not to help yourself to someone else's hard earned income at the point of a gun. If you don't like that, I say TOO FUCKING BAD, GET OVER IT.
*STANDING OVATION GODDAMNIT!!!*
Great minds think alike, and this quote shows that the opposite is also true.
Hell, as many times as I been told to "go back to Africa", why doesn't he just leave and create his OWN goddamned land, since this land isn't "good enough", or whatever the fuck.
MY country was already created. The United States of America is it. The bottom line is you can learn to live with freedom and personal responsibility in America or learn to live elsewhere. It's that simple.
These people seem a little more reasonable than Radar though, on the surface at least.
Actually we had some here for a while. They were attacking Radar for not being Libertarian enough. It sounded like the Catholic/Protestant thing in Ireland, to me. They were the same only different and couldn't agree.
I realize what Radar's preaching isn't going to happen, but maybe if enough people are convinced it's the right way to go, they'll press their Congressmen. The pols aren't giving up real power but they might slack off on some issues to win votes.
Originally posted by xoxoxoBruce
They were attacking Radar for not being Libertarian enough.
*shudders*
Originally posted by Radar
If you think you are owed something just because you have a perceived need you think you have, you won't be happy living in a free country. You are free to stay in America as long as you like as long as you don't expect to reach into someone else's pocket to take what they've earned by force. You're free to ask for help, but not to help yourself to someone else's hard earned income at the point of a gun. If you don't like that, I say TOO FUCKING BAD, GET OVER IT.
I love it when Libertarians start foaming at the mouth. Try this one on for size, buy guy. I worked from the age of 16, paid social security and other taxes from the age of 18 - social security alone a good 1/3 of my hard earned money. I did this for over 25 years, then fought for 5 years to have the bastards return to me what was rightfully mine in the form of social security disability insurance payments. I have statements from 6 doctors and a Federal Judge about my "percieved" needs. If you or any other son of a bitch wants to come take MY money away from me, I'll see you in hell first. My SSDI comes from MY payments over a lifetime of solid productive work, and how dare you or any other Libertarian crazy attempt to deprive me of it? Come and try, Sweet Pea, I dare you!
Oh yeah, almost forgot:
Originally posted by Radar
Second, we'd have superior school systems that even poor families could attend, and privately owned libraries that were available to the public or public libraries that are funded locally instead of federally.
Originally posted by Radar
or
My facts are straight. I was the one who said we DID have public libraries before income taxes and I said they were funded locally. Pay attention.
You can't have it both ways, Radar. In one post you state one thing and then when you get called on it, you back pedal and state something else. Just WHO is on crack around here, anyhow? Personally, I never tried the stuff, but you seem to be enjoying SOMETHING that effects your thought. At least MY meds have helped with my memory problems, maybe YOU should try them.
Who says you can't have locally funded public libraries and privately funded libraries also?
My SSDI comes from MY payments over a lifetime of solid productive work, and how dare you or any other Libertarian crazy attempt to deprive me of it? Come and try, Sweet Pea, I dare you!
No problem. I will take away the all of Social Security, and you'll have to suffer through having improved benefits tough guy. Now don't make me come over there and kick over your wheel chair.
Originally posted by Radar
Now don't make me come over there and kick over your wheel chair.
Originally posted by Radar
......America WILL return to a Constitutional republic during my lifetime even if it requires a bloody revolution to make it happen......
He's such an optimist it scares me.
Originally posted by Radar
Who says you can't have locally funded public libraries and privately funded libraries also?
No problem. I will take away the all of Social Security, and you'll have to suffer through having improved benefits tough guy. Now don't make me come over there and kick over your wheel chair.
Hey, the more libraries, the better! God knows, the better informed our citizens, the less likely they are to vote libertarian.
Your last two sentences are priceless. I'm sure they will win the Libertarian party many voters. Wasn't it Hitler who said something about "useless eaters"?
pssst.... LJ... marichiko's a girl...
So Radar, point out how exactly I am wrong then. By me I mean me, every Central Banker on earth, mainstream economics and Freidman himself of course.
I'm curious, lets have a bit of discourse in detail here, how exactly is it that the unpredictable nature of velocity of circulation doesn't mess with monetarism?
The cornerstone here is MV = PT (the Fisher equation) where where M is the stock of money, V is velocity of circulation, P is the average price level and T is transactions in the economy. I assume, since you have a superior understanding to every economist on earth that you're familiar with all these concepts. Now, it's fairly obvious for this to work that V and T are both constant, correct? At least in the short term. Thus any change in M leads to a direct change in P. That is the backbone Quantity Theory of Money on whose shoulders monetarism rests.
The first challenge to this came, unsurprisingly from Keynes: Increases in the money supply seem to lead to a fall in the velocity of circulation and increases in real income, which threw things a little out of wack. Friedman's response was that they only moved in stable, predictable ways. Of course when it actually came time to put these ideas into practice, they failed, miserably and Freidman conceded the theory was a failure.
Rather than sticking your fingers in your ears and going 'nanananyou'rewrongandi'mright' how about engaging me here, no, really, explain how Friedman, Nobel prize winner and all is wrong about his own theory.
I love the way Radar is so sure he's right he's willing to go against the will of the people (and cause many deaths) to impose his ridiculous 'state' on them. Maybe your government should stop spending money to fingerprint Swiss tourists and spend a little more keeping an eye on their home-grown nutters.
Originally posted by Clodfobble
pssst.... LJ... marichiko's a girl...
Yeah, I know. Guess I should pick on somebody my own size. Didn't mean to intimidate you, Radar.;)
I'm still waiting for my historical citation of how the disabled were better off before Social Security Disability and Medicare...
Originally posted by Elspode
I'm still waiting for my historical citation of how the disabled were better off before Social Security Disability and Medicare...
Step in line, Patirck. I think you are right in place between Jaguar waiting for a response to his questions on economics and me wanting to hear about literacy rates and personal freedoms in the 19th century. Radar appears to be great at threats and rather short on logic. I'd prepare myself for a long wait if I were you.
But when it comes to random insubstantiated insults, well, if elected we could run the whole economy on hot air.
Originally posted by marichiko
Step in line, Patirck. I think you are right in place between Jaguar waiting for a response to his questions on economics and me wanting to hear about literacy rates and personal freedoms in the 19th century. Radar appears to be great at threats and rather short on logic. I'd prepare myself for a long wait if I were you.
You know Marichiko, sometimes Radars zeal annoys me. And I disagree with many of his conclusions. However, your tagline suggests that you're on the fringe yourself, or just enjoy 'stirring things up'.
So I'll let you children play and see if anything pops up that we adults might find useful.
Originally posted by richlevy
You know Marichiko, sometimes Radars zeal annoys me. And I disagree with many of his conclusions. However, your tagline suggests that you're on the fringe yourself, or just enjoy 'stirring things up'.
Hey, I'm glad someone's awake around here. Of course I've been enjoying "stirring things up." Radar and his ilk make for such irresistable targets. I'll grant that he has not been much of a mental challenge. In fact I'll probably leave this debate to be carried on by others because I'm becoming bored with the lack of effective response.
So Radar, point out how exactly I am wrong then. By me I mean me, every Central Banker on earth, mainstream economics and Freidman himself of course.
Milton Friedman believes we need to go back to a fiat based currency and we should never have left the gold standard. He believes inflation needs to be eliminated, not regulated. And all of the Nobel prize winning economists I mentioned know that the market regulates itself without any government intervention. Try again.
Hey, the more libraries, the better! God knows, the better informed our citizens, the less likely they are to vote libertarian.
The most ignorant the person the more likely they are to vote for government funded (theft) social programs. And since they'll also have a better education, they will laugh at you like I, and all of your intellectual superiors (the vast majority of the planet), do.
I'm still waiting for my historical citation of how the disabled were better off before Social Security Disability and Medicare...
Before social security disability and medicare, an average family could afford to go to a doctor, doctors actually made housecalls, and doctors weren't paid with stolen money from resentful people. Government meddling has raised the cost of healthcare through the roof and made it unaffordable. Medical advances (which are due to private enterprise not because of government) have made healthcare superior now, but unaffordable for the elderly and disabled. If we take government out of the system the cost of healthcare for these people would be a fraction of what it currently costs. Here's a couple of articles for you.
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=22171
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=28477
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=28393
Step in line, Patirck. I think you are right in place between Jaguar waiting for a response to his questions on economics and me wanting to hear about literacy rates and personal freedoms in the 19th century. Radar appears to be great at threats and rather short on logic. I'd prepare myself for a long wait if I were you.
I have answered the economics questions, and literacy rates among those who attended schools in the 19th century were FAR higher than those of today's children educated in public schools. The problem is some people want to
force people to attend school even though not all children
should attend schools. You can not force a person to learn something as is evident from the huge number of kids who graduate and are still illiterate.
If you want to know about personal freedoms (civil rights for women and minorities aside because those were not brought about by government but by the people), even into the 20th century, in 1912 you could send your 10 year old daughter to the store to get you some heroin. The streets weren't filled with criminals as they are now. People weren't getting murdered in a hail of bullets by drug dealers. People pretty much lived their lives they way they wanted and allowed others to do the same
(except for a few insane religious zealots called the temperance movement who put "god" on our money, in our oaths, and created organized crime in America by pushing for alcohol prohibition).
In short, people had better healthcare (in terms of service, not technology) at lower costs, superior education, and far more personal freedoms.
I'll grant that he has not been much of a mental challenge.
This from someone who has failed every mental challenge. Nice approach though. You're using the "I claim to win no matter how many times you defeat me with cold hard facts so you are a loser" technique. I'm sure that works well among the others who are doped up beyond rational thought, but it doesn't work too well here among those who don't know whether to laugh at your ignorance because you are a clown, or cry because they pity your unbelievable stupidity.
OK, I’ll answer my own question. In 1895, the percentage of children 5-19 attending school was .62. In 1920, it was .68 and in 1945, it was .76 – an increase of 14% from before income taxes to after. The percentage of the population who voted were 18.4%, 25.1%, and 37.8% respectively for those same years. The facts speak for themselves. You can’t site facts or data to back your position, I’ve have no further interest in arguing it with you.
The number attending school is irrelevant. The number who attended school were far more literate than those who attend public schools now. The only relevant measure is in how many who did attend school graduated with a decent education, not in the number who put their butts in seats.
Voting is another red herring. Nice try, but this isn't high school debte. Even there you'd be beaten by the kids on the short bus. Statistics don't prove anything because anyone can find statistics to try to prove their point and most of them are made up. You have brought up irrelevant ones that have nothing at all to do with our discussion.
The FACTS show that people had more freedom, superior education, and better service in healthcare.
You have no interest in debating with me because you keep losing. Run along child.
Originally posted by jaguar
I love the way Radar is so sure he's right he's willing to go against the will of the people (and cause many deaths) to impose his ridiculous 'state' on them. Maybe your government should stop spending money to fingerprint Swiss tourists and spend a little more keeping an eye on their home-grown nutters.
I second that! Maybe he should be considered a...I believe it's called: "a person of interest"? The new "axis of evil" perhaps? ;)
Originally posted by ladysycamore
I second that! Maybe he should be considered a...I believe it's called: "a person of interest"? The new "axis of evil" perhaps? ;)
HERE! HEAR!:thumb:
Statistics don't prove anything because anyone can find statistics to try to prove their point and most of them are made up. You have brought up irrelevant ones that have nothing at all to do with our discussion.
The FACTS show that people had more freedom, superior education, and better service in healthcare.
Oh right. The FACTS. Consider us all convinced by FACTS. The ones you arbirattily spout on the spot.
You just refuse to actually get into the guts of any of your facile arguements, refuse to present detailed analysis, references, quotations or statistics to back of any of what you say. I'm not debating what Friedman thinks, I'm merely stating monearism is dead, a failure and disowned by Friedman himself.
What the hell is yout point? Explain, please, in some detail, how monetarism is not deeply flawed and having been tested, shown to be a failure, or, failing that, how you are in fact (despite ample evidence to the contorary) advocating something else (Mercantilism wouldn't shock me)?
Originally posted by Radar
Before social security disability and medicare, an average family could afford to go to a doctor, doctors actually made housecalls, and doctors weren't paid with stolen money from resentful people. Government meddling has raised the cost of healthcare through the roof and made it unaffordable. Medical advances (which are due to private enterprise not because of government) have made healthcare superior now, but unaffordable for the elderly and disabled. If we take government out of the system the cost of healthcare for these people would be a fraction of what it currently costs. Here's a couple of articles for you.
Ah. Charity hospitals. Yeah, they're real plentiful around here. Oh, wait...no they aren't. In fact, there are exactly *none*. And no matter how cheap it gets, I seriously doubt that my son could afford it on $400 a month. Come to think of it, he wouldn't have his job at all, because the whole reason he works there in the first place is because of a tax credit program offered to the employer from the government.
I have reasonably extensive experience with both the health care system and the private agencies available to assist the disabled and indigent. Do you? So far the *only* services my son has been able to get were *all* paid for by State and Federal dollars. I have investigated other avenues, because his need for services is great. There simply are none available that meet his need for an income and for medical care. I have about 12 years of experience with this sort of thing at this point, so I know whereof I speak.
As for the supposed improvement in the current situation if taxation were removed, well, If there is no economic incentive to operate services for and provide financial support to the disabled and underemployed/unemployable, then those services will not increase, they will decrease. Since the unemployed and unemployable have no money, then where is the financial incentive for anyone to operate such a business? Oh, yes! Charity! Once taxation ceases, people will run willy nilly to their local church or relief organization, and make their coffers overflow with unprecedented bounty!
Let's look back about 100 years and see what charity institutions were like. They were dumping grounds, a place where people were parked to die. There were far fewer medical providers, psychiatric providers, physical therapists, etc, because, well...they couldn't make any money doing it for a charity institution. The facilities were overcrowded, and could not serve everyone who needed them. I noted an absence of such information in the articles you suggested, BTW. This is probably because the whole concept you are espousing is mostly concerned with people looking out for #1, and treating the unfortunate among us like #2.
As it is, my son lives a reasonably normal life (compared to what it *could* be), and it is *totally* due to the same programs that would cease to exist were it not for the Social Security and Medicare funds that support them. Even the meager busboy job he works for sixteen hours a week to earn the $400 per month was obtained through a program to employ the disabled.
Without taxation, we become a country where only the strong survive. Is that part of the "better" sociological picture that were supposed to ogling, here?
Originally posted by Troubleshooter
We'd take it up the poop shoot as one of the sevices that, while they do suck, fills a necessary role is gone and then we end up with a generation of semi to non-literate, unskilled children to take up our banner into the next millenium.
We've already got that. We are screwed.
Your quality and range of public services is directly related to your rate of taxes. You want to live in a nice place, it costs you money. Does it benefit you to "pay" to assist your neighbor in a time of need? yes. Pay now or pay later. The key is to invest well. I guess I am a socialist..or Norwegian wannabe. enjoy.
Bah! Home schoolin' aint always the best. It depends on the kid and the instruction. Wasnt that Mom that killed her sons with a rock to the head, homeschoolin?
Hey, Public school has its serious problems, look at the volume, but there are kids learning too. There are some damn good teachers and students in public schools, they dont get the press though. I have seen the bad and the great.
And, like 1910 was a golden year? Lots of muckraking going on for such a "happy" time. come on.
And for your taxes..The Institute of Museum and Library Services , a federal agency, funds (through grants) libraries and yes...museums. Lots and lots for digitization/preservation projects. go surf some now. Thats good news for public and home schools and all youse too.
Originally posted by wolf
We've already got that. We are screwed.
I know, I know, but public school does turn out kids who can read and want to learn. Just not as many as I would like and far more than would be cranked out by the non-tax version Radar is espousing.
