OT - Politics

On Dec 12, 6:35 pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> Rod & Betty Jo wrote:
>
> > Mark & Juanita wrote:
> >> What should be required is that people who are living from government
> >> benefits should not be allowed to vote. This is the people voting
> >> themselves the treasury that the founders were warned against. You
> >> have a dependency class voting for those who promise to take money
> >> from the people who are working and provide it those who are not.
> >> Self-support should be a pre-requisite for the franchise.
>
> > Tis a sad country that discriminates simply because of age, health or
> > income.....You'd deny the vote simply because someone became ill or
> > disabled.....Not a world I'd choose to embrace. Rod
>
> No - he would deny a vote because someone is living off someone else's wallet.
> There is no "discrimination" involved. No one forces any of the people in
> the aforementioned classes to use government as their proxy for stealing
> Other People's Money.

Ah. Get to a certain age, or have your health fail, and be unable to
work and then...Soylent Green.

What horseshit.

J. Clarke wrote:
<SNIP>

>
> Not sure that penalizing them for deficit spending is necessarily a
> good idea. Sometimes that helps the economy.


This is arguable. The government produces nothing, hence cannot
add to the GDP. But even if it did so, the Federal Government
has no Constitutional authority to "help the economy".

>
>> Step Three
>> ----------
>>
>> Instantiate a flat tax like the Fair Tax via a Constitutional
>> Amendment that forbids the institution of *any* other kind of tax.
>
> So no protective tariffs on foreign trade even if other countries do
> enact such tariffs?

Right. Tariffs are yet another attempt to "manage" economics.

> The "Fair Tax" proposal seems to be a 23% sales
> tax, which is a "soak the poor" scheme.

Go reread it. It does no such thing. It rebates *everyone* the
amount of money a "poor" family would pay in taxes. This means
the truly poor pay no taxes.


--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

On Dec 8, 4:10 pm, Just Wondering <[email protected]> wrote:
> J. Clarke wrote:
> > Just Wondering wrote:
>
> >>Han wrote:
>
> >>>[email protected] (J T) wrote in
> >>>news:[email protected]:
>
> >>>>So, maybe the thing to do would be to pick someone that's
> >>>>actually qualified for the job, but doesn't want it, and just make
> >>>>them president. And, if they do a good job they only have to
> >>>>serve
> >>>>four years.
>
> >>>Can't be done anymore. Who would accept that nomination? But
> >>>while
> >>>we're on the subject, who would you propose? That is a serious
> >>>question, for a change.
>
> >>Make "None Of The Above" a choice on every ballot. If it gets more
> >>votes than any candidate, all the candidates on the ballot go on the
> >>scrap heap, the parties have to come up with new names for the
> >>runoff
> >>election, and the office remains vacant until someone can garner
> >>more
> >>votes than "none of the above."
>
> > So we go for the next century without a government? Who keeps the
> > criminals in check after the police all have to quit policing and get
> > civilian jobs because they haven't been paid in five years?
>
> Not at all. Most offices will still be filled the first go-around, certainly
> enough legislative offices will be to pass a spending bill. I think the result
> would be a wakeup call to the parties, to shake them up and make them offer
> candidates that don't make you hold your nose when voting for the lesser of two
> evils.
>
> Another proposal: Eliminate career politicians by enacting universal term
> limits of no more than 16 years total in all elective offices (local, state, and
> federal combined), with no pension or other retirement benefits.

Kill even half the benefits and most of today's group wouldn't run
again, anyway. Put the federal politicos on the same sort of
retirement plan Joe Average gets down at the distillery and, whoops.
Do the same for medical care coverage. Make them drive their own
damned cars, at what, 37 cents a mile? Allow no vehicle larger than a
mid-size sedan for any person who doesn't need a pick-up truck or
isn't in the military. Outlaw SUVs, black or otherwise (not a bad idea
all around, anyway). Allow NO gifts, not even a 39 cent pen. Game,
set, match. Empty offices.

J. Clarke wrote:
> Just Wondering wrote:
>> J. Clarke wrote:
>>> Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>>>
>>>> J. Clarke wrote:
>>>> <SNIP>
>>>>
>>>>> Not sure that penalizing them for deficit spending is necessarily
>>>>> a
>>>>> good idea. Sometimes that helps the economy.
>>>>
>>>> This is arguable. The government produces nothing, hence cannot
>>>> add to the GDP.
>>>
>>> The effect is indirect.
>>>
>>>
>>>> But even if it did so, the Federal Government
>>>> has no Constitutional authority to "help the economy".
>>>
>>> Comes under "promote the general welfare".
>>>
>>>
>> That language comes from the preamble to the constitution, which,
>> despite what some people including apparently you believe, does NOT
>> grant the federal government any power.
>
> No, it gives them a duty. The power to perform that duty is implied.
> Are you saying that the Federal government is _forbidden_ to enact
> legislation that is beneficial to the economy?
>

Yes.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

NoOne N Particular wrote:

> J. Clarke wrote:
>> Charlie Self wrote:
>
>
... snip
>
> Then, change the voting rules so that only people within the middle
> class income range can vote. Only income from actual work counts.
> Interest, dividends, stock sales, etc. don't count. No more freeloaders
> and no more richies. Just the so-called "average joe".
>

Not sure why you want to exclude those who exceed a certain income
threshold from voting. That kind of shows a certain amount of dedication
and success capability. In truth, they don't have enough numbers to
significantly influence election results by much anyway.

What should be required is that people who are living from government
benefits should not be allowed to vote. This is the people voting
themselves the treasury that the founders were warned against. You have a
dependency class voting for those who promise to take money from the people
who are working and provide it those who are not. Self-support should be a
pre-requisite for the franchise.

--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

J. Clarke wrote:

> Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>> J. Clarke wrote:
>>> Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>>>> J. Clarke wrote:
>>>> <SNIP>
>>>>
>>>>> Not sure that penalizing them for deficit spending is necessarily
>>>>> a
>>>>> good idea. Sometimes that helps the economy.
>>>>
>>>> This is arguable. The government produces nothing, hence cannot
>>>> add to the GDP.
>>>
>>> The effect is indirect.
>>
>> Only in the sense that government can apply more- or less
>> force to make the private sector produce less- or more.
>> The government itself is a consumer unbound by the rules
>> of supply and demand AND one which has the legal use of
>> force at its disposal.
>
> So the boom during WWII was due to ther governmnent forcing the
> private sector to produce more?
>

Umm, yes it was. It was called the "war effort". Businesses were pushed
to produce war materiel, strategic goods were rationed, women went to work
in the factories producing military products while men of military age were
serving in the armed forces. Now, those people who were working in those
factories and businesses were making money and being paid. They had to eat
and have services and other goods. The whole economy benefited from that
effect; however, this was still being done on government borrowing
(remember war bonds?).

>>>> But even if it did so, the Federal Government
>>>> has no Constitutional authority to "help the economy".
>>>
>>> Comes under "promote the general welfare".
>>
>> No sir:
>>
>> 1) That statement is in the Preamble. It is not a foundation of
>> law. It carries all the weight of some Hollyweirdo getting
>> up at an awards ceremony and saying "I love you all". We
>> understand the sentiment but do not take it literally.
>
> I seem to recall there being something in the Constitution about
> "Supreme Law of the Land".

i.e., you would like to be able to mold the Constitution into anything
that you feel would be good at any one time. That is not how or why it was
written. Read the federalist and anti-federalist papers sometime. Nothing
in there about being a "living, breathing document that says whatever an
activist judiciary or other authority says at any time". Instead there is
concern about a runaway federal government and how the constitution was
designed to limit the powers of the federal government.

>
>> 2) In James Madison's own words, the 'general welfare' was
>> not to be understood to be a carte blanche for the Feds
>> to do whatever they wanted. As he pointed out (sorry, do
>> not have the precise cite), that such an interpretation would
>> completely undermine the "enumerated powers" doctrine that
>> drives the whole Constitution.
>
> And James Madison spoke for the Supreme Court when? I'm sorry, but an
> opinion expressed by a President is not law. And we were not talking
> about "a carte blanche". We were talking about legislation intended
> to benefit the economy. Is such legislation forbidden or is it not?
> If it is, what ruling of the Supreme Court forbade it?

OK, you really do view the be all and end all of federal power to be
whatever some activist federal judge says it is. I fear for our country
with this kind of viewpoint. You are basically enabling the government,
through judicial fiat to do whatever the @#$% it wants to do with no
bounds.


... snip

>

--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

J. Clarke wrote:

> Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>> J. Clarke wrote:
>>> Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>>>> J. Clarke wrote:
>>>>> Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>>>>>> J. Clarke wrote:
>>>>>>> Doug Winterburn wrote:
>>>>>>>> J. Clarke wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I know that NRA/ILA has been reasonably effective in getting
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> Congress to vote the way I want them to.
... snip
>>>>>
>>>> No they don't. The 2nd Amendment is a part of our legal code and
>>>> provides positive affirmation of a particular right. "Aid for the
>>>> economy" is not an enumerated power. There is a huge difference
>>>> between the two.
>>>
>>> And it's their opinion, based on just as much evidence as you have
>>> presented, that the Second Amendment does not confer an individual
>>> right.
>>
>> Wrong. There is a considerable body of scholarship that supports
>> the individual rights centricity in the 2nd Amendment as being the
>> intent of the Framers.
>
> Please re read the paragraph to which you responded. Look very
> carefully for the word "not" and consider its significance.
>
>> There is *no mention* of Federal intervention
>> into the economy *at all* in the Constitution. The latter is the
>> invention of activists who want the Constitution to say what they
>> want it to. The former is long established in legal history in
>> our nation.
>
> Just as there seems to be on mention of a collective rights
> interpretation.

What part of "the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms" does not
imply a collective right? If your interpretation of over-reaching federal
powers can be derived from a general purpose statement in the preamble, I
would certainly think you would be even more emphatic about rights that are
specifically enumerated and affirmed.