Originally posted by Troubleshooter
I know, I know, but public school does turn out kids who can read and want to learn. Just not as many as I would like and far more than would be cranked out by the non-tax version Radar is espousing.
Of course we are led by example. I can't wait until some teacher tells her children about the importance of reading and being curious about things and have some kid come back about how the President doesn't read the newspaper.
Originally posted by warch
Your quality and range of public services is directly related to your rate of taxes. SNIP
AND involvement. If your services aren't serving, find out why. Be proactive in demanding the public be served as well as they are paying for.
Your quality and range of public services is directly related to your rate of taxes.
If only.
For example, the District of Columbia spends more (and obviously taxes more) to educate a student than any state in the union. And, in a revelation sure to surprise absolutely no one, DC students are easily the least educated students in the country.
I love the way Radar is so sure he's right he's willing to go against the will of the people (and cause many deaths) to impose his ridiculous 'state' on them. Maybe your government should stop spending money to fingerprint Swiss tourists and spend a little more keeping an eye on their home-grown nutters.
I love the way you attempt to justify robbery because it is teh "will of the people". If one person robs you with a gun, it's robbery. If a gang of 10 people rob you it's still robbery. And if 250 million people rob you at the point of a gun and call themselves "government" it is STILL robbery and claiming that it's "the will of the people" doesn't change shit.
I'm not debating what Friedman thinks, I'm merely stating monearism is dead, a failure and disowned by Friedman himself.
That's an absolute lie. Milton Friedman has never "disowned" the idea of going back to a gold or other fiat-based standard of money; not ever and you're a liar if you claim he did. The gold standard never failed. Not once. If you claim it did, you are once again a liar.
Your quality and range of public services is directly related to your rate of taxes.
What are you smoking and where can I get it?
The while the range of services (not that they provide actual service) is related to how much stolen money the government can get its hands on, the quality is not. Private schools cost on average half of what the government spends per student per year and they have a far superior education. In fact you can not name a single government run social service that can't be run cheaper, provide superior service, and use less overhead than a similar privately funded non-profit charity.
I know, I know, but public school does turn out kids who can read and want to learn. Just not as many as I would like and far more than would be cranked out by the non-tax version Radar is espousing.
The number is students is debatable. But the quality of education is not. Under the theft-funded system you promote, there are childen moved up and who graduate who are illiterate or very near to it. They can't name the vice-president, state capitals, etc. In a word they, like those who support the current public school system, are morons. Under the privately funded, more efficient, and superior school system I propose, the students who graduate will be able to compete globally with those anywhere else on earth. In my system education isn't taken down to the lowest common denominator.
So the question is do we want an entire nation of people educated at the level of a burger flipper as your system produces, or do we want the best engineers, doctors, and scientists on earth as my system would produce?
If only.
You got that right.
Some Numbers
0
Number of New York City 8th graders deemed "proficient" on last year's end-of-summer-school reading exam.
78
Percent of those who took the test who were promoted to the 9th grade.
Originally posted by Elspode
I have reasonably extensive experience with both the health care system and the private agencies available to assist the disabled and indigent. Do you? So far the *only* services my son has been able to get were *all* paid for by State and Federal dollars. I have investigated other avenues, because his need for services is great. There simply are none available that meet his need for an income and for medical care. I have about 12 years of experience with this sort of thing at this point, so I know whereof I speak.
It'll be three years for me in June. Once I got a basic understanding about the "system", things were a bit better, but it's still no picnic. Plus, with some programs, you have to fit an income requirement...basically, have one foot in the poverty gutter, which (thankfully!) I am not, but damn, some type of assistance is still needed!
As for the supposed improvement in the current situation if taxation were removed, well, If there is no economic incentive to operate services for and provide financial support to the disabled and underemployed/unemployable, then those services will not increase, they will decrease. Since the unemployed and unemployable have no money, then where is the financial incentive for anyone to operate such a business? Oh, yes! Charity! Once taxation ceases, people will run willy nilly to their local church or relief organization, and make their coffers overflow with unprecedented bounty!
:rolleyes: Maybe he can empty HIS wallet into the pot and support everyone. Pssftttt!
Let's look back about 100 years and see what charity institutions were like. They were dumping grounds, a place where people were parked to die. There were far fewer medical providers, psychiatric providers, physical therapists, etc, because, well...they couldn't make any money doing it for a charity institution. The facilities were overcrowded, and could not serve everyone who needed them. I noted an absence of such information in the articles you suggested, BTW. This is probably because the whole concept you are espousing is mostly concerned with people looking out for #1, and treating the unfortunate among us like #2.
*applause* A-fucking-men!
As it is, my son lives a reasonably normal life (compared to what it *could* be), and it is *totally* due to the same programs that would cease to exist were it not for the Social Security and Medicare funds that support them. Even the meager busboy job he works for sixteen hours a week to earn the $400 per month was obtained through a program to employ the disabled.
That's good that your son has his job and is able to take advantage of the programs. I'll be looking into one pretty soon myself (Office of Vocational Rehab). Seems as though this will be my last chance to get any type of work. We'll see.
That's an absolute lie. Milton Friedman has never "disowned" the idea of going back to a gold or other fiat-based standard of money; not ever and you're a liar if you claim he did. The gold standard never failed. Not once. If you claim it did, you are once again a liar.
I'm sorry you can't get your head around basic ecoomic terms Radar. I said Friedman disowned monetarism, which I defined above, if you bothered to actually read what I wrote that. I did not for example, say "Friedman thinks the gold standard sucks" or "The Gold Standard Failed". Thus your origional statement, implying that if we stopped, or limited printing of money, inflation would go away and the economy would be perfectly stable, which is a narrow at best understanding of monetarism in the first place is itself invalid. I don't understand how the gold standard came into that.
As for whether Friedman did in fact disown monetarism, see my attached quote, from the Financial Times. That dodgy little newspaper.
Printing more money without anything to back it is THE ONLY CAUSE OF INFLATION. Nothing else causes inflation other than increasing the amount of money in circulation. That's an indisputable fact and every Nobel Prize winning economist I mentioned including Milton Friedman agrees with that statement.
And I don't promote mercantilism. I obviously promote free market capitalism.
No question Friedman would agree that oversupply causes inflation no matter what the money is backed by.
Keynesian economists believe inflation can occur independently of monetary conditions.
If though, for a minute I follow the monetarists line, it has been well proven that targetting that relationship has been a failure and as I said, Milton Friedman himself agreed only last year.
Do too keep in mind there is a good reason central banks set specific inflation goals rather than zero, offical price indicies have a long history of overstating inflation and everyone prefers a touch of inflation to deflation.
I love the way you attempt to justify robbery because it is teh "will of the people". If one person robs you with a gun, it's robbery. If a gang of 10 people rob you it's still robbery. And if 250 million people rob you at the point of a gun and call themselves "government" it is STILL robbery and claiming that it's "the will of the people" doesn't change shit.
Bullshit. You've chosen to live in a democratic state where clearly the majority support income tax, if they didn't they'd vote in someone who didn't. By making that choice (and noone's putting a gun to your head are they), you choose to accept that nation's laws. Whether or not the constitution allows it or not is utterly irrelevant. It's called realpolitik, something all your ideas lack sorely. Don't like it move somewhere that suits you, don't try and claim it's moral to overthrow a democratically elected state because YOU don't like the laws.
I've made active choices not to live in countries for reasons of law before, you don't see me say, advocating armed overthrow of France for not allowing public photography.
It's called the tyranny of the majority, if you don't like it, move somewhere where you are the majority or a dictatorship where you won't have the choice anyway.
If though, for a minute I follow the monetarists line, it has been well proven that targetting that relationship has been a failure and as I said, Milton Friedman himself agreed only last year.
Friedman has said trying to return America to a fiat based standard has been unsuccessful. Mostly due to the uneducated people who think "managed inflation" is a good thing. I'd take deflation if it meant we'd have something other than the worthless promises of private bankers and government to back our money and so would Mr. Friedman.
You've chosen to live in a democratic state where clearly the majority support income tax, if they didn't they'd vote in someone who didn't.
Bullshit. People are under the impression that they have no power with regard to getting rid of it, and many think if they didn't get government handouts, they wouldn't be able to survive (see some of the Cellar posters).
It doesn't matter if every single person other than myself chooses to take my income, it doesn't give them a right to take it. Democracy does not make right. One person's rights are more important than the desires of a billion people.
By making that choice (and noone's putting a gun to your head are they), you choose to accept that nation's laws.
Yes someone is putting a gun to my head. The government is saying they will rob me and if I resist, men with guns will come to take me away. You still have not proven any difference between being robbed by a gang of thugs and income taxation. It doesn't matter if there are 250 million people and they call their gang "government", it's still robbery and you can't escape that fact.
The following sentence is the biggest joke of all...
Whether or not the constitution allows it or not is utterly irrelevant.
LOL
Nothing could be more relevant. I am under NO OBLIGATION WHAT-SO-EVER to follow unconstitutional laws
PERIOD. (see Marbury vs. Madison).
Don't like it move somewhere that suits you, don't try and claim it's moral to overthrow a democratically elected state because YOU don't like the laws.
I don't like it and I am not leaving. I will spill blood to return America to the Constitutional republic we started with. I mean that with all sincerity and honesty.
YOU stop acting like something is morally correct just because it was voted on in a democracy.
Let's say 51% of the population has dark hair and the other 49% have light hair. In your twisted and warped view, it would be perfectly ok if the 51% voted to steal everything from the 49%, and execute them because it was a democracy and they voted on it. But the simple and inescapable truth is the 51% or even 99.9999% of the population has no authority or right to even bring it up for a vote. It's not up for discussion. Human rights are unalienable and as immutable as gravity. You can't vote on whether or not you have a right to steal someone else's property, and to suggest you can is beyond stupidity.
Hey I suppose the majority of the people on your block decided your house would look better painted with purple and orange stripes, you would go ahead and paint it that way right? Because a majority said you must. DUH!!! What if they voted and said you must shave your head? Would you comply? No. Why? Because nobody on earth (including the combined population of earth) has any authority or right to tell you what you must or must not do with your hair, or your body, or the fruits of your labor.
Don't like it? Move the hell out of
MY country to somewhere that wasn't based on natural law and natural rights. But America was, so move it.
If anyone stands in the way of my plan of eliminating every single unconstitutional part of government and returning America to a Constitutional republic, I will kill them without a second thought in the defense of my rights, and the rights of other Americans. Some Americans might not want to be personally responsible for their lives, and they are free to ask someone to run it for them. I'm sure they will find no shortage of volunteers, but I will not allow anyone, no matter how great the majority...and for the record the majority of Americans
DO NOT support income taxes and would gladly stop paying them today if they weren't scared of being jailed for doing so.....in other words extortion.
Go ahead, try to make me sound like a whacko because I said I'd kill in my own defense and the defense of my country. I know what you'll do before you do.
Originally posted by Radar
I will spill blood to return America to the Constitutional republic we started with.
Originally posted by Radar
If anyone stands in the way of my plan of eliminating every single unconstitutional part of government and returning America to a Constitutional republic, I will kill them without a second thought in the defense of my rights, and the rights of other Americans.
So what you are saying is any free American who doesn't believe in what you believe in deserves to die? So how does this make you any better then the current government? You are real big on saying how bad the government is because they are "putting a gun to your head" and making you pay taxes, but then you go on to say you will kill anyone who doesn't go along with your ideas. How does that make any sense?
Originally posted by Radar
Go ahead, try to make me sound like a whacko because I said I'd kill in my own defense and the defense of my country.
I don't think anyone needs to "try" and make you sound like a wacko, your doing just fine all on your own.
So what you are saying is any free American who doesn't believe in what you believe in deserves to die? So how does this make you any better then the current government? You are real big on saying how bad the government is because they are "putting a gun to your head" and making you pay taxes, but then you go on to say you will kill anyone who doesn't go along with your ideas. How does that make any sense?
My ideas are not mine alone. They are the ideals this nation was founded on. In essence they are EVERYTHING that is American. Others are free to believe anything they choose, but if they act on those beliefs and try to steal what I have earned I will kill in the defense of myself, my property, my loved ones, and my country. Notice I used the word DEFENSE. It is THEY who are the ones INITIATING violence to rob me, and my countrymen. I would only respond with violence in defense. It makes sense to use violence in your defense when others are using it to rob you.
I fully support your right to believe anything you choose, but if you try to legislate the theft of my property, you will face the consequences associated with stealing from me. If the government of America suddenly made a law that said nobody would be allowed to leave the country and that your family must be killed for an arbitrary reason such as your hair color. Would you happily march into the ovens or would you kill those who attempted to harm you? This is no different. Our property is an extension of ourselves. It is the result of our labor which is part of our body. Violating our property is no different than violating our persons.
I don't think anyone needs to "try" and make you sound like a wacko, your doing just fine all on your own.
The funny part is I'm one of very few on this thread that doesn't sound like a whacko.
Originally posted by Brigliadore
I don't think anyone needs to "try" and make you sound like a wacko, your doing just fine all on your own.
For real! I thought he was all about not infringing on the rights of others, but he's ready to shoot to kill the first person that dares to disagree with his views...nice. :rolleyes:
Yep..."person of interest", indeed. Typical madness.
i'll not pretend that i have read the entire thread.....yet...i will eventually, but having seen this debate take place before, I'd like to add a little something.
Radar is NOT nuts. his views are right on. what he says about the PHILOSOPHY of Libertarianism is unarguably true.
What I see is a tendency to argue his point to the extreme. If this country had stayed true to the core beliefs espoused in the constitution from the beginning, we would all be libertarians. However, the practical application of changing what we have today back to what we SHOULD HAVE HAD is impractical and potentially catastrophic. This does not give us the right to shout the man down when he points out glaring deviances of our current systems. If he seems like a whacko to you, that's fine, but keep in mind, without people like Radar, we would all be led around by our noses because we dont care enough to risk our personal images and the comfort of knowing that we play well with others. Hell, we'd still be English...and I know no one wants that, right?
I say...radar, keep calling foul if you see foul...but....I hope that if you really DO have political aspriations, you can appreciate the positions of those that would argue with you, and realize that when you make extreme statements, you damage your credibility. It's a fine line to walk, being an activist and not a nutter.
I give you points for your passion if nothing else.
I'll further debate that things were "more free" at an earlier time of the nation. That's one of those things that's simply untrue at its face by modern standards, for example; how could you say it was "more free" when slavery existed or before women got the vote? More free for some, incredibly unfree for others? How can any real legitimate comparison be made between such different periods of history?
Is strict constitutionalism "better" when it encourages things like prohibition to be written into the national document?
Originally posted by Radar
If anyone stands in the way of my plan of eliminating every single unconstitutional part of government and returning America to a Constitutional republic, I will kill them without a second thought in the defense of my rights, and the rights of other Americans. Some Americans might not want to be personally responsible for their lives, and they are free to ask someone to run it for them ... Go ahead, try to make me sound like a whacko because I said I'd kill in my own defense and the defense of my country. I know what you'll do before you do.
Hey, sounds like the voice of calm reason to me. There's plenty of precedent for people killing those who don't agree with them. Pol Pot killed intellectuals, Hitler killed Jews, Stalin killed quite a few dissidents.
If you are an example of what Libertarian thought is all about, I think Homeland Security should be notified about you and any potential followers you might have in your Libertarian cult. It is pointless to argue with a homicidal maniac. I hope for your own safety, and, most especially for the safety of others, that you are locked up quickly.
No, you don't have the faintest idea what I will do. You are, to put it bluntly, gone mad. God help you.
Ok, Marbury vs. Madison keeps getting slung around here like a lariat so I went and read it. Anybody else with some time on their hands and an interest can go look here:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&Court=US&vol=5&page=137
Near as I can tell, MvM refers to the act of judicial review and the constitutionality of laws.
One question arises. Is anyone here a judge or assciated with the judiciary in any way?
I stood in front of one once for a parking ticket I shouldn't have gotten. He dismissed the ticket.
Does that count?
Originally posted by BrianR
I stood in front of one once for a parking ticket I shouldn't have gotten. He dismissed the ticket.
Does that count?
No, that just means that you're lucky.
First of all, a right not to be subject to income tax is not in the goddamn bill of huamn rights, we're not talking about fucking genocide here, it's tax.
Friedman has said trying to return America to a fiat based standard has been unsuccessful. Mostly due to the uneducated people who think "managed inflation" is a good thing. I'd take deflation if it meant we'd have something other than the worthless promises of private bankers and government to back our money and so would Mr. Friedman.
Jesus fucking christ.
Read.
'The use of quantity of money as a target has not been a success.' He added: 'I'm not sure I would as of today push it as hard as I once did.' (FT, 7 June 2003).
Bullshit. People are under the impression that they have no power with regard to getting rid of it, and many think if they didn't get government handouts, they wouldn't be able to survive (see some of the Cellar posters).
People can vote. People can vote for someone that doesn't support income tax. End of fucking story. The fact they don't, and reasons why is irrelevent, if they want, they can, they don't. Adovacting doing it with a means you clearly think YOUR view is more important than everyone else's, thus really, you have no right to call yourself someone that beleives in a democratic state. Democracy doesn't go for 'right' because one persons right is another's wrong. It goes for the platform the majority of people support, thus reflecting what the majority think is right. Not perfect but it could be a lot worse. We could be living under a dictator who thinks that taxation is more important than human life.
Is strict constitutionalism "better" when it encourages things like prohibition to be written into the national document?
Strict Constitutionalism doesn't allow the government to exceed its legitimate authority by prohibiting what people do or don't choose to consume. Strict Constitutionalism never includes using the Constitution to limit rights, only to limit the powers of government.
I hope for your own safety, and, most especially for the safety of others, that you are locked up quickly.
I hope for the safety of my country idiots like you are sent packing to socialist countries where your twisted views will be more accepted.
One question arises. Is anyone here a judge or assciated with the judiciary in any way?
One does not need to be a judge to make a cursory judgment of the Constitutionality of a given law and one does not need to wait for judicial review before acting on that determination. If a law is unconstitutional in its face, we are not required to abide by it even if a judge has not reviewed it. For instance if Congress said that all people over the age of 50 must be put to death because they were too much of a burden on the economy. One would not have to wait for a review of the law before telling Congress to screw off.
First of all, a right not to be subject to income tax is not in the goddamn bill of huamn rights, we're not talking about fucking genocide here, it's tax.
Yes we are talking about human rights. In fact we're talking about the most sacred of human rights....self-ownership. I own myself. I own my life, mind, body, and labor. Nobody else has any claim to these. Not even the combined population of earth. And because I own all of these things outright and nobody else has a claim to them, I also own the fruits of my labor totally and completely and nobody else has any valid claim to them. When government takes the fruits of my labor, they are turning me into a slave. It's not
like slavery or theft, it
IS slavery and theft. You have still failed to prove how armed robbery and slavery are different. And you will always fail because they are the same thing. It doesn't matter if 1 person, 10 people, or 250 million people who call themselves “government” rob you; it's still robbery. And those people have no legitimate claim to the fruits of another persons labor no matter how many vote on it.
'The use of quantity of money as a target has not been a success.' He added: 'I'm not sure I would as of today push it as hard as I once did.' (FT, 7 June 2003).
Inflation is caused by an increase in the quantity of money and by NOTHING...I REPEAT.....
N-O-T-H-I-N-G ELSE!!! If Mr. Friedman is saying the target has not been a success, it only means that he has not been successful in convincing people, not that he was incorrect about the relationship.
Adovacting doing it with a means you clearly think YOUR view is more important than everyone else's, thus really, you have no right to call yourself someone that beleives in a democratic state.
MY opinion IS more important than those of everyone else when it comes to MY property. NOBODY has any claim to what I've earned but me. Not you, not a hundred of you, not a hundred million of you. And you're correct. I do not advocate a democracy. I am happy the U.S.A. is not a democracy. It is a democratic republic where the rights of individuals are more important than the desires of millions.
The people have no right to vote on the color of your hair, whether you will procreate, or how much of your money they are entitled to. If they put it on a ballot, they are violating their limited authority.
Government may not do anything that we as individuals don't have the right to do without government. If you are on an island with no government and you grow your own vegetables, and someone comes over and eats those vegetables without your permission, they have stolen from you. You did the work to cultivate them and they at them. They were not entitled to those vegetables regardless of how hungry they are and you are not entitled to go to their home and take what they have earned through their labor either. Because you are not entitled to take the fruits of another person's labor without their permission, what makes you think you can give this power to the government?
The limited powers of government are derived from the consent of the individuals who grant it power. As an individual you have no claim to the fruits of another persons labor therefore neither do 10 people, or 100 people, or 100 million people. You can't give a power to government that you do not have in the first place.
Inflation is caused by an increase in the quantity of money and by NOTHING...I REPEAT.....N-O-T-H-I-N-G ELSE!!! If Mr. Friedman is saying the target has not been a success, it only means that he has not been successful in convincing people, not that he was incorrect about the relationship.
You idiot. See the following article for detailed information on Friedman's retraction.
The Guardian
It may be from the guardian but it quotes the Financial Times, where the quote and article was origionally published, but I can't access that without paying a heck of a lot of money.
Friedman admitted monetarism was a failure. A tried and tested failure. A failure in the US and a failure in the UK. Period. It was not a success, it did not work. Get the hell over it.
When government takes the fruits of my labor, they are turning me into a slave. It's not like slavery or theft, it IS slavery and theft.
Goddamn. I wish I knew a few ex-slaves right now, I'm sure they'd be lining up to kick you ass for equating income tax to slavery.
The limited powers of government are derived from the consent of the individuals who grant it power. As an individual you have no claim to the fruits of another persons labor therefore neither do 10 people, or 100 people, or 100 million people. You can't give a power to government that you do not have in the first place.
Ok. I see your logic now, it wasn't very clear before.
But surely then if say, one person doesn't agree murder should be illegal, the government has no right to make murder illegal and under the same arguement as you has some kind of moral 'right' to take up armed resistance because he didn't give his concent?
Goddamn. I wish I knew a few ex-slaves right now, I'm sure they'd be lining up to kick you ass for equating income tax to slavery.
If you found some with an education such as Frederic Douglas, they would agree with me.
But surely then if say, one person doesn't agree murder should be illegal, the government has no right to make murder illegal and under the same arguement as you has some kind of moral 'right' to take up armed resistance because he didn't give his concent?
As an individual, you have no right to take the life of others unless it is in your own defense. You have no right to murder others and you do have a right to defend yourself even with deadly force or to allow your agents to defend you so yes, individuals
CAN give this power to government because it is a right that individuals would have even without government.
Government has one purpose, to DEFEND our rights, not to limit them, not to define them, and not to infringe upon them. You do not have the right to murder, but others do have the right to live; case closed. You do not have the right to steal what others have earned, but others do have the right to keep the fruits of thier labor; case closed.
As far as Friedman goes, he STILL agrees that inflation is caused by nothing other than the government increasing the supply of money and the article in question does not define "monetarism" the same was the dictionary does.
monetarism: A theory holding that economic variations within a given system, such as changing rates of inflation, are most often caused by increases or decreases in the money supply
This has NEVER FAILED, not in the UK, not in America, not anywhere on earth. Inflation = increase in the supply of currency. Money is something of value like gold. Currency (the paper printed or coins minted) has no value and is supposed to represent money. When you have no increase in the amount of money, but a large increase in the amount of currency, you get inflation. This is indisputable by you, or anyone else on the planet.
Originally posted by Radar
One does not need to be a judge to make a cursory judgment of the Constitutionality of a given law and one does not need to wait for judicial review before acting on that determination. If a law is unconstitutional in its face, we are not required to abide by it even if a judge has not reviewed it. For instance if Congress said that all people over the age of 50 must be put to death because they were too much of a burden on the economy. One would not have to wait for a review of the law before telling Congress to screw off.
Citation please.
As a constitutional scholar you should have a handy referrence for something that seems to be so central to your ideology.
Citation please.
Marbury vs. Madison is in full agreement with my statement, but being that case law is irrelevant when it comes to the Constitution and that the Constitution (the highest law in the land) was created by the people to keep tight control on government, it is the people who have the ultimate judgment over whether or not a law is unconstitutional in its face.
The role of government is to defend our rights, but let's see what the founders thought of this...
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Clearly the people
(individuals) have the
right to make the determination of whether or not government has become destructive towards life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness and as such they have the right to determine whether or not government has abided by the strict limitations of its powers enumerated in the Constitution. Rights are the opposite of privileges. Rights are what we do without asking. This means we do not require permission to make that determination from judges or any other part of government. Government is our creation and we the individual people of America are the masters while government is our servant.
Also if you want a Constitutional reference, feel free to look at the 9th and 10th amendments of the Constitution. The 9th says that those rights listed in the Constitution by no means are the only rights that people have and the 10th says that any rights
NOT listed belong to the people. The right to determine whether a law abides by the Constitution is not listed, so it is therefore a right of the people.
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
Do you believe that gold has a fixed value? Wouldn't gold mines cause inflation?
Ah but Radar, the relationship between money supply and inflation is a funny beast, and herein line the problem. Velocity of Circulation. It's what they discovered when they actually tried it. Due to the unpredictable nature of velocity of circulation targetting inflation with controls on money supply proved hamfisted.
I could have sworn I said as much 5 pages ago.
As an individual, you have no right to take the life of others unless it is in your own defense. You have no right to murder others and you do have a right to defend yourself even with deadly force or to allow your agents to defend you so yes, individuals CAN give this power to government because it is a right that individuals would have even without government.
Says who exactly.
I would like to know where these rights come from, who defines them, who established them? This is a real question.
Do you believe that gold has a fixed value? Wouldn't gold mines cause inflation?
Gold doesn't have a fixed value, but the term "dollar" originally was a measurement. It equalled 1/20th of an ounce of gold. Dollar should still equal 1/20th of an ounce of gold. The buying power of that gold depends on the scarcity of gold. It would take one huge gold mine to change the value of gold globally.
Due to the unpredictable nature of velocity of circulation targetting inflation with controls on money supply proved hamfisted.
I don't think the velocity with which currency is circulated requires more currency to be minted, although it may cause a need for more sturdy currency; coins instead of paper for instance.
The short answer is "rights come from nature". We're born with them. They can't be bought, sold, traded, taken or given away. Rights are as immutable as gravity. Even if every person on earth voted for gravity to disappear, it would not because it is a natural law. Natural rights are also part of natural law. You have the right to life. Someone may kill you but they have not taken away your right, they have only violated it. You have a right to your property. Someone may steal your property but that doesn't mean you don't have a right to own it. You may live in a country that doesn't protect natural rights or one that actually violates them, but that doesn't mean you don't have the rights.
Some would argue that mineral rights are rights that can be sold, but the term "mineral rights" itself is a misnomer. The actual right in question is the right of ownership. When you own something, it is yours to do with as you wish, whether you do something good with it or something destructive. If I own land, it is mine. I own the land itself. When someone buys so-called "mineral rights" they are not buying rights, they are making a contract with the owner of the land to have permission to keep all minerals on the owner's land but they still have no ownership of the land itself.
Natural rights are a self-evident subset of natural law. They were so important among the founders that they used them as a basis for our government.
If you would like to read a couple of essays on the subject that are far more eloquent than anything I could write I'll post a couple of links. Keep in mind these were written 100+ years ago so while the language might be different, the principles within them are timeless and as fresh today as the day they were written. I'll give you links to pdf files so you can print these and read them at your leisure.
Natural Law by Lysander Spooner
The Law by Frederic BastiatOriginally posted by Radar
Natural rights are a self-evident subset of natural law. They were so important among the founders that they used them as a basis for our government.
If you would like to read a couple of essays on the subject that are far more eloquent than anything I could write I'll post a couple of links. Keep in mind these were written 100+ years ago so while the language might be different, the principles within them are timeless and as fresh today as the day they were written. I'll give you links to pdf files so you can print these and read them at your leisure.
Natural Law by Lysander Spooner
The Law by Frederic Bastiat
I've read these, at your request, and I don't think that they'll find them any more satisfying than I did.
I am with Jag on Friedman's new take on monetarism. He has changed his view. Most interesting. Another big chink in the L-ism armour, as far as I'm concerned.
http://www.wanniski.com/PrintPage.asp?TextID=2694I've read these, at your request, and I don't think that they'll find them any more satisfying than I did.
You could also read John Locke, Peter McWilliams, Thomas Jefferson, or any number of others who promote natural rights or you could just ask yourself who owns you.
Do you own yourself? If not, who owns you? When you own something it is yours to do with as you please. You don't require permission to do anything you choose with it. You can destroy it, give it away, or do something great with it. The choice is yours.
To say you don't own yourself is to say that others have more of a claim on your life than you do. If you say that you do not own yourself, you have no right to complain or resist if someone else enslaves you, beats you, takes your property, or even kills you. After all, if you don't own yourself, you don't own your mind so your not allowed to think for yourself. If you don't own your mouth, you may not speak freely. If you don't own your body, you may not procreate or do anything other than what your owner tells you to do. If you don't own yourself, you don't own your labor and you don't own the fruits of that labor.
You can't have it both ways. Either you own yourself or someone else does. If you own yourself, you own your body, mind, and labor and the fruit of that labor and nobody else has any claim to them. They are yours to do with as you please. This means you have rights. You can't own something if you don't have rights.
If you are still unsatisfied, you are beyond any help I can offer you and I'll just refuse to entertain any other absurd questions you may ask.
Another big chink in the L-ism armour, as far as I'm concerned.
Radar is extreme, yes, but I hope he doesn't turn all of you away from the general goals of all the moderate Libertarians out there (many of whom don't even know there's a word for what they feel about the government.) No, most of us don't think there's a need for a bloody revolution, or a complete and total removal of all income taxes and social programs--but seriously, do any of you think the government doesn't need to take at least three big steps back out of our lives? I feel we could certainly stand to have a smaller government, which is different from a complete stripping of it as Radar proposes.
A lot of Libertarian desires are perfectly reasonable. Don't let the logical extreme of any position keep you from examining it in a more realistic (moderate) setting.
clodfobble, I like you more with each post....
could we get a picture of you?
If I can find one... I don't have any on my computer here at work. You'll have to be patient.
Originally posted by Clodfobble
Another big chink in the L-ism armour, as far as I'm concerned.
A lot of Libertarian desires are perfectly reasonable. Don't let the logical extreme of any position keep you from examining it in a more realistic (moderate) setting.
I know, but watching Radar froth at the mouth is fun.
Radar is
essentially right, it's the ideal and it's application and how he'd, apparently, like to see it come about at this point that is the issue.
I don't think the velocity with which currency is circulated requires more currency to be minted, although it may cause a need for more sturdy currency; coins instead of paper for instance.
See now I'm not sure. You could be making a joke. That would however imply you have a sense of humor. You could, on the other hand, simply not have read anything I've written (wouldn't come as much of a shock, you've avoided the point for pages) or simply have little or no real knowledge of economic terminology.