.. snip
>

--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Mark & Juanita wrote:
> What should be required is that people who are living from government
> benefits should not be allowed to vote. This is the people voting
> themselves the treasury that the founders were warned against. You
> have a dependency class voting for those who promise to take money
> from the people who are working and provide it those who are not.
> Self-support should be a pre-requisite for the franchise.



Tis a sad country that discriminates simply because of age, health or
income.....You'd deny the vote simply because someone became ill or
disabled.....Not a world I'd choose to embrace. Rod

Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>> No, it gives them a duty. The power to perform that duty is implied.
>> Are you saying that the Federal government is _forbidden_ to enact
>> legislation that is beneficial to the economy?
>>
>
> Yes.


A bit Odd....isn't the Supreme Court charged or empowered to determine legal
or illegal, the limits of federal power or what is or is not constitutional?
Did I miss a ruling that demonstrates your position? Are you not confusing
your own personal preference for the actual law of the land? Rod

Rod & Betty Jo wrote:

> Mark & Juanita wrote:
>> What should be required is that people who are living from government
>> benefits should not be allowed to vote. This is the people voting
>> themselves the treasury that the founders were warned against. You
>> have a dependency class voting for those who promise to take money
>> from the people who are working and provide it those who are not.
>> Self-support should be a pre-requisite for the franchise.
>
>
>
> Tis a sad country that discriminates simply because of age, health or
> income.....You'd deny the vote simply because someone became ill or
> disabled.....Not a world I'd choose to embrace. Rod

No, I'd deny the vote to people who are going to use the vote to obtain a
government that uses its power to take money from other people who are
productive and "redistribute" it to themselves.


--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Rod & Betty Jo wrote:

> Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>>> No, it gives them a duty. The power to perform that duty is implied.
>>> Are you saying that the Federal government is _forbidden_ to enact
>>> legislation that is beneficial to the economy?
>>>
>>
>> Yes.
>
>
> A bit Odd....isn't the Supreme Court charged or empowered to determine
> legal or illegal, the limits of federal power or what is or is not
> constitutional?

If the Supremes limited themselves to doing that, life would be grand.
When you have a Supreme court justice who has publicly declared that he
also consults the laws and judicial decisions of other countries in helping
arrive at his decisions, we have a real problem.

> Did I miss a ruling that demonstrates your position? Are you not
> confusing
> your own personal preference for the actual law of the land? Rod

--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> Rod & Betty Jo wrote:
>> Mark & Juanita wrote:
>>
>> Tis a sad country that discriminates simply because of age, health or
>> income.....You'd deny the vote simply because someone became ill or
>> disabled.....Not a world I'd choose to embrace. Rod
>>
>>
>
> No - he would deny a vote because someone is living off someone
> else's wallet. There is no "discrimination" involved. No one forces
> any of the people in the aforementioned classes to use government as their
> proxy for
> stealing Other People's Money.

My point is the elderly, ill or disabled ......Indeed there are those among
us whom cannot through no fault of their own support themselves. To deny
these as less worthy to vote than those blessed with good health is quite
despicable. And I would suggest quite contrary to the basic ideals of a
freedom loving people. How with a clear conscious can one support such
arrogance? Rod

Mark & Juanita wrote:
>> A bit Odd....isn't the Supreme Court charged or empowered to
>> determine legal or illegal, the limits of federal power or what is
>> or is not constitutional?
>
> If the Supremes limited themselves to doing that, life would be
> grand. When you have a Supreme court justice who has publicly
> declared that he also consults the laws and judicial decisions of
> other countries in helping arrive at his decisions, we have a real
> problem.
>

Very true and a strong argument to pick a President whom will appoint Judges
that prefer not to create law but rather interpret.....nonetheless if one
believes in this country, its laws, heritage and potential.....picking which
laws you agree with and claiming everything else illegal is downright
stupid...among other things. Rod

Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> Rod & Betty Jo wrote:
>> My point is the elderly, ill or disabled ......Indeed there are
>> those among us whom cannot through no fault of their own support
>> themselves. To deny these as less worthy to vote than those blessed
>> with good health is quite despicable. And I would suggest quite
>> contrary to the basic ideals of a freedom loving people. How with
>> a clear conscious can one support such arrogance? Rod
>>
>>
>
> How can you support the forced redistribution of personal property by
> threat of government force? I am all for helping those who are in
> need by no action on their own part. I am NOT for being forced to do
> so with the government's gun in my ear while some third party decides
> for me just who is and who is not worthy of *my* assets.

The issue I was specifically addressing is whom is allowed to vote......

On taxation itself, society as we know it as well as the ability to earn
said taxed income would not exist without a tax funded Government. People by
their very nature would not voluntarily send in sufficient funds to finance
even a shell of what we have today. Oddly worldwide as well as historically
countries that spend money and tax their people have the highest standard of
living and are the most productive societies. One may rationally argue that
being on the lower end of the curve works better U.S. Vs Europe but
societies with little or no tax do not do well at all......Rod

J. Clarke wrote:
> Is it that they are wealthy because they are taxed or that they are
> taxed because they are wealthy? Taxing people who don't have
> anything to tax is a losing proposition.

But not a realistic position......there is always someone to tax.

It does prove that taxes do not destroy a country otherwise the poorest
least taxed countries would prosper....incidentally I do feel a Government
should tax and spend as little as possible but they are responsible for
fulfilling the publics mandate for desired services or functions.

> And the fact that people would not voluntarily send in funds in the
> amount that they are taxed shows how far from the truth the assertion
> that the US is a "democracy" actually lies.


I'd be happy to question our level of freedom in a country that requires me
to wear a seatbelt or that requires a permit(permission) to trim a parking
strip tree etc.....however the likely failure of voluntary taxation only
demonstrates that grocery stores can't survive on the honor system
either.....its human nature. Realistically people vote every year for taxes
via whom they elect, school levies they pass....majority rule is a bitch
when yours is a minority position. Rod

Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> I do not object to taxation per se. I object to taxation beyond that
> necessary to maintain the liberty in a nation-state. History does
> indeed show that some kind of government is needed to preserve
> liberty. But "defending liberty" in terms of monies expended by the US
> Federal government (for military and the DOJ - the primary instruments
> thereof) is relatively the smaller of our spendings. Between the
> social do-gooding that has polluted our government and the consequent
> debt this created, something well north of 60% of the Federal treasury
> gets burned down ... for something the Feds have *no* permission to
> do. It's absurd.

I'd dispute the lack of "permission" for the most part ....the public has a
clear and proper voice and the courts have clearly spoken to the legality.
The individual may not approve but we are not a country of one. While one
could spend hours discussing Gov. waste, this program or another, the sheer
scope of the bureaucracy to manage 300,000,000 people makes it largely
inevitable. I'd challenge one to find any household or business that doesn't
routinely "waste" money in some fashion or another.....even worse "waste"
for one may be a "necessary" expenditure for another.

However one very bad national policy we suffer from is the federal
deficit....we should run a deficit when the economy sours, even a large one.
In-between economic cycles the budget should be nearly balanced, when in
full expansion we should have large surpluses thereby paying back the "sour"
deficits.....Such would soften economic extremes and would be fiscally
responsible......Rod

Just Wondering wrote:
> Rod & Betty Jo wrote:
>
>>
>> ....incidentally I do feel a Government should tax and spend as
>> little as possible but they are responsible for fulfilling the
>> publics mandate for desired services or functions.
>>
> I'm curious about how far you think that responsibility goes. If the
> public desires universal "free" health care, for example, is the
> government responsible to tax and spend enough to make that possible?

While I'd consider that a mistake and it would lead to either runaway
pricing(taxes) and /or rationing(competition is required to keep prices in
check, albiet under the staus quo it rarely raises it head). But if the
public so chooses then it behooves the Gov. to fullfil their biding. A Gov.
that ignores the wishes of the public either rules with force or doesn't
rule long.


> What if the public desires universal free ivy league quality higher
> education, or universal housing, or universal sirloin steaks at
> hamburger prices?

Is there a theme here<G>? Lets assume that the public indeed (foolish or
otherwise) so desired these things and was willing to pay the tax to make it
happen, would you prefer a Gov. that ignored the will and desire of the
populous? Rod

J. Clarke wrote:
> And therein lies the problem. The public has somehow gotten the
> notion that government-provided services are "free" because there's no
> direct charge for them.
>
> Nobody presents it as "are you willing to pay x thousand dollars a
> year every year with the price rising with inflation in order to get
> this service?" No, it's always "free this" and "free that".
>

And how do you know the public has this perception? Ask you neighbors, most
everyone knows that their tax check goes to pay for any and all public
largesse.....

Regrettably you as well understate annual cost increases, once the Gov. is
involved it usually exceeds inflation considerably i.e medical costs, school
tuition/costs, judicial etc....The giant Gorilla in most Government
closets....... Rod

Just Wondering wrote:
> Rod & Betty Jo wrote:
>> Is there a theme here<G>? Lets assume that the public indeed
>> (foolish or otherwise) so desired these things and was willing to
>> pay the tax to make it happen, would you prefer a Gov. that ignored
>> the will and desire of the populous? Rod
>>
>>
> That's one reasony why the Founding Fathers added the Bill of Rights
> to the Constitution. Unrestrained majority rule is a swift and
> certain path to tyrannical suppression of minorities. Where do you
> suppose, for example, that the taxes to make those things happen
> would come from? The tax fairy? The ones who want the benefit, or
> the ones who have enough money not to need the benefit in the first
> place? What you actually advocate is replacing capitalism with
> socialism.

I've advocated nothing...the hypothetical question here is whether a
Government should listen or ignore the will of the people. For those
suggesting the governed should not have a voice it seems a bit peculiar.
Rod

Just Wondering wrote:

> Your statement was to the effect that if the people want something,
> the government has a responsibility to give it to them.

Indeed...and notice you didn't say person. Why would anyone have a problem
with a responsive, attentive and responsible Government? Rod

"Dave In Houston"wrote:

> Bring on the Flat Tax and maybe we can put this argument to bed.

Probably the most inequitable method of taxation of all.