In case is it the latter I'll give you a brief definition:
Basically, Velocity of Circulation is the number of times money changes hands, it's technical definition is GNP divided by money supply. Since we're dealing with basics here I'll define GNP: Gross National Product, GDP + income from foreign investments - pay sent overseas by foreign workers. Mostly replaced by GNI in national accounts at any rate.
I've taken the essays, I'll read over them some time in the next few days and get back to you on that point.
Radar is extreme, yes, but I hope he doesn't turn all of you away from the general goals of all the moderate Libertarians out there
Sorry, but I'm not the one who is extreme. It's extreme to want to steal from others but not to expect them to get upset. It's extreme to violate the Constitution or to support those who do it. It's extreme support starting wars. It's extreme to support oppression and slavery and to paint a happy face on them. It's extreme throw away everything great this nation was built on.
It is not extreme to fight in the defense of your country, your rights, your property, and your person from unwarranted attacks by those who would oppress you.
I'm an extremely reasonable, well-adjusted, intelligent, articulate, and well educated man but I'm not afraid to tell the truth, even when the truth is uncomfortable for some or isn't what they want to hear.
Originally posted by Radar
extreme
[inigo montoya] you keep using that word. I do not thin' it means what you thin' it means[/inigo montoya]
Nice impersonation. :D Although I was using it in the same context it was used to describe me.
quote Radar: When government takes the fruits of my labor, they are turning me into a slave. It's not like slavery or theft, it IS slavery and theft.
Goddamn. I wish I knew a few ex-slaves right now, I'm sure they'd be lining up to kick you ass for equating income tax to slavery.
Har! :haha:
So, the government is taking the fruits of his labor? Must not be working at that place he claimed was not taking any taxes, because he was paid in cash:
quote:Originally posted by Radar on 4/16/2003
I won't be filing any income tax returns ever again and I'm not paying income taxes either. I'm working for an employer that doesn't withhold any taxes and pays me in cash.
Hum...so, if he isn't going to file any returns or pay taxes ever again, what is the government taking from him? :confused:
quote:
As an individual, you have no right to take the life of others unless it is in your own defense. You have no right to murder others and you do have a right to defend yourself even with deadly force or to allow your agents to defend you so yes, individuals CAN give this power to government because it is a right that individuals would have even without government.
So wait: he's allowed to kill people who disagree with his POV, and call it "defense"????
*sounds the alarm*
"watching Radar froth at the mouth is fun."
It's all fun, until somene pokes an eye out. :p
Originally posted by ladysycamore
So wait: he's allowed to kill people who disagree with his POV, and call it "defense"????
*sounds the alarm*
"watching Radar froth at the mouth is fun."
It's all fun, until somene pokes an eye out. :p
Exactly! You gotta wonder what Radar is going to do after the next election. Shoot everybody who didn't vote Libertarian? The spookiest thing is that he thinks he's perfectly justified in his desire to kill everybody who doesn't agree with him.
Same thing he did after the last election, and the one before it, andthe one before that.
The beauty of backing the losing (or one of the losing) ticket(s) is you get to bitch & moan and say I told you so from the roof tops.;)
So, the government is taking the fruits of his labor? Must not be working at that place he claimed was not taking any taxes, because he was paid in cash:
I stopped working there almost a year ago. I've been working for Boeing in their commercial (non-government) sattelite division.
So wait: he's allowed to kill people who disagree with his POV, and call it "defense"????
No, I'm not allowed to kill people who disagree with me. In fact in the words of Voltaire, I might not agree with a word you have to say, but I'd fight to the death for your right to say it.
I am allowed to kill those who are trying to rob me and turn me into a slave at the point of a gun. You can have all the different opinions you want, as long as you don't try to use force to take what I have earned and then have the nerve to act like I shouldn't be upset about it. It's called self DEFENSE.
YOU are the one trying to use force against me. I am only using force to defend myself.
Exactly! You gotta wonder what Radar is going to do after the next election. Shoot everybody who didn't vote Libertarian? The spookiest thing is that he thinks he's perfectly justified in his desire to kill everybody who doesn't agree with him.
Wrong again gimpy. I don't mind anyone disagreeing with me, but I do mind someone threatening me with violence, stealing from me and trying to turn me and my fellow countrymen into slaves to fulfill thier own
percieved needs. Nobody is entitled to steal from others no matter how much they think they need something. You are free to ask me, and in many cases I'll willingly give, but if you try to use force against me, don't be surprised when I return the favor 10 fold.
Same thing he did after the last election, and the one before it, andthe one before that.
The beauty of backing the losing (or one of the losing) ticket(s) is you get to bitch & moan and say I told you so from the roof tops
Of course I'll bitch. What am I supposed to do, cheer when I see American civil liberties being flushed down the toilet and liars and thieves try to justify their robbery of MY hard earned income?
The beauty is I'm right every time whether Libertarians win an election or they don't. For the record, libertarians
DO win elections.
There are more than 600 libertarians in elected positions in America right now and the number is growing. I'm in the fastest growing party in America while the major parties are losing people. It's not a matter of
IF we'll have a Libertarian President, Supreme Court, and Congress, it's just a matter of
WHEN. It will be during my own lifetime. Hell I might even be the first Libertarian President, you never know. America, and the world would certainly be a happier, safer, more prosperous, place with more liberty, freedom, and opportunity for everyone if Libertarians were in charge.
Originally posted by Radar
I've been working for Boeing in their commercial (non-government) sattelite division.
Boeing is paying you in cash and not withholding taxes? Or do you mean you used to work for a company that was paying you in cash and now you are working at Boeing? Just making sure I understand.
I used to work for a company that pays cash, now I'm working at Boeing in an effort to bring my wife here through proper channels. Once she's here, who knows maybe I'll start my own religion. I'm already an ordained minister.
I'm obviously joking about the religion thing. I don't even believe in god. But I am an ordained minister. :)
I'll probably just start my own business that mostly deals in cash and report far less than what I actually make or even report losses so I can prevent being victimized by those who would rob me.
Maybe I'll buy a few nail shops for my wife or something. Either way I'll do what I must to defend against tyrrany and I'll help others do the same. I'll also help get more and more libertarians elected, including myself.
I'll probably just start my own business that mostly deals in cash and report far less than what I actually make or even report losses so I can prevent being victimized by those who would rob me.
Comeing to a jail near you Radar for tax fraud !!!!!
I don't even believe in god. But I am an ordained minister.
So if you don't beleve in god , just what religen are you "ordaned" in ?????? The Universal church of Radar ????
Comeing to a jail near you Radar for tax fraud !!!!!
It's not fraud to protect your income from illegal laws. The government is NOT entitled to know how much money we earn or to have any of it.
So if you don't beleve in god , just what religen are you "ordaned" in ?????? The Universal church of Radar ????
Actaully the Universal Life Church of Modesto, California
Radar's own words, "I will spill blood... I will kill them without a second thought..." You bet. Let's go have a political debate in Auschwitz or the "Killing Fields" of Cambodia.
I will kill in my own defense shit stain. Only a dildo like you would try to compare that to the killing fields of cambodia or auchwitz.
I'm sure when a mugger attacks and old lady who happens to be armed and takes him out with a 44 magnum, you compare her to Hitler.
Oh and what about this ???
The problem is some people want to force people to attend school even though not all children should attend schools.
Uhh who desides this ?? You and your liberterian buddies , the grand councile ??? The kids them selfs ( who going thru school wouldn't have Loved to have this decision ) ???
And if the kids DO get to deside , just WHAT do we DO with this great uneducated mass of folks ??? Are they the folks that build the monuments to the great Libertarian gods ????
Originally posted by zippyt
And if the kids DO get to deside , just WHAT do we DO with this great uneducated mass of folks ???
marine corps?
Originally posted by zippyt
And if the kids DO get to deside , just WHAT do we DO with this great uneducated mass of folks ???
marine corps?
Only if they have homicidealy tendedcys !!!!!!
But the questien is What have YOU done for your country ????
Originally posted by Radar
I'm obviously joking about the religion thing. I don't even believe in god. But I am an ordained minister.
Universal Life Church doesn't count!
Originally posted by Radar
I'm working at Boeing.
My memory is rusty, where is the Boeing facilities? I know JPL has some buildings in Northridge (or was it more like Canoga Park?) and Lockheed has facilities up in Lancaster. But I cant for the life of me remember where Boeing has its facilities.
Uhh who desides this ?? You and your liberterian buddies , the grand councile ??? The kids them selfs ( who going thru school wouldn't have Loved to have this decision ) ???
Their parents make that decision as they do all others until they're grown.
And if the kids DO get to deside , just WHAT do we DO with this great uneducated mass of folks ??? Are they the folks that build the monuments to the great Libertarian gods ????
We wouldn't have any more of a great mass of uneducated folks than we already do. The difference is they'd have a few more years of work under their belts as an apprentice to learn a trade and be able to earn a living other than by flipping burgers.
marine corps?
LOL
But the questien is What have YOU done for your country ????
I served in the U.S. Navy and I still uphold my oath to uphold and defend the Constitution (unlike those soldiers in Iraq), I educate my fellow citizens, and I help true patriots get elected.
Universal Life Church doesn't count!
Sure it does. I can legally perform weddings. My friend does it.
My memory is rusty, where is the Boeing facilities? I know JPL has some buildings in Northridge (or was it more like Canoga Park?) and Lockheed has facilities up in Lancaster. But I cant for the life of me remember where Boeing has its facilities.
I'm working in the Torrance location, but Boeing is all over the place. Most of Boeing Sattelite Systems is in El Segundo, but the Electron Dynamics Division is like our own autonomous area a few miles away in Torrance. But there are facilities in Seal Beach, and all over the country. The El Segundo buildings were all Hughes Space and Communications before but got bought by Ratheon, Boeing, and others. I did work for Hughes too.
I'm sure when a mugger attacks and old lady who happens to be armed and takes him out with a 44 magnum, you compare her to Hitler.
You said you would kill people who wanted income tax.
Everyone take 3 big steps back and look at that statement.
.
.
.
Right.
Learn what trade exactly? Carpentry? I can see it in 20 years now "America thunders back into the position of the world's most powerful economy with massive exports of handmade chairs"
Seriously, how many trades are left in this day and age. If it's manual labour, construction being the obvious exception, it's pretty much been outsourced.
You said you would kill people who wanted income tax.
No, I said I'd kill those who tried to stop me from eliminating 100% of the Constitutional parts of government including income taxes. They can
want anything and I'm not bothered. It's when they act on it that I have a problem. A man can
want to steal what's mine, but until he actually starts stealing it I won't do anything against him.
Seriously, how many trades are left in this day and age. If it's manual labour, construction being the obvious exception, it's pretty much been outsourced.
Plumbers make more money than many doctors. There's fiber optic technicians, electricians, mechanics, bartenders, truck drivers, cooks, brick layers, mail delivery, cement workers, luggage handlers, orderlies in hospitals or old folks homes, security guards, dock workers, road workers, factory workers (America still has factories), and dozens upon dozens of other jobs including....you guessed it.....carpentry. I don't know if you noticed it, but people still build things, still eat, still go on vacations, etc. For everything that needs to be done, there's someone out there to do it.
Seriously, how many trades are left in this day and age. If it's manual labour, construction being the obvious exception, it's pretty much been outsourced.
I hear PA's gonna need a lot more inspectors soon... :)
Originally posted by zippyt
But the questien is What have YOU done for your country ????
I've paid lots of taxes. And i've helped many many people get financing for their cars so that they can get to work and contribute to the GNP.
I know you served in the corps, and I respect that, but what have YOU done for your country?
Is just serving your term in the military ACTUALLY contributing to the country? From a financial standpoint, your salary was paid by taxpayers, as was your food, clothing and training. Can you honestly say that you have done MORE than I have for this country?
It's an interesting topic, and my opinion is not fully formed, so please don;t think that i'm saying that i don;t think military service is of value, i'm just saying that you shouldn;t take a superior tone with people who have not actually enlisted just because you DID. we all contribute to the country...just in different ways.
Good point lumberjim. Government doesn't contribute wealth to society, it's drains it. If you are one of the countless bureaucrats or even a member of a bloated and oversized military that is being used for offense rather than defense in one of the many unnecessary positions being filled, you're not contributing, you're doing just the opposite.
I'll probably just start my own business that mostly deals in cash and report far less than what I actually make or even report losses so I can prevent being victimized by those who would rob me.
Comeing to a jail near you Radar for tax fraud !!!!!
From your lips to God's ears...:D
I don't even believe in god. But I am an ordained minister.
So if you don't beleve in god , just what religen are you "ordaned" in ?????? The Universal church of Radar ????
Kee-rist almighty, does it get any wackier???? A non belief in God, but managed to be ordained as a minister...scary!
Perhaps a more warped version of the
Branch Davidians? (or as I like to call them, "the wackos in Waco") :eek:
I'm scratching my head to come up with a word for an atheist minister. Radar, your pretty literate - help me out here. :)
truck drivers, brick layers, mail delivery, cement workers, luggage handlers, orderlies in hospitals or old folks homes, security guards, dock workers, road workers, factory workers (America still has factories), and dozens upon dozens of other jobs including....you guessed it.....carpentry. I don't know if you noticed it, but people still build things, still eat, still go on vacations, etc. For everything that needs to be done, there's someone out there to do it.
And they're all so much better jobs than flipping burgers. Lets face it, they're all the bottom of the food chain. They're mostly taken by immigrants who can't get anything else.
Originally posted by Beestie
I'm scratching my head to come up with a word for an atheist minister. Radar, your pretty literate - help me out here. :)
Scholar? Faculty?
I'm scratching my head to come up with a word for an atheist minister. Radar, your pretty literate - help me out here.
They call the ones who do believe in god, "A Man of God" so why not "A Man of Reason"? Or just plain ol' "Minister"
And they're all so much better jobs than flipping burgers. Lets face it, they're all the bottom of the food chain. They're mostly taken by immigrants who can't get anything else.
Yes, they are leaps and bounds better than flipping burgers. Try triple the pay even for an apprentice. That's hardly "bottom of the food chain". I'd rather do any of those jobs than burger flipping. And these jobs aren't picking fruit, they're great jobs that pay well enough to support a family. In fact I'd be willing to bet there are quite a few plumbers who make more money than you.
Originally posted by Beestie
I'm scratching my head to come up with a word for an atheist minister. Radar, your pretty literate - help me out here. :)
How about the "Irreverant Reverend?" Radar became a minister because this allows him to dodge various taxes, folks. Its a tried and true Libertarian ploy. One of the things that intrigues me is that Radar gets to decide which laws he will follow and which he won't because he has apparently gotten the direct word from John or Samuel Adams and he knows the TRUTH while the rest of us do not. Actually, the voice whispering in Radar's ear is that of Ayn Rand. I've mentioned her name before. All Libertarian philosophy can be traced directly back to the writings of Ms. Rand who founded a school of thought called "Objectivism" back in the early 50's.
Radar parrots Ayn Rand left and right (mostly extreme right, of course). She is the one who popularized the statement that income taxes amount to slavery and the taking of one's life. Ms. Rand (a pen name, by the way) started out life as a member of the Russian aristocracy. Her life of wealth and priviledge was rudely interrupted by the Russian revolution of 1914. After much hardship and suffering she managed to escape Russia for the US where she settled in New York and began to turn out lengthy pot boiler novels like THE FOUNTAINHEAD and ATLAS SHRUGGED.
Her writings found a receptive audience in the cold war hysteria of the early 50's. She sounds good at first reading, but upon reflection it is easy to see how what she writes is a hysterical over reaction to her experiences under communist repression. Yeah, communism is a lousey idea, but near anarchy, extreme right wing Libertarism is not the correct response.
Ms. Rand had no formal training in economics nor was she a student of American history. His thinking was reactionary in nature and flawed at almost every turn. Yet her philosophy is the basis for Libertarianism and Radar would shoot those of us who do not agree with her.
Just what have YOU done for your country, Radar, besides break its laws and spout a hate-based political agenda ("I will shed blood...")? Did you see combat during the course of your military duty? My father was career military and served the United States in World War II, the Korean conflict, and two tours in Vietnam. He also paid his taxes and voted in every election. He wasn't Libertarian, however, and would have opposed your attempts to take over this country. For this you would have executed him?
I have nothing but contempt for you, Radar. Stop driving on the Interstate you never paid for and go serve your country on the front lines. You live under a political system you won't pay a dime to support, benefiting by the sacrifices other Americans such as my father made and you threaten with death those who don't go along with your narrow minded, selfish little agenda. You lack the vocabulary to respond with anything other than obscenities toward those who call you upon your words. As far as I am concerned, YOU are the parasite.
Originally posted by Beestie
I'm scratching my head to come up with a word for an atheist minister. Radar, your pretty literate - help me out here. :)
Irreverand (Which, IIRC, would make radar Irreverand Ireland. Which I find very funny).
Originally posted by marichiko
How about the "Irreverant Reverend?" Radar became a minister because this allows him to dodge various taxes, folks. Its a tried and true Libertarian ploy. One of the things that intrigues me is that Radar gets to decide which laws he will follow and which he won't because he has apparently gotten the direct word from John or Samuel Adams and he knows the TRUTH while the rest of us do not. Actually, the voice whispering in Radar's ear is that of Ayn Rand. I've mentioned her name before. All Libertarian philosophy can be traced directly back to the writings of Ms. Rand who founded a school of thought called "Objectivism" back in the early 50's.
Radar parrots Ayn Rand left and right (mostly extreme right, of course). She is the one who popularized the statement that income taxes amount to slavery and the taking of one's life. Ms. Rand (a pen name, by the way) started out life as a member of the Russian aristocracy. Her life of wealth and priviledge was rudely interrupted by the Russian revolution of 1914. After much hardship and suffering she managed to escape Russia for the US where she settled in New York and began to turn out lengthy pot boiler novels like THE FOUNTAINHEAD and ATLAS SHRUGGED.
Her writings found a receptive audience in the cold war hysteria of the early 50's. She sounds good at first reading, but upon reflection it is easy to see how what she writes is a hysterical over reaction to her experiences under communist repression. Yeah, communism is a lousey idea, but near anarchy, extreme right wing Libertarism is not the correct response.
Ms. Rand had no formal training in economics nor was she a student of American history. His thinking was reactionary in nature and flawed at almost every turn. Yet her philosophy is the basis for Libertarianism and Radar would shoot those of us who do not agree with her.
AhHA! I *knew* this was a cult in the making! (slightly j/k folks) ;) Isn't this attitude akin to
anarchy ?
I have nothing but contempt for you, Radar. Stop driving on the Interstate you never paid for and go serve your country on the front lines. You live under a political system you won't pay a dime to support, benefiting by the sacrifices other Americans such as my father made and you threaten with death those who don't go along with your narrow minded, selfish little agenda. You lack the vocabulary to respond with anything other than obscenities toward those who call you upon your words. As far as I am concerned, YOU are the parasite.
*bowing and chanting* "I am not worthy...I am not worthy!" :D
All Libertarian philosophy can be traced directly back to the writings of Ms. Rand who founded a school of thought called "Objectivism" back in the early 50's.
Yet another lie. Libertarian philosophy goes back hundreds of years and was followed by the founders of America.
I am happy and proud that you would compare me to a genius like Ayn Rand who is your superior in every way. I'm also proud that a left-wing socialist such as yourself would consider me to be a right-wing libertarian even though there is no such thing. I'm equally happy to be called a left-wing or liberal libertarian by those on the right. It only proves I'm doing the right thing.
For this you would have executed him?
Only if he stood against me or tried to prevent me from returning America to a Constitutional Republic. He did take part in unconstitutional wars and he was certainly not defending America while he was in them (Korea & Vietnam). Whether or not I saw any combat while serving in the military is irrelevant. I would have, and still would, be the first in line to defend America against an attack, but I would not take part in the violation of the Constitution as those who took part in Korea, Vietnam, Bosnia, Iraq (both times), etc. did. Had I stayed in the military, I would not have followed an order to fight in Iraq because it is an unlawful one.
I have nothing but contempt for you, Radar.
I can't say you're important enough for me to muster up much of any emotion for you, but if I had to think of how I feel about you, I suppose "disgust" and "pity" would come to mind.
Stop driving on the Interstate you never paid for and go serve your country on the front lines.
Grow up you ignorant wretch. I pay plenty of taxes, but I won't pay any
income taxes because they are nothing short of slavery. If a tax is placed on a product, I can choose not to have that product, but my labor is always mine regardless of what you or the government say.
I have paid for the interstates, police, schools (even though they should be abolished), libraries, parks, etc. with the huge amount of taxes I do pay. I pay tax every time I eat out, fill my car with gas, make a phone call, stay in a hotel, buy an airplane ticket, watch cable television, etc. I pay plenty of taxes.
And since you're such a moron, let me clue you in on something.
100% OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL PARTS OF GOVERNMENT CAN BE PAID FOR WITHOUT COLLECTING A SINGLE PENNY OF INCOME TAX!!! That includes a post office, a defensive military, a judiciary, congress, president, and everything else specifically mentioned in the Constitution. We'd just have to eliminate the unconstitutional parts like welfare, social security, medicare, federally funded education, business and farm subsidies, organizations like the FCC, FDA, FBI, CIA, BATF, IRS, Homeland Security, etc.
*bowing and chanting* "I am not worthy...I am not worthy!"
This is the first correct thing you've said in a long time. You aren't worthy. You aren't worthy of the freedom the founders fought and died to create in this country. You aren't worthy to live in a country men like me currently fight to keep free and neither is your pathetic gimpy friend who is nothing but a leech.
We'd just have to eliminate the unconstitutional parts like welfare, social security, medicare, federally funded education, business and farm subsidies, organizations like the FCC, FDA, FBI, CIA, BATF, IRS, Homeland Security, etc.
Erm. I'm no fan of most of these institutions but er, wouldn't it be a little hard to govern in a state overun by crime, unsafe drugs, emission hell wacking all electronic equipment to shit (thus no mobile networks, stable radio stations etc) and well, someone needs to collect the tax you think is valid. I wonder how much that is. The defence budget is over 400B these days.
Of course many of these problems didn't exist when that document was written.
Originally posted by Radar
Whether or not I saw any combat while serving in the military is irrelevant.
In other words you haven’t. Never having seen combat, you can speak blithely of taking the lives of those who oppose you.
Originally posted by Radar
I won't pay any income taxes because they are nothing short of slavery. If a tax is placed on a product, I can choose not to have that product, but my labor is always mine regardless of what you or the government say.
Radar attempts to take the moral high ground when all he has is a slippery slope. He is doing exactly what he accuses the Federal government of doing and expects the rest of us to sign off on it. Since Radar pays no income taxes, I and every other tax paying American, get to foot the bill so that Radar can drive to his tax free job everyday. The rest of us get to pay the bill for the food Radar puts on his table and which he got at a lower price thanks to Federal agricultural assistance programs. Any health care Radar recieves will be from professionals whose schooling you and I helped pay for through the public education system and government backed college tuition loans. When Radar’s wife comes to this country to set up nail shops, Radar will no doubt make use of government subsidized small business and minority owned business loans to help her set up shop. You and I will pay for this. Radar will not.
I don’t recall authorizing Radar to be a leech at my expense. If anyone is taking advantage of me, it is Radar, far more than the Federal government. To add insult to injury, Radar wants to wrest my SSDI money away from me at the point of a gun. This is my own money which I paid into the system over a life time of hard work. Yet Radar feels free to take it from me and threatens me with murder if I protest. Bottom line, there is no difference between Radar’s actions as an individual and the actions he percieves the government of being guilty of. If anything, Radar is even more of a thief. At least I have the option of writing my congressman. I doubt if Radar will give us the address of his accountant.
Originally posted by marichiko
Radar attempts to take the moral high ground when all he has is a slippery slope. He is doing exactly what he accuses the Federal government of doing and expects the rest of us to sign off on it. Since Radar pays no income taxes, I and every other tax paying American, get to foot the bill so that Radar can drive to his tax free job everyday. The rest of us get to pay the bill for the food Radar puts on his table and which he got at a lower price thanks to Federal agricultural assistance programs. Any health care Radar recieves will be from professionals whose schooling you and I helped pay for through the public education system and government backed college tuition loans. When Radar’s wife comes to this country to set up nail shops, Radar will no doubt make use of government subsidized small business and minority owned business loans to help her set up shop. You and I will pay for this. Radar will not.
Blackdamnit! Yet another person I'm forced to pay for! :mad:
I don’t recall authorizing Radar to be a leech at my expense. If anyone is taking advantage of me, it is Radar, far more than the Federal government. To add insult to injury, Radar wants to wrest my SSDI money away from me at the point of a gun.
Fuck that dumb shit. He wants us to pay for his shit and
THEN have the nerve to take our money away, and
THEN is willing to kill us beause we don't agree??? :rar:
This is my own money which I paid into the system over a life time of hard work. Yet Radar feels free to take it from me and threatens me with murder if I protest. Bottom line, there is no difference between Radar’s actions as an individual and the actions he percieves the government of being guilty of. If anything, Radar is even more of a thief. At least I have the option of writing my congressman. I doubt if Radar will give us the address of his accountant.
BAM! End of story, good night, thanks for playing! :thumb:
In other words you haven’t. Never having seen combat, you can speak blithely of taking the lives of those who oppose you.
I haven't spoken "blithely" about anything. I have been speaking gravely about a serious situation. You are the one making ludicrous comparisons to Hitler and Pol Pot. I am talking about defense. I am talking about defending my country from my government, defending myself from aggression, and defending my property from theft. And I would kill those who oppose the country and legacy of freedom given to me by the founders.
I freely admit I haven't been in combat, but again, that means nothing. You just feel the need to mention it because you think someone who has fought in combat has somehow given more to their country than someone who hasn't which is a crock of shit. Those in combat in Iraq were undermining the Constitution and America. They weren't defending America and have actually harmed America instead of doing their duty.
Since Radar pays no income taxes, I and every other tax paying American, get to foot the bill so that Radar can drive to his tax free job everyday.
No, you don't and neither does anyone else. You in particular don't pay for shit you little leech.
I pay for every single thing I use from government myself. I pay enough taxes to pay for the roads I drive on. I pay tariffs for produce grown in other countries (most is imported and not grown here because farmers are paid stolen money to NOT grow food), I pay for the healthcare I receive from the best doctors who attended private schools paid for entirely in cash by their parents, and I have never, and will never take a dollar of money from government for assistance in anything. Just because they have stolen from me, doesn't mean I'm entitled to steal from others by taking that dirty money. If I ever am in need of assistance or charity, I will get it from private non-profits, family, and friends.
I will open the nail shops by paying in cash. They are fairly cheap to open. I could open one for less than $30k.
I don’t recall authorizing Radar to be a leech at my expense
Since I pay for every single government service I want, and many that I don't want (farm subsidies, student loans, etc) and because you don't pay squat in taxes, you are once again talking out of your ass. You are a parasite and you want to justify your theft by accusing others of doing the same.
To add insult to injury, Radar wants to wrest my SSDI money away from me at the point of a gun. This is my own money which I paid into the system over a life time of hard work.
Wrong. It's not YOUR money. YOUR money was spent long ago to pay for some old people to eat cat food because they relied on government to help them. The money YOU are getting is someone else's money. The money of young kids working to feed money into the broke pyramid scheme of social security. Try again loser.
Yet Radar feels free to take it from me and threatens me with murder if I protest.
Here comes the drama. Give it a rest. I haven't specifically threatened you or anyone else. I have said I
WILL eliminate all unconstitutional parts of government including social security even if it must be done at the point of a gun. This isn't murder. If someone is robbing you at the point of a gun, and you shoot them, you are not guilty of murder. You have defended yourself and your property. None of your worthless lies will change the fact that defending yourself and your property is not murder. Yes, you can write your congressman to ask for a larger cut of the stolen pie and no I will not give you my address. I am my own accountant.
Your bogus claims that I am somehow getting services from government I don't pay for are laughable. And you mention services that I don't use, don't want to use, don't benefit from, and don't want to suggest I am stealing. What a joke!
You haven't got a leg to stand on........oops!
Fuck that dumb shit. He wants us to pay for his shit and THEN have the nerve to take our money away, and THEN is willing to kill us beause we don't agree???
Shut the hell up you stupid bitch. I don't take shit from you or anyone else and you get mad when I want to keep what I've worked for, to spend it on the schools I want my kids to attend, to give to charities I think are worthwhile, to get the healthcare I want, etc? You're out of your feeble little mind.
I will kill in my DEFENSE, and not otherwise. Stop stealing money from me and other Americans, and you have nothing to worry about. Stop trying to turn me and other Americans into slaves and you won't have anything to worry about.
I'm no fan of most of these institutions but er, wouldn't it be a little hard to govern in a state overun by crime, unsafe drugs, emission hell wacking all electronic equipment to shit (thus no mobile networks, stable radio stations etc) and well, someone needs to collect the tax you think is valid.
Any increases in crime would be negligible, private drug certification and testing companies could verify the safety of drugs without holding them up for 10 years and companies would still be liable for damage they cause, private organizations like the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority could keep track of electronic signals, emissions, etc. and companies would buy from the companies that were the most reliable, etc.
Give it a rest, yourself, Radar. You seriously want us to believe that you float to work on air without using a single publicly funded road, that you have found health care professionals who attended private schools from kindergarten on and made it through medical or professional training in only private colleges or universities, strictly on Daddy's money and that you only eat food which was raised or grown in foreign countries? You bet!
At least I contributed to the system - probably far more than I will ever get back from it - and if you get brownie points for paying other taxes, then so do I.
We've had more than enough politically inspired violence in this country. If you don't want people to call you on it, you shouldn't throw threats of blood shed around so lightly.
Maybe you should just go down and spit on a few of our soldiers returning from the Gulf. I'm sure that would win you lots of votes just as long as you don't use a publicly funded road to go meet their plane.
I drive on public roads that I PAY FOR in taxes, every time I fill my gas tank (though the toll roads are in far better shape and reasonable in price). Children go to public schools that I PAY FOR with property taxes and local sales taxes. Most of the produce I buy is from other countries because America pays farmers NOT to grow food. But even the food that is grown and subsidized here is subsidized against my will. Why should I pay for something I don't want, don't need, and certainly wouldn't use if given a choice? But even these subsidies are paid for by me in the form of tariffs. Remember I'm not against taxes, I'm against INCOME taxes and against any taxes to pay for unconstitutional parts of government.
We've had more than enough politically inspired violence in this country. If you don't want people to call you on it, you shouldn't throw threats of blood shed around so lightly.
I don't make that promise lightly. I hope we can return America peacefully to a constitutional republic but it's not looking good. And if it comes to it, I will kill in my defense. I certainly don't want this to happen. I would be far happier if government would just willingly give up the powers they have usurped, and remove the unconstitutional parts of government willingly. But how likely do you think that is to happen? Despots never give up power willingly, so it's up to those of us who still love America and still respect the principles on which this nation was built to do what is necessary to remind government that they are the servants and we are the masters and that nobody is entitled to anything based on their wants or needs.
Originally posted by Radar
Most of the produce I buy is from other countries because America pays farmers NOT to grow food. But even the food that is grown and subsidized here is subsidized against my will.