Low income people must spend the highest percentage of their income to
survive, while the more affluent require a smaller percentage of their
income to survive.

The result:

If a flat tax were imposed, the low income memembers of society carry the
heaviest tax burden.

Lew

"Edwin Pawlowski" wrote:

> Not completely true. The flat tax proposals usually have an exemption for
> the lowest wage earners and even steps for others. What is eliminated is
> all deductions. Why it won't pass is simple. You no longer need tax
> lawyers and accountants

If you have exemptions, then it is no longer a flat tax, and tax lawyers and
accountants will still be employed.

Lew

Han wrote:

> "Dave In Houston" <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> I notice that proponents of this theory [conveniently] never tell
>> you
>> that those poor, poor, over-taxed 10% already OWN 70% of the wealth
>> (or whatever number is in vogue by whatever particular group that
>> loves to grind this ax) .
>> Bring on the Flat Tax and maybe we can put this argument to bed.
>>
> As I understand it, the flat tax is not a rate of x% applied to every
> income, whether $10/year or $10 billion/year, and it should not, IMO!
>
> What would appeal to me is the expiration of all special treatments, and
> possibly the imposition of a luxury tax on some set of specified items
> (thinking of gas-guzzling hummers).
>

Do you remember 1992 and the imposition of the "luxury tax" on yachts?
Designed to punish (oops, afford the opportunity give back to the country)
the rich and well-to-do? Net effect? An entire US industry was bankrupted
and moved offshore. Same thing with added tax to luxury automobiles.

These kind of things always have unintended consequences and seldom garner
the funds that their advocates claim.

This class-envy stuff is going to kill the economy. We are already at a
point where 10% of wage earners are paying 60% of all income taxes but only
earn 42% of all income. Now, what is this about not paying their "fair
share"?

> Congress is way out of line with special privileges, and the IRS with
> their

What are you defining as special privileges?


> obfuscation in legalese of good intentions. I could not possibly go and
> do my own income taxes now without the experience of the past 37 years.
>

--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Charlie Self wrote:

> On Dec 17, 1:14 am, Just Wondering <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Han wrote:
>> > If someone earns $10/hr, should he pay the same percentage of
>> > income in taxes as someone earning $100/hr? Or $1000/hr? Would that
>> > be fair?
>>
>> This example is overly simplistic to illustrate a simple point. Suppose
>> a 10%
>> flat tax. A earns $10K a year, B earns $100K, and C earns $1M.
>> A pays $1,000 in taxes, B pays $10,000, and C pays $100,000. A also
>> qualifies for many government "entitlement" programs that B and C don't
>> qualify for, which
>> give C $8,000 in benefits in addition to his $10K wage. Does C get a
>> hundred
>> times more back in the way of government services and benefits than does
>> A? No, he doesn't, he's still subsidizing the cost of services and
>> benefits provided to
>> A. What's unfair about A paying for a fraction of what he gets, rather
>> than
>> paying nothing at all? What did B or C do that they should be punished
>> by having their money taken away from them and giving it to A?
>
> Maybe they (B&C here) lived in a country that made it possible for
> certain members, with specific advantages, to make 100K or 1,000K,
> while A, livingin the same country, but missing the advantages, simply
> can't do it? Not won't, as so many of you infer. Can't.

Maybe if that were the case, this might be worthy of discussion. Since
the topic under discussion is life in the US, then this argument really
doesn't get off the ground. From observation, in most cases, the reason A
can't do more (note, I said, "in most cases". There may be some smaller
subset where this does not apply) is because of poor choices made earlier
in life. So, why should B and C struggle to put themselves into positions
that provide that amount of compensation, working 11 hour days to get there
only to have the government decide that they have "benefited" from life's
lottery and need to provide a "fair amount" of their rewards from society
so that A can have more?


--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

RE: Subject

Remember Orwell's book "Animal Farm"

When the farm house was empty, after the animals drove the farmer out,
the rules painted on the side of the barn read:

"All Animals Are Equal?

Later, after the pigs, alleged to be the smartest animals, moved into
the farm house, the rules painted on the side of the barn read:

"All Animals Are Equal, But Some Are More Equal Than Others"

Stll valid today as it was over 50 years ago when it was written.

Lew

Fred the Red Shirt wrote:

> On Dec 9, 6:38 pm, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
>> ...
>>
>> Not sure why you want to exclude those who exceed a certain income
>> threshold from voting. That kind of shows a certain amount of dedication
>> and success capability. In truth, they don't have enough numbers to
>> significantly influence election results by much anyway.
>>
>> What should be required is that people who are living from government
>> benefits should not be allowed to vote. This is the people voting
>> themselves the treasury that the founders were warned against. You have
>> a dependency class voting for those who promise to take money from the
>> people
>> who are working and provide it those who are not. Self-support should be
>> a pre-requisite for the franchise.
>
> You mean like, no government contractor personel
> would vote?

Quite a bit of difference between government contractors, civil servants,
military personnel, or even for that matter politicians. Those people are
providing a service in return for wages. Entirely different thing than
receiving government largesse with nothing being expected in return (other
than votes).

But then you knew that.

>
> Wouldn't do any good because they would still
> lobby.
>
> --
>
> FF

--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Some misinformed idiot wrote:

> Umm, yes it was. It was called the "war effort". Businesses were
pushed
> to produce war materiel, strategic goods were rationed, women went
to work
> in the factories producing military products while men of military
age were
> serving in the armed forces. Now, those people who were working in
those
> factories and businesses were making money and being paid. They had
to eat
> and have services and other goods. The whole economy benefited from
that
> effect; however, this was still being done on government borrowing
> (remember war bonds?).

Yes I remember war bonds, bought lots of them, a $0.10 red or $0.25
green stamp at a time out of my school lunch money.

Same was true of my grammar school classmates.

Also remember the ration coupon books for almost everything,
especially gasoline and tires.

There was no butter, only margarine, which by law was white, thanks to
the dairy lobby.

If you wanted yellow margarine, a little packet of colored dye was
included that you could mix with the margarine to color it.

People had lots of money, with good reason.

There was nothing to buy.

All materials were directed to the war effort to support your son,
daughter, aunt, uncle, niece, nephew, or whatever family member(s), or
maybe the next door neighbor's kin, who had gone off to war.

If you want too spout off, then at least have some knowledge of what
the f++k you are talking about.

Lew

Lew Hodgett wrote:

> Some misinformed idiot wrote:
>
>> Umm, yes it was. It was called the "war effort". Businesses were
> pushed
>> to produce war materiel, strategic goods were rationed, women went
> to work
>> in the factories producing military products while men of military
> age were
>> serving in the armed forces. Now, those people who were working in
> those
>> factories and businesses were making money and being paid. They had
> to eat
>> and have services and other goods. The whole economy benefited from
> that
>> effect; however, this was still being done on government borrowing
>> (remember war bonds?).
>
> Yes I remember war bonds, bought lots of them, a $0.10 red or $0.25
> green stamp at a time out of my school lunch money.
>
> Same was true of my grammar school classmates.
>
> Also remember the ration coupon books for almost everything,
> especially gasoline and tires.
>
> There was no butter, only margarine, which by law was white, thanks to
> the dairy lobby.
>
> If you wanted yellow margarine, a little packet of colored dye was
> included that you could mix with the margarine to color it.
>
> People had lots of money, with good reason.
>
> There was nothing to buy.
>
> All materials were directed to the war effort to support your son,
> daughter, aunt, uncle, niece, nephew, or whatever family member(s), or
> maybe the next door neighbor's kin, who had gone off to war.
>
> If you want too spout off, then at least have some knowledge of what
> the f++k you are talking about.
>
> Lew

Who crapped in your wheaties? You don't have a clue of the context of
the above comment; your comments only reinforce the point I was making.


--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

John E. wrote:

> Mr. Self,
>
> I don't consider myself a "revisionist asshole" but I do believe that the
> bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were immoral. As were the fire bombings
> of Dresden, the raids over Tokyo, the bombing of London, the concentration
> and the internment camps, et al.
>
> War is an immoral business, no matter who starts it.
>

That may be the case, but it would be even more immoral to allow despotic
tyrants free reign in the attempt to avoid war. Wars are sometimes
unavoidable and necessary (i.e, the lesser evil) to prevent those who
would, by force, enslave the citizens of free countries.


> It if solved anything, we wouldn't need to keep having them.
>

Since you were writing the above post in English and not German or
Russian; I would venture to say that WWII and the Cold War at least
prevented a few things.



> John E.
>
> "Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:cad6a37a-fa7b-456e-9ed8-05f648153284@a35g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>> 16 million served in the Armed Forces during WWII, if my memory is
>> working. I still ahve a partial book or two of the green stamps
>> around, stamps my parents bought for me when I was 3-4-5-6.
>>
>> Now, we get revisionist assholes stating that A-bombing Japan was
>> immoral, and killed far more people than necessary. Oh, yeah. And it
>> was racist because we didn't A-bomb Germany. True enough, but, IIRC,
>> Germany quit about the same day Truman was sworn in to replace
>> Roosevelt, who had just died. Hitler suicided that same day and that
>> war was effectively over. Too, I guess the revisionists haven't heard
>> of the fire bombing of Dresden, nor the fears that all the top brass
>> in the U.S. had at the time that the Japanese were prepared to defend
>> their land to the last person. I still believe that.
>>
>> Semper fi.

--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

On Dec 11, 12:17 am, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>...
>
> Wrong. There is a considerable body of scholarship that supports
> the individual rights centricity in the 2nd Amendment as being the
> intent of the Framers. There is *no mention* of Federal intervention
> into the economy *at all* in the Constitution.

Wrong.

There is the ICC.

It is not the only example, just the most obvious.

--

FF

On Dec 14, 4:34 pm, Just Wondering <[email protected]> wrote:
> Rod & Betty Jo wrote:
>
>
>
> > ....incidentally I do feel a Government should tax and spend as little
>
> > as possible but they are responsible for fulfilling the publics mandate
> > for desired services or functions.
>
> I'm curious about how far you think that responsibility goes. If the public
> desires universal "free" health care, for example, is the government responsible
> to tax and spend enough to make that possible? What if the public desires
> universal free ivy league quality higher education, or universal housing, or
> universal sirloin steaks at hamburger prices?

I'm just wondering why you think any of the silly examples are
analogous to a serious example.

We've damned near reached a perceived need for universal college
education, anyway, which tends to explain why a great many college
juniors are educated about to the same level as high school seniors 50
years ago. It do seem to make business types joyous to announce that
their receptionist has an MS in Computer Science, or some such true
business need (such as the MBA).

Just Wondering wrote:
> J. Clarke wrote:
>> Doug Winterburn wrote:
>>
>>> J. Clarke wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> I know that NRA/ILA has been reasonably effective in getting the
>>>> Congress to vote the way I want them to.
>>>>
>>>> Yeah, PACs get their power from money but that money can come from a
>>>> million people contributing ten bucks as easily as from Microsoft
>>>> contributing 10 million.
>>>>
>>>
>>> ...or from a bunch of geezers contributing to AARP.
>>
>>
>> Hey, it's not going to be long before I become a "geezer". Geezer
>> Power!!!!
>>
>> And unless you luck out and die young, it's gonna happen to you to.
>>
> AARP (American Association of Retired People) is something of a
> misnomer. You don't have to be old, you can join AARP at age 50. And
> you don't have to be retired, either. I joined because AARP members can
> get hotel discounts, and the first time I used the discount saved me
> more money than a three year membership.

And you supported an organization that believes in force and extortion
(directed at the younger generation) to support actions by the
Federal government that are illegal and destructive to our freedom.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

On Dec 9, 11:17 am, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> J. Clarke wrote:
>
> <SNIP>
>
>
>
> > Not sure that penalizing them for deficit spending is necessarily a
> > good idea. Sometimes that helps the economy.
>
> This is arguable. The government produces nothing, hence cannot
> add to the GDP. But even if it did so, the Federal Government
> has no Constitutional authority to "help the economy".
>
>
>
> >> Step Three
> >> ----------
>
> >> Instantiate a flat tax like the Fair Tax via a Constitutional
> >> Amendment that forbids the institution of *any* other kind of tax.
>
> > So no protective tariffs on foreign trade even if other countries do
> > enact such tariffs?
>
> Right. Tariffs are yet another attempt to "manage" economics.
>
> > The "Fair Tax" proposal seems to be a 23% sales
>
> > tax, which is a "soak the poor" scheme.
>
> Go reread it. It does no such thing. It rebates *everyone* the
> amount of money a "poor" family would pay in taxes. This means
> the truly poor pay no taxes.
>

Basic problem: the poor have to lay out the 23% and wait for the
rebate, and some are at a marginal level that does not allow paying
23% out. They are already paying only whatever the local sales tax is,
and not much, or anything, else, so, for example, a 5% sales tax state
would see the poor paying the further 18% out-of-pocket, when their
pockets are already empty. When is the rebate made? Instantly? Will
that work?

All these flat tax and simple tax ideas work nicely on paper. I'm not
at all sure they will work any better in practice than the horrendous
and untrackable mishmash we already have. Then again, if a few simple
objections, as above, can be answered, they sure as hell cannot be
worse.

On Dec 22, 12:17 am, "John E." <[email protected]> wrote:
> Mr. Self,
>
> I don't consider myself a "revisionist asshole" but I do believe that the
> bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were immoral. As were the fire bombings
> of Dresden, the raids over Tokyo, the bombing of London, the concentration
> and the internment camps, et al.
>
> War is an immoral business, no matter who starts it.
>
> It if solved anything, we wouldn't need to keep having them.
>
> John E.
>
> "Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:cad6a37a-fa7b-456e-9ed8-05f648153284@a35g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > 16 million served in the Armed Forces during WWII, if my memory is
> > working. I still ahve a partial book or two of the green stamps
> > around, stamps my parents bought for me when I was 3-4-5-6.
>
> > Now, we get revisionist assholes stating that A-bombing Japan was
> > immoral, and killed far more people than necessary. Oh, yeah. And it
> > was racist because we didn't A-bomb Germany. True enough, but, IIRC,
> > Germany quit about the same day Truman was sworn in to replace
> > Roosevelt, who had just died. Hitler suicided that same day and that
> > war was effectively over. Too, I guess the revisionists haven't heard
> > of the fire bombing of Dresden, nor the fears that all the top brass
> > in the U.S. had at the time that the Japanese were prepared to defend
> > their land to the last person. I still believe that.
>
> > Semper fi.

I am not in favor of war when less costly--in terms of lives and
emotions, as well as the lesser problem of money--methods work.
Unfortunately, that is not always the case...let's recall that WWII
gained some major impetus, on the European side at least, by an
attempt at being easy, taking the other side's word, and
then...blitzkrieg.

Pacifism only works when non-pacifists kick the crap out of enemies of
the pacifists.

Han wrote:
>
> I take as much advantage of the tax laws that I am allowed, but sometimes
> feel a little guilty that I get some some income on which I pay only 15%,
> while I am really in a far higher tax bracket. And I am some ways away
> from the AMT (I hope).
>
The IRS will not object if you send in more than required to ease your
guilt.

Dave In Houston wrote:
> "Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>> <SNIP>
>
>> 2) Approximately 70% of
>> Federal taxes are today paid by *10%* of the taxpayers.
>> What all such proposals thus come down to is that people
>> as a whole want things that most of them will never have to
>> pony up for. Call this what you like (wealth redistribution,
>> socialism, theft, etc.) it all boils down to a single
>> inarguable reality: The many fleece the few, call it "charity"
>> and thereby justify what is essentially a dishonest act.
>
> I notice that proponents of this theory [conveniently] never tell you
> that those poor, poor, over-taxed 10% already OWN 70% of the wealth (or
> whatever number is in vogue by whatever particular group that loves to grind
> this ax) .
> Bring on the Flat Tax and maybe we can put this argument to bed.

I'm all for that... Viva Ron Paul :)



--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

On Dec 9, 11:31 am, Just Wondering <[email protected]> wrote:
> J. Clarke wrote:
> > Doug Winterburn wrote:
>
> >>J. Clarke wrote:
>
> >>>I know that NRA/ILA has been reasonably effective in getting the
> >>>Congress to vote the way I want them to.
>
> >>>Yeah, PACs get their power from money but that money can come from
> >>>a
> >>>million people contributing ten bucks as easily as from Microsoft
> >>>contributing 10 million.
>
> >>...or from a bunch of geezers contributing to AARP.
>
> > Hey, it's not going to be long before I become a "geezer". Geezer
> > Power!!!!
>
> > And unless you luck out and die young, it's gonna happen to you to.
>
> AARP (American Association of Retired People) is something of a misnomer. You
> don't have to be old, you can join AARP at age 50. And you don't have to be
> retired, either. I joined because AARP members can get hotel discounts, and the
> first time I used the discount saved me more money than a three year membership.

It's almost funny. My mother enrolled me when I turned 50. I didn't
bother renewing until years later, but now, my wife renews every year.
You do NOT get off the mailing list if you don't rejoin, it just
changes the nature of the mailings--no more magazines and newsletters,
just a short ton of junk mail telling you what you're missing.

As far as aging goes, I'm doing pretty well for one of the kids who
had the local and state cops betting he wouldn't live to be 21. Well
past three times that now, and creaking around the edges, but still
going, if not very quickly any more. Ah, for the good old days when a
cop had to track you for a quarter mile to ticket you, or catch you on
early radar (tripod mounted) and then catch you. Back then, the
average car nut kid could build something that outran what the cops
could buy. I noticed today that the wild and wooly town of Bedford,
all 6,600 population, now has Dodge Charger cop cars that can outrun
most of what any of us buy. Thing is, there's no place in town limits
they can safely get over 45-50 MPH even with lights and siren. But it
makes the town cops feel ballsy, I guess.

I'm not sure whether AARP or AAA offers the more valuable discounts,
but I wish I could combine them. Or combine the memberships and save a
buck. Hell, when I passed 62, I got to pay a higher fee and got a
lifetime membership in the Marine Corps League, which brought a solid
brass, engraved, membership card I have to leave home when flying. It
sets off the idiotic machines.

Fri, Dec 7, 2007, 11:40am (EST+5) [email protected] (Han) doth sayeth:
That presumes there is an entity like that <grin>. Whowould you really
like as President of this wonderful country? Someone who rises to the
occasion, appoints his cronies, and chases skirts, with his whole
entourage being paid for by the state?
I wouldn't mind a fiscally responsible person, who can keep the rich in
check, does respect individual liberties, AND responsibilities. I even
don't mind if I would get taxed higher if we get a little more
responsible for our environment (here is the wood reference).

Hah? AN entity? what I said was, "May the Gods have mercy on us
all." Plural entities. Hope so. The Woodworking Gods will get piss if
not.

From stories I've read, Hillary chases skirts too.

So, maybe the thing to do would be to pick someone that's
actually qualified for the job, but doesn't want it, and just make them
president. And, if they do a good job they only have to serve four
years.



JOAT
Even Popeye didn't eat his spinach until he had to.

On Dec 11, 2:17 am, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
> J. Clarke wrote:
>...
>
> > So the boom during WWII was due to ther governmnent forcing the
> > private sector to produce more?
>
> Umm, yes it was. It was called the "war effort". Businesses were pushed
> to produce war materiel, strategic goods were rationed, women went to work
> in the factories producing military products while men of military age were
> serving in the armed forces. Now, those people who were working in those
> factories and businesses were making money and being paid. They had to eat
> and have services and other goods. The whole economy benefited from that
> effect; however, this was still being done on government borrowing
> (remember war bonds?).

I remember hearing about war bonds, I'm not old enough to have bought
any.

I also remember some of the lunatic fringe claiming that FDR
wanted war to pull the US out of the Depression--those megalomaniacs
trying to conquer the world must has escaped their attention...