I am just curious where you are getting your info that most of the produce we eat is grown in other countries? As of a few years ago California alone grew 60% of the produce and grain that America ate. They also accounted for 54% of the dairy products, approximately 25-30% of the meat and something like 39% of the cotton grown in this country. And that was just California, there are many other states producing food for this country. So I am genuinely curious where you got this data from as I am interested in seeing how that trend might have changed.
Originally posted by blue58
Anybody ever have "gravy bread" for the main course? I remember laying in the living room eating that, watching the Wizard of Oz. Good times.
Yup, I remember the gravy bread. I still love that stuff. Anybody remember potato chip sandwiches? Talk about getting creative with those...and of course EVERYONE remembers fried bologna sandwiches!
Originally posted by Lady Sidhe
Yup, I remember the gravy bread. I still love that stuff. Anybody remember potato chip sandwiches? Talk about getting creative with those...and of course EVERYONE remembers fried bologna sandwiches!
I remember banana and mayonaise sandwiches from childhood. Call me whatever but I still like them. :)
And LS, don't stay gone so long next time.
Originally posted by Brigliadore
I am just curious where you are getting your info that most of the produce we eat is grown in other countries?
I know that the great majority of produce we get in the US is grown elsewhere *during the winter months*, but during the growing season, most everything I see at the store is domestic. Apples, especially, keep well in storage, so you get American apples year-round.
Largely, it depends on type of produce and time of year.
quote:Originally posted by marichiko
Radar attempts to take the moral high ground when all he has is a slippery slope. He is doing exactly what he accuses the Federal government of doing and expects the rest of us to sign off on it. Since Radar pays no income taxes, I and every other tax paying American, get to foot the bill so that Radar can drive to his tax free job everyday. The rest of us get to pay the bill for the food Radar puts on his table and which he got at a lower price thanks to Federal agricultural assistance programs. Any health care Radar recieves will be from professionals whose schooling you and I helped pay for through the public education system and government backed college tuition loans. When Radar’s wife comes to this country to set up nail shops, Radar will no doubt make use of government subsidized small business and minority owned business loans to help her set up shop. You and I will pay for this. Radar will not.
Blackdamnit! Yet another person I'm forced to pay for!
quote:I don’t recall authorizing Radar to be a leech at my expense. If anyone is taking advantage of me, it is Radar, far more than the Federal government. To add insult to injury, Radar wants to wrest my SSDI money away from me at the point of a gun.
Fuck that dumb shit. He wants us to pay for his shit and THEN have the nerve to take our money away, and THEN is willing to kill us beause we don't agree???
quote:This is my own money which I paid into the system over a life time of hard work. Yet Radar feels free to take it from me and threatens me with murder if I protest. Bottom line, there is no difference between Radar’s actions as an individual and the actions he percieves the government of being guilty of. If anything, Radar is even more of a thief. At least I have the option of writing my congressman. I doubt if Radar will give us the address of his accountant.
BAM! End of story, good night, thanks for playing!
YEAH!! What THEY said!!
Seriously though, Radar....you're wacked. Breathe...or something.... In the immortal words of SOMEBODY from the Cellar, I forget who, "Dude, shut the fuck up. No, really. Shut the fuck up" (That one's simple, but beautiful, and I wanted to use it just once *g*).
The violence with which you espouse your Libertarianesque ideas is alarming. Honey, I've been on the receiving end of The Sharp Tongues of The Cellar, but never once, no matter how upset I got over it, did I resort to namecalling to get my point across, which you do quite often. Seems to me that if you weren't feeling threatened, you wouldn't be calling names.
Not to mention this willingness to kill over what you perceive as theft *shakes head*
Others have already contradicted you over and over concerning your...um, whatever it is you're frothing about, so I'm not going to bother. I just finished reading 15 pages of this stuff and my eyes are starting to cross...it's like reading the sermon of a fundamentalist preacher...no matter how much you prove him wrong, he's still going to insist that Satan planted the fossils there to fool us.....
Sidhe
Originally posted by Beestie
I remember banana and mayonaise sandwiches from childhood. Call me whatever but I still like them. :)
And LS, don't stay gone so long next time.
OOH! YES! I LOVE banana and mayo sandwiches!!
Domestic difficulties made it necessary to take a sabbatical...but thanks for the welcome back! :)
Sidhe
Originally posted by Lady Sidhe
OOH! YES! I LOVE banana and mayo sandwiches!!
They go down smooth with Radar flavored Koolaid!
[SIZE=1]nyuk,nyuk, nyuk[/SIZE]
:)
Any increases in crime would be negligible, private drug certification and testing companies could verify the safety of drugs without holding them up for 10 years and companies would still be liable for damage they cause, private organizations like the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority could keep track of electronic signals, emissions, etc. and companies would buy from the companies that were the most reliable, etc.
Only just noticed this.
Any increases in crime would be negligible? Based on what exactly? Do you have any source whatsoever for that 'fact'? Considering the bodies responsible for basically all large-scale criminal endeavors would be removed.
Would YOU trust a private company to certify a drug? Who's to say they didn't just pay them to pass it though, or skip some of the harder tests. We wouldn't even know for 10 years would we. As for suing them, what if they disappear, wouldn't be hard to set up a fly-by-night operation.
As for emissions, the IANA has little if any legal clout. Someone starts fucking up your mobile network (new business tactic, block your competitors network towers!) what are you gonna do?
You know if there wasn't a fair few nice people living in the states I'd almost like to see you come to power, just to watch America slowly descend into anarchy, the economy colapse and see what happens when the world once again has no superpower.
Originally posted by jaguar
You know if there wasn't a fair few nice people living in the states I'd almost like to see you come to power, just to watch America slowly descend into anarchy, the economy colapse and see what happens when the world once again has no superpower.
Yeah, wouldn't it be nice to see Radar stew in his own juices (or kool-aid, as the case might be)? Do you suppose Switzwerland might grant me political asylum?:thumb:
Originally posted by jaguar
You know if there wasn't a fair few nice people living in the states I'd almost like to see you come to power, just to watch America slowly descend into anarchy, the economy colapse and see what happens when the world once again has no superpower.
Jag, you anti american punk. Come over here and say that. You might as well be french.
Come over here and say that.
Love to, but since I haven't been charged with anything, I'm not handing over my fingerprints.
Originally posted by lumberjim
Jag, you anti american punk. Come over here and say that. You might as well be french.
Hey, I'm over here and I'll say it. Radar would deserve what he got, and so would the US if a majority of the voters were willing to follow Radar to their doom. Wanna turn me in to Homeland Security? The last I heard, we still had freedom of speech around here.
Besides, why should Jag be French when he can be Swiss instead? Some fun facts about Switzerland: Its a federal republic - the second oldest after the US. The literacy rate in Switzerland is 99%. The GND is $32,000 a year. No one in Switzerland lives below the poverty line. And guess what? They have a national income tax (whoops!).
so why don;t you move to switzerland, marichiko? It's like the size of Delaware, right? and moslty mountains? What do they have like 35 people in the whole country? As far as no one living below the poverty line goes, aren;t they a socialist economy?
Jag?
Originally posted by lumberjim
so why don;t you move to switzerland, marichiko? It's like the size of Delaware, right? and moslty mountains? What do they have like 35 people in the whole country? As far as no one living below the poverty line goes, aren;t they a socialist economy?
Jag?
I've seriously considered it. My Mother is native born Swiss and I still have family there. However, I grew up in the US and this is my home. Yes, Switzerland has quite a few mountains, and its absolutely beautiful. However, its economy is industrially based and agriculture plays only a very small role.
The population is 7,262,372 (July 2000 est.). Switzerland is NOT a socialist country. As I stated before, its a federal republic - the second oldest in the world. Switzerland's system of representative government puts even the US to shame. The voters of each canton (that's state to us) get together and decide on policies and laws. Their wishes are then carried out on the federal or national level.
Radar, I'm no Constitutional scholar, so maybe I'm missing something here... but I can't see how you reason out that Income Tax is theft. The US Constitution explicitly allows for future Amendments in Article 5:
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution...(snip)
And Income Tax was added as an legal Constitutional Amendment in 1913 as Article 16:
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
If you're arguing that income tax is theft based on purely moral and/or philosophical grounds, then of course you are entitled to that
opinion, but when you live in a democratic state and your opinion is not that of the majority, the only weapon you have any exercisable right to use is non-violent infuence. If you attempt to incite change, against the will of the people, with the aid of force, then it is
you who are violating the natural rights of others, regardless of what you may think.
A large part of the government's purpose is to mediate the people, and when there is a difference in opinions or philosophies, no matter how strongly all of the individuals believe they are correct, the machine of democaracy will decide. By continuing to live within the boundaries of that democracy, every person agrees to abide by it.
Or, to use an argument similar to yours... this country is the
property of the people of the United States. The people have democratically elected a goverment, and have entrusted that government to create and uphold laws to promote justice and equality for all. If that government takes any action which is objectionable to the people-- who
own this country-- it is the responsibility of the people to rectify that through the democratioc process. But as long as the people still entrust governing power to this government, any person who lives in this country and violates the laws of this country is violating the natural rights of the people of the United States.
I think the government has many, many problems, but it could be much worse, and I still have hope that the democratic process will slowly erode away many of the problems over time. If the goverment itself were to ever attempt to remove the democratic power from the people, I'll be right there next to you fighting to win the peoples' country back. But as it is, you're making threats to people who are living by the very Constitution which you claim to hold so dear.
Switzerland, a Prosperious and Stable Market Purchase power stability achieved through traditionally low inflation, low long-term capital costs, a good investment climate, sound public finances and almost no labour strikes guarantee the prosperity and stability of the Swiss economy.
The strength of the Swiss economy is largely due to its international outreach and strong intertwining with the economies of other countries. Switzerland has one of the highest export rates as a percentage of gross domestic product. Highly specialised and flexible small and medium-sized companies characterise the technologically advanced industrial sector.
With a per capita gross national product ranking the second highest worldwide, Switzerland is a prominent player in the world economy.
Key economic data illustrate the prosperous nature of the country:
plus, they have lots of blonde hotties!
Originally posted by lumberjim
plus, they have lots of blonde hotties!
You bet! Even us half Swiss are knock-outs (she said, modestly)!
Originally posted by Brigliadore
As of a few years ago California alone grew 60% of the produce and grain that America ate.
Whoa nellie! The produce is possible but the grain can't be true. Anyone that's driven through the wheat fields of Kansas, Nebraska, Colorado, the Dakotas, etc would have a hard time with that. Besides, isn't California the land of fruits and nuts? :)
And Income Tax was added as an legal Constitutional Amendment in 1913 as Article 16:
If Radar returns to this thread he'll prolly question whether the 16th was properly ratified. Proper or not they will come take your stuff.
Originally posted by xoxoxoBruce
Whoa nellie! The produce is possible but the grain can't be true. Anyone that's driven through the wheat fields of Kansas, Nebraska, Colorado, the Dakotas, etc would have a hard time with that. Besides, isn't California the land of fruits and nuts? :)
I was lumping fruits, nuts, vegetables and grain into one large clump, so the 60% I quoted includes all the above. California is one of the largest produces of Soy which is considered a grain. Nebraska and the Dakotas do produce a large amount of corn and wheat but you have to remember that just because corn is being grown doesn't mean its going to be eaten by humans. Around 54% of the grain grown in this country goes into animal food (dog food, horse grain, cattle feed, chicken scratch, etc.).
The number I stated were from 2000 but at that time they were accurate. I had to do a report in collage on it for my agricultural science class, so i had to dig up all that data from the USDA.
I ruled out the corn as high as an elephants eye because I realize it's mostly animal chow. But hundreds of miles of wheat, oats, millet and rice are hard to discount.:)
I skimmed a lot here, folks. In fact, I only read about two posts after page 1, and even that I haven't read lately.
But I did notice some stuff about being a minister.
I'm not a particularly religious person, and I was unaware of the tax benefits. But I'd still get a kick out of being Father George. Imagine being able to properly bless things like glasses of orange juice and important papers.
http://www.ordination.org/That why that 60% includes fruit, nuts, and vegetables as well. :)
I think when I last looked Nebraska was the largest producer of just grain, with one of the Dakotas close behind (I think it was south), but that could have changed in the last few years.
Originally posted by Brigliadore
I was lumping fruits, nuts, vegetables and grain into one large clump, so the 60% I quoted includes all the above. California is one of the largest produces of Soy which is considered a grain. Nebraska and the Dakotas do produce a large amount of corn and wheat but you have to remember that just because corn is being grown doesn't mean its going to be eaten by humans. Around 54% of the grain grown in this country goes into animal food (dog food, horse grain, cattle feed, chicken scratch, etc.).
The number I stated were from 2000 but at that time they were accurate. I had to do a report in collage on it for my agricultural science class, so i had to dig up all that data from the USDA.
as I read this post, I had a cliff claven- trivia-worked at the post office-white socks joke brewing that had some real promise, but then you bailed yourself out with the science class assignment alibi. It was a close one, I tells ya.
Originally posted by lumberjim
as I read this post, I had a cliff claven- trivia-worked at the post office-white socks joke brewing that had some real promise, but then you bailed yourself out with the science class assignment alibi. It was a close one, I tells ya.
Ah, my collage years finally pay off. I knew there was a reason I spent all that money
She's right. Quality of girls here is incredible. The really interesting thing is considering the diet here (hold the veggies, extra cheese, fat, bacon....) I have seen probably 2 overweight people so far in Switzerland as a whole.
If you think Switzerland is socialist you're only showing your own ignorance.
I'll sponser a political refugee claim marichiko ;)
Switzerland gives you a fully automatic rifle to keep in your closet, just in case.
Now, that's homeland security.
I do have issue with their renting space to the UN (I have the same issue in NY, though, so that evens out).
I read somewhere that the Swiss are well behaved because nobody minds their own business. If someone sees you, everyone, including the police, knows. Is that true?
Originally posted by jaguar
If you think Switzerland is socialist you're only showing your own ignorance.
that's why i posed it as a question. Now that you've seen my ignorance, would you like to se my vehemence?
Originally posted by xoxoxoBruce
I read somewhere that the Swiss are well behaved because nobody minds their own business. If someone sees you, everyone, including the police, knows. Is that true?
That has not been my experience. Certainly, I felt a certain pressure from my family to conform when I visited there, but who hasn't experienced such pressures from their family, in one way or another? Other than that, nobody ever seemed especially interested in what I was doing. Everybody is too busy leading their own lives, going to work or school, taking care of their families, etc. Of course, I was never attempting to break any laws, either.;)
The country where I felt under constant surveillance (and may well have been) was Brazil. Whatever pretty face Brazil attempts to put on it, they are pretty much a military dictatorship. Armed soldiers can be found on every street corner. I never saw any such show of force in Switzerland. In Brazil in the city where I was staying, complete strangers would come up to me and recite details of my life (that I was staying with a professor of chemistry who taught at the University of Pernambuco, that I had just recieved a large shipment of books from the US, etc). This was disconcerting, to say the least. In Switzerland's sophisticated cities I never had an experience that was even remotely similiar. In my family's home villiage I was met with curiosity and friendly interest as "Rosa's American daughter," but no one ever reported my movements to the authorities.
Radar, I'm no Constitutional scholar, so maybe I'm missing something here... but I can't see how you reason out that Income Tax is theft. The US Constitution explicitly allows for future Amendments in Article 5:
Congress is indeed allowed to add amendments to the Constitution. Amendments may add something new, or repeal (take away) something old. Amendments
MAY NOT be added that are contrary to another part of the Constitution. For instance, when an amendment was made to prohibit alcohol consumption
(which was also an illegal amendment because congress does not have the authority to legislate all things or anything related to our bodies) and later wanted to change that, they repealed the amendment making it illegal. They did not add an amendment saying "Alcohol is legal". In Article 6 paragraph 2 of the Constitution it says no laws that are contrary to the Constitution may be created. An amendment is a law and therefore qualifies. You may not create a new amendment that is contrary to an old one. You can't have one part of the constitution say that something is legal and another part saying it is illegal.