....
>
> i.e., you would like to be able to mold the Constitution into anything
> that you feel would be good at any one time. That is not how or why it was
> written. Read the federalist and anti-federalist papers sometime. Nothing
> in there about being a "living, breathing document that says whatever an
> activist judiciary or other authority says at any time". Instead there is
> concern about a runaway federal government and how the constitution was
> designed to limit the powers of the federal government.

A living breathing approach is certainly appropriate when considering
such things as what constitutes "cruel and unusual". It is not such
a good thing when considering what constitutes 'interstate commerce.'

--

FF

On Dec 14, 7:34 am, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> So find me a candidate who will promise to lower taxes and keep that
> promise. Remember Bush Senior and "read my lips, no new taxes" and
> then what does he do, he turns right around and signs a tax increase.
>
> Or is it your contention that the majority in the US wants higher
> taxes?
> --

They are going to get them. The current Bush has run us in debt for an
unnecessary war to the point where our grandchildren's grandchildren
will still be paying the costs (even assuming we can get out within a
reasonable period, which probably isn't the case). All done without a
tax increase, and, in fact, with a tax cut for those making over 100K.

Whoever gets elected next is going to have to raise taxes, and quite
probably by a considerable amount.

Look for it.

On Dec 19, 3:05 am, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
> Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 9, 6:38 pm, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> ...
>
> >> Not sure why you want to exclude those who exceed a certain income
> >> threshold from voting. That kind of shows a certain amount of dedication
> >> and success capability. In truth, they don't have enough numbers to
> >> significantly influence election results by much anyway.
>
> >> What should be required is that people who are living from government
> >> benefits should not be allowed to vote. This is the people voting
> >> themselves the treasury that the founders were warned against. You have
> >> a dependency class voting for those who promise to take money from the
> >> people
> >> who are working and provide it those who are not. Self-support should be
> >> a pre-requisite for the franchise.
>
> > You mean like, no government contractor personel
> > would vote?
>
> Quite a bit of difference between government contractors, civil servants,
> military personnel, or even for that matter politicians. Those people are
> providing a service in return for wages. Entirely different thing than
> receiving government largesse with nothing being expected in return (other
> than votes).
>
> But then you knew that.
>
>
>
> > Wouldn't do any good because they would still
> > lobby.
>

We both also know that individuals living on welfare are an
insignificant voting block, and are not a significant source of
campaign funding either.

--

FF

Charlie Self wrote:
> On Dec 12, 6:35 pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Rod & Betty Jo wrote:
>>
>>> Mark & Juanita wrote:
>>>> What should be required is that people who are living from government
>>>> benefits should not be allowed to vote. This is the people voting
>>>> themselves the treasury that the founders were warned against. You
>>>> have a dependency class voting for those who promise to take money
>>>> from the people who are working and provide it those who are not.
>>>> Self-support should be a pre-requisite for the franchise.
>>> Tis a sad country that discriminates simply because of age, health or
>>> income.....You'd deny the vote simply because someone became ill or
>>> disabled.....Not a world I'd choose to embrace. Rod

>> No - he would deny a vote because someone is living off someone else's wallet.
>> There is no "discrimination" involved. No one forces any of the people in
>> the aforementioned classes to use government as their proxy for stealing
>> Other People's Money.
>
> Ah. Get to a certain age, or have your health fail, and be unable to
> work and then...Soylent Green.

No. Plan to get old and unable to work so you are prepared for that day.
OR ... find people who practice private charity (like me) and ask for
their help. Don't go to the government and demand the contents of other
people's wallets. That is ordinarily called "stealing".

>
> What horseshit.

You advocate the use of (government) force to take assets from one person, lift some
of it for government overhead, and give the remainder to some faceless stranger and
you cal *my* idea, BS?

FWIW, the "deny them the vote thing" is impractical and anti-Constitutional, so
I don't actually support it. The right thing to do is quit wealth redistribution
by force entirely. But ... since you apparently are like so many others and
are happy to see you government engage in theft on your own behalf, how can you
expect those of us who object to this practice to play nice?

On Dec 14, 7:39 am, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> Oh, but according to the people who actually think that democracy
> works, the pee-pull must want deficits otherwise they'd vote them
> away.
>

The pee-pull want deficits just about as much as they want hanging
chad and Supreme Court interference in elections.

On Dec 14, 9:35 pm, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Rod & Betty Jo wrote:
>
> > J. Clarke wrote:
> >> And therein lies the problem. The public has somehow gotten the
> >> notion that government-provided services are "free" because there's
> >> no direct charge for them.
>
> >> Nobody presents it as "are you willing to pay x thousand dollars a
> >> year every year with the price rising with inflation in order to
> >> get
> >> this service?" No, it's always "free this" and "free that".
>
> > And how do you know the public has this perception? Ask you
> > neighbors, most everyone knows that their tax check goes to pay for
> > any and all public largesse.....
>
> What they don't understand is that more largesse is going to cost them
> more taxes. They assume that some program somewhere that they don't
> like can be cut to make room for it. But they don't agree on what
> program to cut so no programs get cut and taxes go up.
>
> > Regrettably you as well understate annual cost increases, once the
> > Gov. is involved it usually exceeds inflation considerably i.e
> > medical costs, school tuition/costs, judicial etc....The giant
> > Gorilla in most Government closets....... Rod
>

Who is the ephemeral "they" that doesn't know any of this costs money?
I don't know anyone who doesn't realize that, with the exception of a
couple of mentally ill people. And yes, almost everyone realizes that
more "largesse" as you guys love to call it, will cost them more
taxes. Thus there's a never ending search for not only doing more, but
doing it more effectively and efficiently, something that bureaucracy
tends to make very, very difficult, especially when the clerks have
politicians stepping all over their toes with new, and overly complex,
regulations on a weekly basis.

On Dec 22, 12:17 am, "John E." <[email protected]> wrote:
> Mr. Self,
>
> I don't consider myself a "revisionist asshole" but I do believe that the
> bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were immoral. As were the fire bombings
> of Dresden, the raids over Tokyo, the bombing of London, the concentration
> and the internment camps, et al.
>
> War is an immoral business, no matter who starts it.
>
> It if solved anything, we wouldn't need to keep having them.
>
> John E.
>
> "Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:cad6a37a-fa7b-456e-9ed8-05f648153284@a35g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > 16 million served in the Armed Forces during WWII, if my memory is
> > working. I still ahve a partial book or two of the green stamps
> > around, stamps my parents bought for me when I was 3-4-5-6.
>
> > Now, we get revisionist assholes stating that A-bombing Japan was
> > immoral, and killed far more people than necessary. Oh, yeah. And it
> > was racist because we didn't A-bomb Germany. True enough, but, IIRC,
> > Germany quit about the same day Truman was sworn in to replace
> > Roosevelt, who had just died. Hitler suicided that same day and that
> > war was effectively over. Too, I guess the revisionists haven't heard
> > of the fire bombing of Dresden, nor the fears that all the top brass
> > in the U.S. had at the time that the Japanese were prepared to defend
> > their land to the last person. I still believe that.
>
> > Semper fi.

It would have been more moral, then, to invade the Japanese home
islands which they had sworn to defend the last person?

During WWII, the Japanese showed an unusual taste for last ditch
defense, actually suiciding in preference to being captured. They were
tough, tenacious fighters with good (in the terms of fighting)
leadership, and more than a little ability to dream up new ways of
killing U.S. troops.

Estimated casualties for an invasion of the Japanese homeland ran from
one to five million, including Japanese civilians.

A-bombing immoral? Actually, the invasion would have been immoral.

Rod & Betty Jo wrote:
> Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>> I do not object to taxation per se. I object to taxation beyond that
>> necessary to maintain the liberty in a nation-state. History does
>> indeed show that some kind of government is needed to preserve
>> liberty. But "defending liberty" in terms of monies expended by the US
>> Federal government (for military and the DOJ - the primary instruments
>> thereof) is relatively the smaller of our spendings. Between the
>> social do-gooding that has polluted our government and the consequent
>> debt this created, something well north of 60% of the Federal treasury
>> gets burned down ... for something the Feds have *no* permission to
>> do. It's absurd.
>
> I'd dispute the lack of "permission" for the most part ....the public has a
> clear and proper voice and the courts have clearly spoken to the legality.
> The individual may not approve but we are not a country of one. While one

Translation: The mooching public has convinced the legislative, executive,
and judicial branches to ignore the very clear intent of enumerated
powers in the Constitution. It has done so dishonestly and has not
even bothered to go through the process that exists to change the
Constitution legally.

> could spend hours discussing Gov. waste, this program or another, the sheer
> scope of the bureaucracy to manage 300,000,000 people makes it largely
> inevitable. I'd challenge one to find any household or business that doesn't

The amount of waste spent on actually running the government itself
is tiny. The real abusive spending comes from social entitlements
which are huge, out of control, growing, and unsustainable. The head
of the GAO says so. Most economists agree. The sheeple mooch on...

> routinely "waste" money in some fashion or another.....even worse "waste"
> for one may be a "necessary" expenditure for another.

Except that households and businesses do not extract money from their
constituents at the point of a gun - or, if they do, they go to
jail. Big difference.


>
> However one very bad national policy we suffer from is the federal
> deficit....we should run a deficit when the economy sours, even a large one.

Which is a *direct* result (primarily) of the mooching public. The
something-for-nothing social entitlements are bankrupting the public
treasury over time. Wait till the rest of us 'boomers retire - anyone
currently under the age of 40 or so, is going to get hit with massive
taxation and/or the nation will inflate the currency to pay of the old
debt (thereby crushing the economic future of the people) and/or
new and interesting wars will be invented as necessary, since they
tend to stimulate the economy in the short term. Money is not magic;
you cannot spend more and more money you do not have every year and
expect economic health. When $1+ Trillion is spent on social entitlement
(again, activity which the Constitution does not grant the Feds)
the debt grows like crazy. We apparently have the same problem the
Communists had in the 20th Century: They thought they could legislate
their way out of economic reality. They couldn't, and we can't either.

> In-between economic cycles the budget should be nearly balanced, when in
> full expansion we should have large surpluses thereby paying back the "sour"
> deficits.....Such would soften economic extremes and would be fiscally
> responsible......Rod
>

No. We should shrink the Federal government to its Constitutionally
mandated size and quit trying to use government as the uncle with
a pocket full of money.

Viva Ron Paul...

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

J. Clarke wrote:
> Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>> Mark & Juanita wrote:
>>> NoOne N Particular wrote:
>>>
>>>> J. Clarke wrote:
>>>>> Charlie Self wrote:
>>> ... snip
>>>> Then, change the voting rules so that only people within the
>>>> middle
>>>> class income range can vote. Only income from actual work counts.
>>>> Interest, dividends, stock sales, etc. don't count. No more
>>>> freeloaders and no more richies. Just the so-called "average
>>>> joe".
>>>>
>>> Not sure why you want to exclude those who exceed a certain
>>> income
>>> threshold from voting. That kind of shows a certain amount of
>>> dedication and success capability. In truth, they don't have
>>> enough
>>> numbers to significantly influence election results by much anyway.
>>>
>>> What should be required is that people who are living from
>>> government benefits should not be allowed to vote. This is the
>>> people voting themselves the treasury that the founders were warned
>>> against. You have a dependency class voting for those who promise
>>> to take money from the people who are working and provide it those
>>> who are not. Self-support should be a pre-requisite for the
>>> franchise.
>>>
>> And while we're at it, I think there should be a civics test,
>> required every decade or so - in English - as a pre-requisite to
>> voting.
>
> That sort of thing has a very, very bad reputation. When such testing
> was used, in some localities it was impossible for a black man, even
> if he had a PhD in English from Harvard, to pass such a test.
>

Right. It has been abused. That needs to be watched for. But the
idea that any sub-literate knucklehead without a hint of what animates
our laws should be able to vote is terrifying. That's how you
get a nation demanding that a "conservative" president fund all manner
of social do-gooding that is fundamentally illegal.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

On Dec 19, 9:20 pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 19, 5:25 am, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
> >> <SNIP>
>
> >>> We both also know that individuals living on welfare are an
> >>> insignificant voting block, and are not a significant source of
> >>> campaign funding either.
> >> The number of older people extracting more from the system than
> >> they ever put is large and growing. They are every bit the
> >> same as the putative "welfare" recipients, they just don't like
> >> being told so.
>
> > I realize that is the socialist perspective and I reject it.
>
> > First of all, any retirement plan functions like insurance,
> > some claimants get more than they put in while others
> > get less. Social Security was running a surplus up until
> > the time that LBJ convinced the Congress to merge it into
> > the General Fund, even without investing the money.
>
> > Social Security has become a Ponzi scam only because the
> > Feds managed it like Ponzi. Had it been managed responsibly,
> > there would be no problem.
>
> That's not the only reason. The underlying root cause that
> LBJ did what he did is that the sheeple demanded more and more
> from government while simultaneously objecting to increased
> taxation. The money had to come from somewhere and LBJ practiced
> some creative accounting.

I'm not so sure that the people demanded we go to war in Vietnam,
so much as they were indifferent about it until there were half a
million US troops in theater.

>
> Even if he had not, though, it is far from clear that the system
> was sustainable in the long-term. People are living longer and longer.
> A whole generation from the 1960s has failed, on average, to save
> much for their own retirement (partly because many did not trust
> capital markets and partly because many wanted to wish socialism
> into existence in this nation - the exceptions prove the rule.)

It would only be sustainable if the monies were invested.

>
>
>
> > People retiring today have spent a lifetime paying into their
> > SSA, or in some cases being married to someone who has.
> > Had that money been invested, as any good retirement fund
> > should be, there would be no problem. Their current situation
>
> Social security was NOT EVER conceived to be a "good retirement
> fund". It was supposed to be "supplemental". The aforementioned
> refugees from the 1960s have decided that it is to be the
> former, not the latter, and have the bullying voting block to
> make it so.

Regardless of how much it was to provide, a promise was made
to the payees that they would receive benefits later and only a
dishonest person belyaches about having to make good on that
promise.

>
> > is quite analogous to that of a person who paid into a private
> > retirement plan and had their balance embezzled by the
> > management. They expect nothing more than would be
> > available were it nor for the gross malfeasance of the Federal
> > Government, holding the malfeasor responsible for it.
>
> Mostly I agree with what you wrote, with two important exceptions:
>
> 1) The "rights" under Social Security/Medicare have been steadily
> expanding. It started out as a supplemental insurance program,
> but now is increasingly seen as much more than that.

The 'rights' under Social Security were established by promising
benefits later in exchange for payments now, which is how any
retirement plan works.

> The
> Bush "drug benefit" is completely off the reservation, without
> merit, and excruciatingly expensive.

Medicare is another issue entirely.

Again, can you provide a number for the estimated cost of the
prescription drug plan? I'd like to see how that compares to the
estimated trillion dollar budget for the war with Iraq.

>
> 2) If all this had been privately done, as should have been the
> case, people who abused the system or stole from it could at
> least have been jailed for embezzlement (or worse). What
> are we going to do to the political scoundrels that are
> bankrupting the system?

Name places for them and put their images on stamps and coins.

> Isn't it ironic that LBJ (who was a
> malignant fool on many, many levels) used one form of socialism
> to pay for another? The results speak for themselves.
>

The Vietnam war was not a form of socialism.

>
>
> > Whether or not the operation of such a mandatory retirement plan
> > falls within the Constitutional authority of the Federal Government
> > is an entirely separate matter.
>
> It certainly does not appear as one of the enumerated powers.
>

IMHO, the proper course of action in the 1930's would have been
a very small number, perhaps 2 or 3 Constitutional amendments,
rather than twisting the ICC and other clauses beyond recognition.
The approach to the interpretation of the ICC implied by Thomas'
dissent in the medical marijuana case should be how the ICC
is generally viewed.

Note that agricultural subsidies would remain Constitutional as
they only apply restrict commodities sold in interstate commerce.

--

FF

"Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> <SNIP>

> 2) Approximately 70% of
> Federal taxes are today paid by *10%* of the taxpayers.
> What all such proposals thus come down to is that people
> as a whole want things that most of them will never have to
> pony up for. Call this what you like (wealth redistribution,
> socialism, theft, etc.) it all boils down to a single
> inarguable reality: The many fleece the few, call it "charity"
> and thereby justify what is essentially a dishonest act.

I notice that proponents of this theory [conveniently] never tell you
that those poor, poor, over-taxed 10% already OWN 70% of the wealth (or
whatever number is in vogue by whatever particular group that loves to grind
this ax) .
Bring on the Flat Tax and maybe we can put this argument to bed.
--
Dave in Houston

On Dec 9, 2:56 pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> Charlie Self wrote:
> > On Dec 9, 11:17 am, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> J. Clarke wrote:
>
> >> <SNIP>
>
> >>> Not sure that penalizing them for deficit spending is necessarily a
> >>> good idea. Sometimes that helps the economy.
> >> This is arguable. The government produces nothing, hence cannot
> >> add to the GDP. But even if it did so, the Federal Government
> >> has no Constitutional authority to "help the economy".
>
> >>>> Step Three
> >>>> ----------
> >>>> Instantiate a flat tax like the Fair Tax via a Constitutional
> >>>> Amendment that forbids the institution of *any* other kind of tax.
> >>> So no protective tariffs on foreign trade even if other countries do
> >>> enact such tariffs?
> >> Right. Tariffs are yet another attempt to "manage" economics.
>
> >> > The "Fair Tax" proposal seems to be a 23% sales
>
> >>> tax, which is a "soak the poor" scheme.
> >> Go reread it. It does no such thing. It rebates *everyone* the
> >> amount of money a "poor" family would pay in taxes. This means
> >> the truly poor pay no taxes.
>
> > Basic problem: the poor have to lay out the 23% and wait for the
> > rebate, and some are at a marginal level that does not allow paying
> > 23% out. They are already paying only whatever the local sales tax is,
> > and not much, or anything, else, so, for example, a 5% sales tax state
> > would see the poor paying the further 18% out-of-pocket, when their
> > pockets are already empty. When is the rebate made? Instantly? Will
> > that work?
>
> Monthly, in the form of a stipend check to each and every taxpayer.
>
>
>
> > All these flat tax and simple tax ideas work nicely on paper. I'm not
> > at all sure they will work any better in practice than the horrendous
> > and untrackable mishmash we already have. Then again, if a few simple
> > objections, as above, can be answered, they sure as hell cannot be
> > worse.
>
> Of course they would work better. Do you spend *any* significant
> amount of time/money/effort to pay your state or local sales taxes?
> This is no different. It abolishes the IRS and places the burden
> of collection on the *seller* of goods/services who already has
> the capacity to do this because of said local/state taxation
> systems. Moreover, it taxes the underground economy - even drug
> dealers buy Ferraris, for example. It is indeed fairer, simpler,
> cheaper to administer, and has all kinds of other indicidental
> benefits (like making markets more efficient by eliminating
> capital gains taxation).
>
> --

As of 2006, some 1,000,000+ accountants earned a mean $61,000 a year;
the 100,000 or so employed by IRS didn't do as well, I guess, but that
makes another pretty solid block who won't want the current tax system
too seriously messed with. That does not include local tax collectors,
of course, who outnumber federal collectors pretty heavily.

That is just one group. You should be able to think of others,
including the host of politicians who can no longer take credit, and
collect bribes, for pushing through legislation to favor one small,
wealthy group or another.

It won't change much in my lifetime, and quite possibly not in yours.