The Supreme Court had already ruled income taxation to be illegal because it violated the apportionment clause in article 1 section 8. This is why in 1913, the income tax amendment was created and fraudulently ratified. This amendment required 36 votes to pass from the 48 states in the union. Philander Knox (Secretary of State at the time) claimed the 16th had been ratified by 38 states despite not having the required number of
legal votes to pass.
Let me explain...
Several states have laws that when a new amendment is proposed, the legislature that receives the amendment may not vote on it and must pass it to the next one. This is to allow voters the chance to elect those who agree with their particular view on the amendment. Several states did not follow this procedure and since they violated their own state constitutions, their votes do not count.
Thirty-Three states engaged in the unauthorized activity of amending the language of the amendment proposed by congress, which is a power the states do not possess. Some of these had change the language to have the exact opposite meaning of the original amendment. Their votes also don't count. In some cases the governor of a particular state didn't sign the amendment even though required to do so, etc. Some states have no record of voting on it at all or voted against it but their votes were counted for it.
But even if all these irregularities, and illegalities were gone and the correct number of states did vote to ratify the amendment, it would still be illegal for several reasons. It violates and is contradictory to several parts of the Constitution.
It violates the 4th amendment; the government routinely searches through financial records, bank statements, etc. without a warrant.
It violates the 5th amendment; the IRS 1040 form says the information will be shared with law enforcement agencies and we are not required to incriminate ourselves. What if someone earned their money by selling drugs, prostitution, gambling, etc. Tax offenders, are not given due process of law.
It violates the 6th amendment; tax offenders are not given no trial by jury and can not call witnesses, etc.
It violates the 8th amendment because excessive bail is the norm in tax cases and property is seized which falls under cruel and unusual punishment.
It violates the 9th amendment which says all rights NOT listed in the Constitution belong to the people by violating our natural right to keep the fruits of our labor.
It violates the 10th amendment which prohibits the federal government from taking part in or legislating areas in which they hold no authority such as a person's income.
It violates the 13th amendment which makes slavery (involuntary servitude) illegal by forcing us to work for the government without compensation and against our will.
Income taxes violate everything America was created for. You have mentioned that we live in a democracy. We do not live in a democracy, we live in a democratic republic. Our country was created this way to protect individuals from tyranny on the part of the majority. Democracy has its limits. Some things may never be voted on. The rights of one person are more important than the desires of millions, and no matter how many people vote to steal from another person, it doesn't make it right legally or morally.
The powers of government are very specific and very limited. The Federal government
DOES NOT have carte blanche to legislate and govern any areas they choose and
MAY NOT make laws that violate the rights of the citizens because the citizens are the masters and government is the servant.
Originally posted by Radar
Congress is indeed allowed to add amendments to the Constitution. Amendments may add something new, or repeal (take away) something old. Amendments MAY NOT be added that are contrary to another part of the Constitution.
That's not true. Your claim of fraud during ratification may have merit, but an ammendment can change any aspect of the Constitution. That is, in fact, the purpose of the amendment process. You can claim that income tax violates your human rights, and therefore
shouldn't be in the Constitution, but claiming that it is unconstitutional on its face is fatuous.
The founding fathers put the amendment process in place so as not to bind future generations with the fashions of the time. This is a good thing, but it also allows future generations to make mistakes. Nothing in the Constitution is untouchable by ammendment.
Your claim of fraud during ratification may have merit, but an ammendment can change any aspect of the Constitution.
Very true. An amendment may change any aspect of the Constitution. It may do this by adding to or repealing something. This may work for any part of the Constitution. For instance if in 1913 thirty-six states had followed thier own state laws concerning voting on an amendment, had not changed any of the wording, had the governors sign the bill, and sent it back to Congress repealing the aportionment clause and all of the amendments contrary to the new amendment, the amendment would have been legally ratified and be a valid law. But that's not what happened.
You can claim that income tax violates your human rights, and therefore shouldn't be in the Constitution, but claiming that it is unconstitutional on its face is fatuous.
I'm sorry but the statement I made concering the fact that the income tax amendment is unconstitutional on its face is an accurate one.
Neither amendments (laws), nor any other law, or court decision may contradict any part of the Constitution. This is clear in Article 6 paragraph two.
The founding fathers put the amendment process in place so as not to bind future generations with the fashions of the time. This is a good thing, but it also allows future generations to make mistakes. Nothing in the Constitution is untouchable by ammendment.
I agree. The founders made the Constitution so we could change it. It may be changed by adding to it or taking away from it. Any part of it may be added to or taken away, but only within the areas that government has legal authority to govern and may never limit the rights of citizens. The Constitution was made to limit government and not to define or limit the rights of citizens.
The powers of government are EXTREMELY limited, especially the federal government.
I read somewhere that the Swiss are well behaved because nobody minds their own business. If someone sees you, everyone, including the police, knows. Is that true?
Er. No. Quite the opposite in fact. Try getting information out the bank here, even if you're law enforcement you're going to have a hell ofa time, particularly at private banking and high level banking (1-3m+) where banks will make life living hell for law enforcement trying to follow a paper trail.
Also the only country I've found where smartcard/encryption ebanking login is standard.
Photography laws are incredibly strict and the level of privicy protection is higher than any other country I've come across.
I thought that was strange too. Switzerland is known for protecting privacy more than any nation on earth and minding thier own business.
Originally posted by lumberjim
Now that you've seen my ignorance, would you like to see my vehemence?
Oh, my, god...best, comeback, EVAR!
I am so proud of you LJ.
(I told you I'd say something nice about you...and I mean it even)
Originally posted by Radar
I thought that was strange too. Switzerland is known for protecting privacy more than any nation on earth and minding thier own business.
No, I was speaking of little shit. Littering, jaywalking, pissing in the alley kind of stuff. Impolite or possibly misdemeanor as opposed to criminal or invasive. :)
I heard a story about a tourist who threw out some litter and was observed by a Swiss policeman. The policeman picked up the trash and ran after the tourist exclaiming, "Excuse me sir, but you seem to have dropped something!" The Swiss wouldn't have turned the guy in, but they sure would have bad vibed him. Looking at our own litter clogged streets, you think this is such a bad thing?
No, I'm not judging. I'm taking the opportunity to take advantage of having a couple of first hand sources to find out what I don't know about the Swiss.
Although, it's amazing they've been able to live in close proximity with the French, Italians and Germans without becoming contaminated. :D Anyone I've forgotten to piss off?
Originally posted by Griff
And Income Tax was added as an legal Constitutional Amendment in 1913 as Article 16:
If Radar returns to this thread he'll prolly question whether the 16th was properly ratified. Proper or not they will come take your stuff.
[COLOR=indigo]I'm living proof. Got a letter in the mail last week that said I didn't fill the form out correctly, and so they over-refunded me about $2500. I have to pay them back now. And here's the cool part: they get to charge me a years interest on the money they over paid me last year, + interest until I pay them off.
Of course, had I not spent the refund they sent me THIS year already, I could have just repaid them out of that. But now I have to set up a "payment plan". If I choose not to pay them, that's an option, but then they levy my assets and I am ineligible for any federal (college) loans.
So it may be illegal, Radar, but they are doing it, anyway, as much as I'd like to buy into your version of how things would be in "Radar-topia", it's NOT going to happen. We live in Bush's America, and I need to come up with an extra $100 a month until my refund for this year gets here next year, to pay off last year.[/COLOR]
Originally posted by OnyxCougar
[COLOR=indigo]And here's the cool part: they get to charge me a years interest on the money they over paid me last year, + interest until I pay them off. [/COLOR]
That is so fucking shitty, that they are charging you interest for their fuck up. :mad:
Originally posted by OnyxCougar
[COLOR=indigo] We live in Bush's America, and I need to come up with an extra $100 a month until my refund for this year gets here next year, to pay off last year.[/COLOR]
Ouch! Hang in there.
Originally posted by OnyxCougar
[COLOR=indigo]I'm living proof. Got a letter in the mail last week that said I didn't fill the form out correctly, and so they over-refunded me about $2500. I have to pay them back now. And here's the cool part: they get to charge me a years interest on the money they over paid me last year, + interest until I pay them off.
Of course, had I not spent the refund they sent me THIS year already, I could have just repaid them out of that. But now I have to set up a "payment plan". If I choose not to pay them, that's an option, but then they levy my assets and I am ineligible for any federal (college) loans.
So it may be illegal, Radar, but they are doing it, anyway, as much as I'd like to buy into your version of how things would be in "Radar-topia", it's NOT going to happen. We live in Bush's America, and I need to come up with an extra $100 a month until my refund for this year gets here next year, to pay off last year.[/COLOR]
MotherFUCK that's soooo wrong! Sheesh! I send you vibes that a sudden stroke of luck falls upon you and you like...i dunno win the lottery or something...:D
[I think it is a creative idea, Radar. I think the theory works, but I have doubt that the real world implementation would be so ideal. [/B][/QUOTE]
and what the strict libertarian view doesn't have a way to overcome is that the american public has become entitlement focused. people will vote for the politician who will take care of their personal priorities, even if it is exactly counter to the best plan for the nation.
it is a very good idea and on paper it works - just like most other systems. the downfall is that you have to involve people in this system and at the root of it all PEOPLE SUCK. we have the ability to screw up any good idea because the opportunity for corruption (even small scale) is too tantalizing for the majority of individuals.
if you think this is not true, just stop for a moment and ask yourself "did our (corrupt) politicians get into politics simply to screw the people over and steal us blind?" the answer is generally "no", even for the ones that i think are absolute slime. MOST (not all) of them sought positions of power to make a difference. as they climb the ladder that they themselves are corrupted a little at a time. sad but true.
Socialist communism - is a perfect system on paper, unfortunately the leaders will inevitably hold out special privilege for themselves at extreme cost to their "charges"
Representative democracy - perfect on paper until they people who are sent to represent us realize what they can gain personally by placing their needs ahead of ours.
benevolent dictatorship - even this is perfect until the per son on top realizes that they can benefit even more by screwing over the little people, just a little.
people suck. most of us don't mean to, but put in a position of power, most people will cave to the pressure, even if just a little.
as an afterthought - the best solution to radar's disgust for taxes is to drop the income tax and property tax altogether. a sales tax only system would be much more fair and equitable because with certain exclusions - food and medical care (necessities) the government can put into place a sales tax system that would pay for whatever is required for the maintenance of our nation and it is the citizen's choice to purchase goods and services resulting in tax revenue collections. this system would raise more revenue at less cost to the average american, because the thousands upon thousands of individuals not paying in any income tax(illegal industries, illegal immigrants...) would have to pay sales tax just like the rest of us.
this will never happen because the people who it would benefit the most (lower-middle class)will be led to believe it is meant to screw them over by their main sources of political info(union leaders and the grass roots political leaders)
Originally posted by lookout123
and what the strict libertarian view doesn't have a way to overcome is that the american public has become entitlement focused. people will vote for the politician who will take care of their personal priorities, even if it is exactly counter to the best plan for the nation.
And if that's the problem, the republic is doomed to collapse. Panem et circenses and all that.
Originally posted by russotto
And if that's the problem, the republic is doomed to collapse. Panem et circenses and all that.
i'd like to think i'm more of a realist than a pessimist, but i do believe our system (like all systems) is doomed to collapse. it won't be immediate, but it will happen. everything is cyclical. societies rise and they fall. i'm willing to bet the majority of the roman public thought their empire couldn't possibly collapse.
When I was kid growing up my mother use to smoke cigarette butts she found. The phone we had was a pay phone a 1/2 mile away. Pinto beans was the meal of the day almost everyday it seemed. We had a neighbor that had a few chickens. I borrowed my cousins .22 rifle one day. I sat outside the house and waited. Some of chickens were running up and down the dirt road by our shack and I shot one. Brought it into my mom and told her chicken tonight mom. No more beans for a few days thank god.
When I was kid growing up my mother use to smoke cigarette butts she found. The phone we had was a pay phone a 1/2 mile away. Pinto beans was the meal of the day almost everyday it seemed. We had a neighbor that had a few chickens. I borrowed my cousins .22 rifle one day. I sat outside the house and waited. Some of chickens were running up and down the dirt road by our shack and I shot one. Brought it into my mom and told her chicken tonight mom. No more beans for a few days thank god.
Well, you can hardly leave it at that, Pinto Bean. We need to know more to make some sort of suggestion. Why was mom so poor? Husband leave her? Mental illness? Substance abuse? All of the above? Oh, and welcome! Stick around, you'll like it here. Or, someone will mortally insult you and you'll never come back--it's always one or the other. :)
My father dumped my mother when I was 6. My mother was mentally ill and had suffered two break downs during her marriage to my father along with becoming addicted to prescription drugs. She tried to work but could not hold a job any length of time.
Just curious, Pinto Bean,.... do you feel your mothers' situation (mentally) is something genetically bothersome for your own self?
I'll admit I got lazy here and didnt read all 18 pages (hey, I read through every other thread I posted in, I deserve a break), but having lived in Hong Kong for a year and Beijing for three, and having travelled all around China, Tibet (it may be part of the PRC but I'll be damned if I'll call it China), and Mongolia, I've seen poor, and so if I have more than three outfits of clothes, enough food to eat whenever I'm hungry, and my guitar to play, I will never consider myself poor. Really, two out of three ain't bad, I'd sell some of my clothes for strings and/or food if I had to.
With my father in the military we've never quite been rich, but we've always had all we needed, and past... ten years or so, I'd go so far as to say well-off. Five laptops and a PC among four people sure ain't bad, even if two of those laptops are barely usable anymore. Especially when it comes to electronics, we spoil ourselves, even though it leaves us with less actual cash (and/or spending money) then we would like, and as much as I routinely complain about having no money, I've really got it good compared to a lot of people. I'd give up almost all of it in a heartbeat if it meant I could go back to where I lived before instead of staying here in Taiwan, but that doesn't mean I dont like it...
People in the US who complain about being poor typically have never seen (live or pictures) third world poverty.
Poor people here have a house, three TVs, digital cable, and at least one car.
I gotta admit... wolfs=thing= the old adage regarding: what's relative?
What's relative sounds like some Einstein thing. "I have no Nikes shoes to look cool in, therefore I am poor and must mug you"
Or, I am poor, thusly,....
because the tribes that control the ports of bay that may feed my family and the litter of birthed illigitimate bastards (that stink in their own shit), and I hope don't have aids....
AND the Unitied Nations can't do a damn thing about it. THEY are not Tribal.
We still have very poor people, they just look better because we as a society cast off so much usable stuff. :cool:
true dat Bruce,
we hire 3rd world countries to be our sweatshops.... screw the americans that don't deserve shit, and can be afforded to be unemployed.
Besides, mexico, china, and russia are happy to live on $500 a year.
I think "Dirt Po" is Po'er than "Dirt Poor"
;)
lol, like po is one "o" short of poo...
therefore a fart is less than shit.
aka... ones life may be shit? lol
Just curious, Pinto Bean,.... do you feel your mothers' situation (mentally) is something genetically bothersome for your own self?
I have suffered from depression and still do at times. I absolutely hate taking medication it makes me feel like a zombie. Mental health treatment to me is like black magic. The general public does not understand and pushes people away who struggle with mental health issues. A lot of people who struggle with mental health issues are very intelligent they just seem to have a void that others do not have.
that void can be scary, too. :(
why do poor people fuck and make poor lil kiddies?
why do poor people fuck and make poor lil kiddies?