On Dec 19, 8:08 pm, "George" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Fred the Red Shirt" <[email protected]> wrote in messagenews:f71284ed-9a29-4981-b650-9f99031208e6@n20g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> >> You must be a blissful individual.
>
> >> FDR commited or caused acts of war to be commited in an effort to get
> >> into
> >> the war in Europe, and stated flatly that he preferred the Japanese to
> >> strike the first blow as well.
>
> > Yes, have you ever heard of Hitler, Mussilini and Stalin? Fighting
> > the Nazis in Africa and Europe was quite preferable to waiting until
> > they landed on Long Island. Just my personal opinion.
>
> > Ironically, Hitler turned on his ally Stalin so that the Soviets
> > became
> > our ally, Hilter being the greater threat at the time. But keep in
> > mind that early in the War we sent aid to the Finns to fight against
> > the Soviets.FDR was anticipating a world war against Germany,
> > Japan, Italy, AND the Soviet Union.
>
> >> ...and stated flatly that he preferred the Japanese to
> >> strike the first blow as well.
>
> > I'd like an exact quote with context for that statement.
>
> > My guess, at this point, is that FDR, if he said anything at all
> > on the subject, said something to the effect that we should not
> > declare war on Japan unless the Japanese attacked us first.
>
> >> The country, on the other hand, was pretty happy selling
> >> machinery and oil for money, not Lend-Lease, FOB a US
> >> port. Did more for the economy than simply make-work
> >> and printing money.
>
> > He did manage, over the objections of the Republicans, to
> > sell some arms to Finland to assist in their defense against
> > the Soviet Union.
>
> >> It might interest you to know that we supported colonial powers, and were
> >> one ourselves in the Pacific. Imagine if the current crop of press-pigs
> >> had
> >> had an opportunity to work on that?
>
> > The contemporarary press-pigs supported American Colonialism
> > of course. Remember the Maine?
>
> As I said. Blissful. I could give you chapter and verse on the FDR
> reference, but you REALLY need to read up on some History before you appear
> even more ignorant. So I'll leave it to you.
>
> While you're shopping, look up the meaning of "neutral."

I'm quite familiar with the term.

I do not see what that has to do with FDR's motivation for
trying to end American neutrality sooner, rather than later.

Could you explain why you think his motivation was to
boost the American economy, rather than to opposed
Fascist and Imperial expansion?

--

FF

On Sat, 8 Dec 2007 08:32:51 -0500, "J. Clarke"
<[email protected]> wrote:

-snip-
>
>If you don't like the current government, consider the alternative.
-snip

What a cowardly statement!

Consider instead...

"It is the duty of every patriot to protect his country from its
government."
Thomas Paine

On Dec 19, 5:25 am, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
> <SNIP>
>
> > We both also know that individuals living on welfare are an
> > insignificant voting block, and are not a significant source of
> > campaign funding either.
>
> The number of older people extracting more from the system than
> they ever put is large and growing. They are every bit the
> same as the putative "welfare" recipients, they just don't like
> being told so.
>

I realize that is the socialist perspective and I reject it.

First of all, any retirement plan functions like insurance,
some claimants get more than they put in while others
get less. Social Security was running a surplus up until
the time that LBJ convinced the Congress to merge it into
the General Fund, even without investing the money.

Social Security has become a Ponzi scam only because the
Feds managed it like Ponzi. Had it been managed responsibly,
there would be no problem.

People retiring today have spent a lifetime paying into their
SSA, or in some cases being married to someone who has.
Had that money been invested, as any good retirement fund
should be, there would be no problem. Their current situation
is quite analogous to that of a person who paid into a private
retirement plan and had their balance embezzled by the
management. They expect nothing more than would be
available were it nor for the gross malfeasance of the Federal
Government, holding the malfeasor responsible for it.

Whether or not the operation of such a mandatory retirement plan
falls within the Constitutional authority of the Federal Government
is an entirely separate matter.

> Oh, and they (the elders) are *the* voting block. I have no idea
> if they contribute to political campaigns.
>

I expect they do.

--

FF

Rod & Betty Jo wrote:
> Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>>> No, it gives them a duty. The power to perform that duty is implied.
>>> Are you saying that the Federal government is _forbidden_ to enact
>>> legislation that is beneficial to the economy?
>>>
>> Yes.
>
>
> A bit Odd....isn't the Supreme Court charged or empowered to determine legal
> or illegal, the limits of federal power or what is or is not constitutional?

Well ... SOCTUS kind of seized more power than they were actually granted
by the Constitution back when they heard Marbury v. Madison. But in any
case, it doesn't matter if the SCOTUS does not choose to "Defend And Protect
The Constitution" as their swearing in declares. Defending And Protecting
does not mean making up new law from whole cloth as the recent courts
have done, nor does it include ignore clear overreaching by the legislature
which the court has been ignoring in large part since the time of FDR (and
possibly before.)


> Did I miss a ruling that demonstrates your position? Are you not confusing
> your own personal preference for the actual law of the land? Rod
>
>

No. I am reflecting the very well documented intent of the Framers that they
wanted a legal system of "enumerated powers". It something is not "enumerated"
as a power granted to the Federal government it is automatically forbidden
for the Feds to do. This is not some accidental thing. This was a conscious
and purposeful decision made when the Constitution was drafted and eventually
ratified. So -in this example - if the Federal government is acting upon one
of its enumerated powers and this happens to be beneficial to the economy, this
is not a problem. But if they act specifically and narrowly to benefit the
economy, this is forbidden because 'improving the economy' is not an enumerated
power granted to the Federal government.

I read the Declaration and the Constitution every single year. I also take a moment
at that time to read something from on the Framers or one of their intellectual
influencers like Locke. I am certain they would be disgusted with what the
Federal government has become: A low-grade do-gooding institution that
practices wealth redistribution at the point of a gun (or at least the
threat of same - try not paying your taxes and see what happens).

We have essentially abandoned the key precept of the
Constitution ("preserve Liberty") and replaced with a gooey feel-good version
of government as everyone's Mommy (the Liberals) or Daddy (the Conservatives).
Instead of "preserve Liberty" we now demand that "government should do good things",
we just don't agree on which "good things" they should do. This abandonment
of liberty as the central purpose of government comes at a very high price.
We are getting less and less liberty AND fewer and fewer "good things". This is
possible because of an unholy alliance between the legislature, executive branch,
SCOTUS, and, most of all, the voting public, who have turned their backs on what
actually made the American experiment work. In less than 5 decades of living here
(I am an immigrant) I have seen:

1) A decline in personal liberty

2) An increase in average taxation

3) An increasing portion of the population demanding whatever they want and
calling it a "right"

4) And increasing level of Federal government involvement in virtually
every aspect of what ought properly to be private: Education, savings, sexual choices,
healthcare, recreational substance use just to name a few ... NONE of which
exist as subjects of enumerated power for the Federal government.

5) A demand by the population that government solve all problems on their behalf.

In short, we shall surely get what we've asked for. A big, bloated, unaccountable
bureaucracy put in place by the sheeple so they can raid each other's wallets.
In the mean time Liberty has left the building (or is at leas on Her way out) ...

No, this is not *my* wishlist. It was the intent of the Framers. But it's too late.
Americans as a whole would rather loot each other than be free. I won't live long enough
to see the end game, and for that at least, I am grateful. But it is tragic that the
nation that transformed the world in less than 250 years - a world that had been a misery
for most people in the prior 10 millenia - will disappear with a whimper from bloated,
greedy, and dishonest citizens who want what they have not earned for themselves and
demand their government steal it from other people. RIP.

P.S. If you don't think so, ask yourself just why the dollar is so weak at the moment.
Here's a hint. By tinkering with monetary policy, the dollar can be weakened
so that old debt it paid back with relatively weaker dollars. Why do we
"need" to do that? Because the sheeple put the Feds on a major spending binge
ever since the 1960s, so we have debt - a lot of debt. I am always amused
to hear the anti-war bunch squealing about how much money is being spent on
the military. It is a pittance compared the sheeple's looting of the
treasure for their pet social entitlement programs.

On Dec 17, 1:14 am, Just Wondering <[email protected]> wrote:
> Han wrote:
> > If someone earns $10/hr, should he pay the same percentage of
> > income in taxes as someone earning $100/hr? Or $1000/hr? Would that be
> > fair?
>
> This example is overly simplistic to illustrate a simple point. Suppose a 10%
> flat tax. A earns $10K a year, B earns $100K, and C earns $1M.
> A pays $1,000 in taxes, B pays $10,000, and C pays $100,000. A also qualifies
> for many government "entitlement" programs that B and C don't qualify for, which
> give C $8,000 in benefits in addition to his $10K wage. Does C get a hundred
> times more back in the way of government services and benefits than does A? No,
> he doesn't, he's still subsidizing the cost of services and benefits provided to
> A. What's unfair about A paying for a fraction of what he gets, rather than
> paying nothing at all? What did B or C do that they should be punished by
> having their money taken away from them and giving it to A?

Maybe they (B&C here) lived in a country that made it possible for
certain members, with specific advantages, to make 100K or 1,000K,
while A, livingin the same country, but missing the advantages, simply
can't do it? Not won't, as so many of you infer. Can't.

On Dec 15, 6:46 am, "Rod & Betty Jo" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Just Wondering wrote:
> > Rod & Betty Jo wrote:
> >> Is there a theme here<G>? Lets assume that the public indeed
> >> (foolish or otherwise) so desired these things and was willing to
> >> pay the tax to make it happen, would you prefer a Gov. that ignored
> >> the will and desire of the populous? Rod
>
> > That's one reasony why the Founding Fathers added the Bill of Rights
> > to the Constitution. Unrestrained majority rule is a swift and
> > certain path to tyrannical suppression of minorities. Where do you
> > suppose, for example, that the taxes to make those things happen
> > would come from? The tax fairy? The ones who want the benefit, or
> > the ones who have enough money not to need the benefit in the first
> > place? What you actually advocate is replacing capitalism with
> > socialism.
>
> I've advocated nothing...the hypothetical question here is whether a
> Government should listen or ignore the will of the people. For those
> suggesting the governed should not have a voice it seems a bit peculiar.
> Rod

It does seem reasonable for the governed to have a voice in how they
are governed.

Far too many people want the government to listen to the will of the
people only as long as the will of the people agrees with their own
personal biases.