It feels good and when you are po' there ain't a hell of a' lot more to do.
It feels good and when you are po' there ain't a hell of a' lot more to do.
so you know this? how much DO you fuck? errr, um...I mean, how poor ARE you??
;)
how come "po" and "do" don't rhyme?
why do poor people fuck and make poor lil kiddies?
You have to understand that for a lot of the poor people out there, one of the reasons for their 'poorness' is because they are uneducated and not motivated to do better for themselves. Since they are uneducated, they do not understand the economic implications to having many children, but what they are probably thinking is that if they have more kids then they get more child tax credits and better welfare benefits and other things like that which act as an incentive for them to have more children, and the cycle goes on and on and on.
You have to understand that for a lot of the poor people out there, one of the reasons for their 'poorness' is because they are uneducated and not motivated to do better for themselves. Since they are uneducated, they do not understand the economic implications to having many children, but what they are probably thinking is that if they have more kids then they get more child tax credits and better welfare benefits and other things like that which act as an incentive for them to have more children, and the cycle goes on and on and on.
Yes. It certainly couldn't be because sex is enjoyable and protection is an inconvenience. It's because they can't wrap their minds around the "economic implications" that babies are expensive, yet they are well-versed in the specifics of the child tax credit. You know these poor people inside and out.
how come "po" and "do" don't rhyme?
how come "daughter" and "laughter" don't rhyme? Huh? Stupid fricking English language.
Oh, a lot of poor Apalachian folk have a lot of chillen coz they just really like chillen. It's a cultural throw-back to being Irish or Scots/Irish. The Irish loved lots of kiddies around--even during the Potato Famine. Cultural.
It's because they can't wrap their minds around the "economic implications" that babies are expensive, yet they are well-versed in the specifics of the child tax credit.
Yes, I'm struggling with this as well... doesn't make sense.
In
Random Family (different demographic, same problem), it seemed to come dowm to culture/tradition (emulating parents and others in community) and ignorance/inconvenience of birth control.
[QUOTE=Brianna]how come "daughter" and "laughter" don't rhyme? Huh? Stupid fricking English language.
mmmm.......but daughter and slaughter rhyme....
so you know this? how much DO you fuck? errr, um...I mean, how poor ARE you??
;)
Growing-up I was very poor, for US standards. I have been homeless and have actually known hunger. I do not wish to go into it more than that for several reasons that I, also, do not want to go into.
I know this because of the people around me growing-up. I remember when I was around ten a neighbor was telling his kids to have sex and I was surprised, sleep-over, his response was "well, s-what we were made for, we got the -quipment". It was not sarcastic or said with a hit of humor.
One of my few childhood memories.
how come "daughter" and "laughter" don't rhyme? Huh? Stupid fricking English language.
I suspect you already know the answer to this one. It's because English is the melting pot of languages. We've picked up words from everywhere. An informative and quite entertaining book on the subject is
The Mother Tongue: English and how it got that way.
yo momma is so poor...she can't even afford to pay attention!
yo momma is so poor...when I saw kicking a can down the street and asked her what she was doing...she said "Movin!"
yo momma is so poor...when she goes to KFC she has to lick other people's fingers!
yo momma is so poor...when she heard about the last supper she thought she had run out of food stamps!
:headshake
You like the momma comments, don't you? I've seen like half a dozen from you so far. Not criticizing, just noticing.
You like the momma comments, don't you? I've seen like half a dozen from you so far. Not criticizing, just noticing.
True, in some childish way I suppose, I do find some humor in replying to people about their moms. Half the time, I don't even think about it, but in this instance, I put those your momma's so poor jokes only because this is a dirt poor thread :eyebrow:
I'm so po' I'm bumpin' old threads to try and keep warm....
With my reduced salary since I have left active duty combined with medical bills from trying to use Tri-Care Reserve rather than totally depend on the VA, things are tough. On top of that, I still pay child support on 2 kids at the rate established when I was on active duty. Plus I support my adoptive daughter (not legal, but I'm the only one who has tried to be a father figure) because her mother is a severe drug addict and Bryanna has to live with her grandparents whose sole income is social security. Finally, I help out my father who as a retiree lost almost everything in the stock market a few years ago.
I'm so poor, I'm planning on moving into a tent on a little piece of property I own. It is my hope I will be able to construct a paleo style pit house to live in. I'll be able to save money to help put my 2 oldest girls through college. Unfortunately, there is little chance I will live to see Addie go to college, but she should be well taken care of with my survivor's benefits and her share of my SGLI.
I never know what to say about posts like yours Sarge. I'm lost for words. If you were in my town I'd find a way to help you somehow. Even if it was just to have you round for dinner once a week.
There are so many stories like yours. Most of us don't think about it as much as we should.
Pathetic response I know, but I don't feel it's my place to say any more.
It really isn't that bad of a lifestyle. I've lived in far worse conditions while in the military. I think I can be quite comfortable. Plus, I'm doing it for my kids. Anyone would do the same
I posted some pics of the pithouse I'm hoping to build. They mysteriously disappeared. Anyway, they are remarkably cool in the summer and easily heated by a pit fire in the winter. I plan to add solar panels for 12 volt batteries. Of course there will be no running water, but I can handle that. Here's a repost of the pics
Very cool. What more could you need? :)
That is very cool! Don't tell tw though, his passion for zoning stops at no man's dream.
Big sarge, you say pics of the house you're hoping to build -did you build this one too, somewhere else? I really like it.
Are you currently on medical leave from your police job, or did you have to give that up? (If that's not being too nosy)
My mom took us to some fairly poor levels when she was carting us around the UK, but she was very good at finding people to take us in and it never lasted very long. We did end up living with her parents for most of our childhood and they supported us, so we were very, very lucky. Without them, I dread to think what would have happened, but maybe she wouldn't have gone so far down the irresponsible route if she hadn't had the safety net they provided.
The only times I have been really 'dirt poor' were in my late teens and early twenties. Having left home to move into a bedsit with J, we got work at a local plastics factory for £1 an hour each. Pulled less than £100 between us for a 45 hour week. Didn't last long 'cause J took the top of his thumb of using a machine without safetey guards. Also the bastard foreman had wandering hands.
That left us sans income with the bedsit rent to pay and there was a three month wait period for any benefits if you'd voluntarily given up your job, or been fired. These days I believe a gap in your regular benefit is somewhat ameliorated by crisis payments of a much lower value.
That's when my friend Harry stepped in to help. Let us rent a room in his madhouse, to live amongst his even madder mates and paid our rent with stolen brandy 'til the housing benefit kicked in. Tried getting work, but just moved from one shitty commission only sales job to the next. With bosses who were all either incompetant wide boys or utter twats. Shortest job lasted two and a half hours. I left after the boss had grilled me for 20 minutes about my boyfriend and sexual experiences.
I do recall stealing slices of wholemeal bread from a housemate. And getting up early to steal bottles of milk from doorsteps. That was probably the nadir of my dirt poor experience.
Truth is though, I may not have felt it at the time, but I was there by choice. At any time I cuold have gone home to Mum's and she'd have been fine with that. And J, though he didn't think so at the time, cuold have gone back to his Dad. It would have stung his pride given the tone of his leaving in the first place, but that was still a choice.
I had a brief spell of a few years more recently when I was managing on benefits, but that was not what I'd consider dirt poor. I live in an area of the country where the cost of living is relatively low. I'm not sure I'd find it as manageble on the current benefits system, but back then it wasn't so terrible. Boring, and disheartening, and grinding, but not terrible.
Sinbad did a bit about being "college poor." He said you'd find a dollar, and think you had it made. He acted all puffed up "Yeah, I got a dollar. I think I'll just walk around with my dollar."
:lol:
hahahaha
I remember one time, me and J had been hanging about the fair on the patch of ground near the bus station. We'd spent our last few coins on a ride together and were walking back to the bedsit, with nothing left. I so wanted a cup of tea, but we didn't have any milk at home and I can't bear it without milk.
Suddenly I spot, on the pavement ahead of us a little grey cloth pouch tightened at the top with a pull cord. A kid's penny purse: containing precisely the correct amount for a pint of milk ;p
Sweet!
The smaller things bring you real joy, when you're poor.
Did you ever steal candy from a baby, though?
These days I believe a gap in your regular benefit is somewhat ameliorated by crisis payments of a much lower value.
Don't you believe it!
The tabloids will have it that Crisis Loans are used by scroungers for foreign holidays and drink binges.
My experience was VERY different.
I had my Incapacity Benefit Assessment in March? April? I'm being honest - I now don't know the exact date. I was completely honest, as I have always been with every aspect of the Benefits Service. I explained that I was volunteering and working towards a full-time job, but currently I felt that the symptoms of anxiety and depression would affect any employment that I took in the short term and would mean a return to benefits.
MONTHS later (again - I can't specify, it's probably here somewhere) I was sent a letter to tell me that according to my assessment I was fit to work, therefore my benefit was stopped - backdated to the time of my assessment. This was only a week before my next payment was due - the sole payment I received and the one I counted on to pay all my bills.
I applied for unemployment benefit a couple of days after - and did in fact start looking for work immediately, but there was a delay while I was interviewed and assessed and the paperwork went through. At least three weeks - because it's always the estimated maximum for me - if they say one-two, it's three.
I have debts. My fault of course, but I have them. Many people do, even those recently employed. I had scheduled payments which I'd been meeting every month, at least one of which was Court agreed.
So I called Crisis Loans, to find they won't pay this and they won't pay that and they won't consider this and they won't consider that. Yes, I do understand they can't be responsible for people's debts, but the Crisis Loan
does have to be repaid, it's not whoopee money. And in a situation where someone has set up a payment schedule via a debtor's court, and the payment schedule has been rigidly adhered to previously, surely that's worth considering?
I was asked detailed questions about whether my mother and father would feed me if I was starving. Would they not leave a little bit on their plate for me, even if they'd cooked a ready meal? If they had spagetti, couldn't have some? Would they really begrudge me a piece of toast?
I've been in a lot of humiliating situations, going through the mental health/ benefits system, but that one take the biscuit. I have no idea how people managed to blag enough for holidays. I got the minimum payment and borrowed from friends and family to keep up to date with agreed payments. All paid back now.
Sarge, sorry this was OT.
Really? Is it that bad?
All I can say is you don't seem too horrified by it. But how can this be good for your health? Is there really no-one who can help you as a vet? Is it really down to this? That's appalling.
Ahh, no not the crisis loans. That's something different. Actually, I think what I am talking about is a 'hardship' payment or something. It's for when you've been sanctioned in some way. So, if your benefits have been stopped as a sanction (like some of my students when i was teaching basic skills, who didn;t turn up to their training too often, would have their income support docked or stopped) or if you're considered to have wilfully made yoursef unemployed and are therefore no longer eligible for regular benefits.
When you are no longer eligible for sickness or incapacity benefit, you still have somewhere to go in the benefits system: you applied for jobseekers. I'm talking about when you are ineligible for any o fthe regular benefits for a period of time. And there's nothing to say that this hardship payment will be made in a timely fashion...
When I was claiming back in the early 90s, being fired from your job or voluntarily giving it up meant you were not entitled to any assistance at all for a period of three months. Once you started claiming it then might take some time on top of that for the claim to be active.
I recall an employer (clothes shop) right royally doing for me in '93 when he 'had to let' me and another girl go, but then told the dole office he'd fired us. Nobody at the dole office ever wondered why the guy was constantly firing his girls a day or so before their 21st birthday when full employment rights kicked in.
We weren't dirt poor when I was growing up, thanks in part due to Johnson's Great Society. My Mom was able to go to school and during that period we were on welfare and food stamps. We ate a lot of shit on a shingle of which I would only eat the peas and toast. Most of my clothes were donated and Christmas came thanks to Toys for Tots. I dont remember suffering though. In fact, we had a lot of fun. Mom always found cheap things to do...back then zoo's and museums didn't cost so much. And the drive-in was a bargain if you brought your own popcorn and pop. Plus, I played outside ALL THE TIME. Even in the winter. And there was also the music. Mom was able to afford a hi-fi one year and she loved listening to her albums..Simon and Garfunkle, The Mammas and the Papas, Roberta Flack, Neil Diamond and Jesus Christ Superstar. And when Mom wasn't home, my oldest brother played The Rolling Stones and Led Zepplin.
I have very fond memories of my childhood.
I hate being on SSDI and have started to struggle to get off it or at least supplement it. A major problem is that I'm trying to get back into the game at an age when most people are starting to think about retirement. So, I have two strikes against me - age and disability. At the moment I am living very simply with my SSDI payment supplemented by my small part time job. My major concern is that my housing is completely dependent on a section 8 housing voucher and congress continues to make cuts to that program. I live in fear that I will lose my voucher and at age 60 be turned out into the street.
I was homeless once before and I ended up spending the summer camped out on public lands up in the mountains. The experience actually ended up being sort of cool - I was living in a beautiful setting, and I had a snug little tent and all my camping gear. I'd build big campfires out of juniper wood at night and toast hot dogs donated from a charity in a town about 30 miles away. I bathed in a crystal clear (but very cold!) mountain stream and even had my cat along for company. By October I was admitted into a rural housing program and managed to make it back indoors before the snow began to fly.
But if they demolish the HUD programs, I'll be looking at sleeping in my car in the winter, and I'll never make it through that, no matter how wonderful my summer camp might be. :(
I don't know how anyone can afford to buy food and gasoline that has children. :(
Sam, have you thought of buying a tiny camper rather than a 4WD? Given your precarious situation, I would definitely consider the idea of buying a vehicle you could live in and then "flying" south for the winter if nothing else came up
Sam, have you thought of buying a tiny camper rather than a 4WD? Given your precarious situation, I would definitely consider the idea of buying a vehicle you could live in and then "flying" south for the winter if nothing else came up
I think the cost of a camper would be too great. Actually, my ideal is to acquire a small camper trailer like a Scamp and then apply to the Forest Service and National Parks to be a campground host. The FS will pay for trailer hook-ups and even give you a small monthly stipend. In return, all I'd have to do is collect recreational fees and make sure everybody shut off their generators by 10:00 pm. In this dream scenario, I'd be a campgound host for a Forest up in Montana in the summer and hit some place like Saguaro National Monument in Arizona for the winter. I'd get to live in some pretty places and meet people from all over the world. Sounds like a dream retirement to me!
The problem is that my income is so low that it will take me a couple of years to save up the money for even a used Scamp. I feel like I'm in a race with the Feds to just survive. I don't know how valid my fears about my housing voucher are, but everytime I check the news from HUD, it's uniformly grim. :(
I don't know you, but I feel you'd be a great campground host -I've met many of them. That's a great dream, keep it alive.
I think the cost of a camper would be too great. Actually, my ideal is to acquire a small camper trailer like a Scamp and then apply to the Forest Service and National Parks to be a campground host. The FS will pay for trailer hook-ups and even give you a small monthly stipend. In return, all I'd have to do is collect recreational fees and make sure everybody shut off their generators by 10:00 pm. In this dream scenario, I'd be a campgound host for a Forest up in Montana in the summer and hit some place like Saguaro National Monument in Arizona for the winter. I'd get to live in some pretty places and meet people from all over the world. Sounds like a dream retirement to me!
Wow. That sounds great. I'm thinking of volleying for live-in caretaker at the "compound" in Hocking HIlls my brother and wife just bought. It has two decent houses. I could work in one of the area forests and just do upkeep on the place in their absenses. Maybe find time to write. Sigh, I can dream can't I? I'm sick of being one of the rats. I'd be a good recluse.
I'd be a good recluse.
I've found being a recluse definitely has its advantages.
It's my dream, for sure. :)