On Dec 10, 2:53 pm, Renata <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sat, 8 Dec 2007 08:32:51 -0500, "J. Clarke"
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> -snip-
>
> >If you don't like the current government, consider the alternative.
>
> -snip
>
> What a cowardly statement!
>
> Consider instead...
>
> "It is the duty of every patriot to protect his country from its
> government."
> Thomas Paine

He had it almost right. If you don't like the current
government, consider the alternatives.. If any are
better, work toward them.

--

FF

Charlie Self wrote:
<SNIP>

>
> No one mentioned not dying, but there are different ways of dying, and
> starving to death or dying of seizures because the system you paid
> into all your life is screwing you aren't those most of us would

The "system you paid into all your life" was never conceived to
be a cradle-to-grave full coverage system. But today's elders -
many of whom did not bother to save for their inevitable old
age - now want the system to be just that. And they are doing
this because they have the votes to bully their children
and grandchildren into picking up the tab. They are selfish
and immoral in so doing. If the generation that won WWII was
the "Greatest Generation", the smelly hippies of the 1960s who
are now retiring are the "Greediest Generation" - and their
descendants will pay for it their entire lives.

> choose. It's what you're offering to far too many people who didn't
> start life with your advantages. Of course, as another Libertarian
> once told me, "They made bad choices." Yeah. The wrong parents.

Really entertaining ... and again, off the mark. I suspect (but will
not attempt to prove) that I personally grew up with fewer material
advantages than most folks here in the Wreck. IOW, I grew up 'po.
Advantages? Sure, I had parents that cared for me - the greatest
advantage one can ever have. Luck or providence? Sure - I got to
emigrate to the nation with the greatest ideas about freedom on the
planet. But guess what? I also got to go to work at 12 and haven't
quit since. I put myself through two private colleges (undergrad and
grad school) without debt and without mooching off government loan or
grant programs (one of the schools I attended refused to take a dime
of government money from anyone for any purpose).

I did this by ... get ready ... here it comes ... WORKING. And from my
mid 20s on I started seriously saving for my retirement. I am no
longer poor, nor am I wealthy in any financial sense. Oh, and I also
got to live through economic hell for 5 years and watch half a
lifetime's savings go up in smoke.

In the mean time, you self-anointed saviors of mankind think that this
is all just "luck" and Connie The Crackwhore, Lazy Larry, and Grandpa
Greedy are all more entitled to the many hard hours of work I've
expended in my lifetime (money is a direct measure of your time). They
aren't, you're wrong, and worst of all, your ideas directly contribute
to undermining personal liberty because they incrementally enfranchise
a more and more powerful central government. Thanks for supporting the
people who steal from me to make yourself feel noble and then saying
"thank you" by clobbering my freedom in the process. Thanks a lot.




P.S. One of the greatest gifts I got was my life and my health.
Those were bestowed upon me by someone way more important
than any politician or do-gooder. It is in gratitude for
His gifts that I voluntarily and happily contribute to
charities that support folks whose problems are not of their
own making.



--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

On Dec 14, 12:05 pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> Charlie Self wrote:
> > On Dec 13, 9:42 am, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Charlie Self wrote:
> >>> On Dec 12, 6:35 pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>> Rod & Betty Jo wrote:
> >>>>> Mark & Juanita wrote:
> >>>>>> What should be required is that people who are living from government
> >>>>>> benefits should not be allowed to vote. This is the people voting
> >>>>>> themselves the treasury that the founders were warned against. You
> >>>>>> have a dependency class voting for those who promise to take money
> >>>>>> from the people who are working and provide it those who are not.
> >>>>>> Self-support should be a pre-requisite for the franchise.
> >>>>> Tis a sad country that discriminates simply because of age, health or
> >>>>> income.....You'd deny the vote simply because someone became ill or
> >>>>> disabled.....Not a world I'd choose to embrace. Rod
> >>>> No - he would deny a vote because someone is living off someone else's wallet.
> >>>> There is no "discrimination" involved. No one forces any of the people in
> >>>> the aforementioned classes to use government as their proxy for stealing
> >>>> Other People's Money.
> >>> Ah. Get to a certain age, or have your health fail, and be unable to
> >>> work and then...Soylent Green.
> >> No. Plan to get old and unable to work so you are prepared for that day.
> >> OR ... find people who practice private charity (like me) and ask for
> >> their help. Don't go to the government and demand the contents of other
> >> people's wallets. That is ordinarily called "stealing".
>
> >>> What horseshit.
> >> You advocate the use of (government) force to take assets from one person, lift some
> >> of it for government overhead, and give the remainder to some faceless stranger and
> >> you cal *my* idea, BS?
>
> >> FWIW, the "deny them the vote thing" is impractical and anti-Constitutional, so
> >> I don't actually support it. The right thing to do is quit wealth redistribution
> >> by force entirely. But ... since you apparently are like so many others and
> >> are happy to see you government engage in theft on your own behalf, how can you
> >> expect those of us who object to this practice to play nice?
>
> > And you advocate letting those unable to make enough money to save for
> > their old age starve or die of medical complications. Typical
> > Libertian horseshit.
>
> Guess what Sparky, we are ALL gonna die. Better get used to it.
> No amount of government spending will fix that despite what all
> the moochers want. The only possible way we might be able to
> avoid or delay it is to have the morons in government declare
> a "War On Living". Since they fail at every other "War On ...",
> perhaps a "War On Living" would prolong our lives, I dunno.
>
> Most of us Libertarians are happy to contribute to decent and
> useful charities - I am about to do so this weekend. But do please
> explain to me how it is morally legitimate to yank money out of
> my pocket by force - so that I cannot spent it on my family -
> to serve some cause *you* believe in? I don't steal from you.
> I don't wish my government to do so on my behalf. But you defend
> this as if it were normal and natural. So do explain: How is
> theft by proxy morally just? Here is one big hint: Your deep
> compassion for the elderly underclass is fraudulent if it depends
> on Other People's Money. If you care so much about others, YOU
> pony up the money and/or convince others to join you. That's
> what charities do...
>
> --
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
> PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/


No one mentioned not dying, but there are different ways of dying, and
starving to death or dying of seizures because the system you paid
into all your life is screwing you aren't those most of us would
choose. It's what you're offering to far too many people who didn't
start life with your advantages. Of course, as another Libertarian
once told me, "They made bad choices." Yeah. The wrong parents.

On Dec 11, 6:07 am, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> J. Clarke wrote:
>
> <SNIP>
>
> > So the boom during WWII was due to ther governmnent forcing the
> > private sector to produce more?
>
> Clearly, even when government acts *within* its proper domain, it can
> have economic effect. It simply has no permission to act to *specifically*
> achieve economic outcomes.

Nah, motive does not determine the government's
proper domain.

For instance, the government has athority to lift or
levy tariffs and taxes. If the government chooses to
tax white phosphorous in matches so as to eliminate
jaw necrosis in matchmakers, that just as constitu-
tional as doing so to raise revenue because the
Constitution does not restrict those powers on a
basis of motive.

--

FF

Charlie Self wrote:
> On Dec 13, 9:42 am, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Charlie Self wrote:
>>> On Dec 12, 6:35 pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> Rod & Betty Jo wrote:
>>>>> Mark & Juanita wrote:
>>>>>> What should be required is that people who are living from government
>>>>>> benefits should not be allowed to vote. This is the people voting
>>>>>> themselves the treasury that the founders were warned against. You
>>>>>> have a dependency class voting for those who promise to take money
>>>>>> from the people who are working and provide it those who are not.
>>>>>> Self-support should be a pre-requisite for the franchise.
>>>>> Tis a sad country that discriminates simply because of age, health or
>>>>> income.....You'd deny the vote simply because someone became ill or
>>>>> disabled.....Not a world I'd choose to embrace. Rod
>>>> No - he would deny a vote because someone is living off someone else's wallet.
>>>> There is no "discrimination" involved. No one forces any of the people in
>>>> the aforementioned classes to use government as their proxy for stealing
>>>> Other People's Money.
>>> Ah. Get to a certain age, or have your health fail, and be unable to
>>> work and then...Soylent Green.
>> No. Plan to get old and unable to work so you are prepared for that day.
>> OR ... find people who practice private charity (like me) and ask for
>> their help. Don't go to the government and demand the contents of other
>> people's wallets. That is ordinarily called "stealing".
>>
>>
>>
>>> What horseshit.
>> You advocate the use of (government) force to take assets from one person, lift some
>> of it for government overhead, and give the remainder to some faceless stranger and
>> you cal *my* idea, BS?
>>
>> FWIW, the "deny them the vote thing" is impractical and anti-Constitutional, so
>> I don't actually support it. The right thing to do is quit wealth redistribution
>> by force entirely. But ... since you apparently are like so many others and
>> are happy to see you government engage in theft on your own behalf, how can you
>> expect those of us who object to this practice to play nice?
>
> And you advocate letting those unable to make enough money to save for
> their old age starve or die of medical complications. Typical
> Libertian horseshit.


Guess what Sparky, we are ALL gonna die. Better get used to it.
No amount of government spending will fix that despite what all
the moochers want. The only possible way we might be able to
avoid or delay it is to have the morons in government declare
a "War On Living". Since they fail at every other "War On ...",
perhaps a "War On Living" would prolong our lives, I dunno.

Most of us Libertarians are happy to contribute to decent and
useful charities - I am about to do so this weekend. But do please
explain to me how it is morally legitimate to yank money out of
my pocket by force - so that I cannot spent it on my family -
to serve some cause *you* believe in? I don't steal from you.
I don't wish my government to do so on my behalf. But you defend
this as if it were normal and natural. So do explain: How is
theft by proxy morally just? Here is one big hint: Your deep
compassion for the elderly underclass is fraudulent if it depends
on Other People's Money. If you care so much about others, YOU
pony up the money and/or convince others to join you. That's
what charities do...

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

NoOne N Particular wrote:

> J. Clarke wrote:
>
>> Charlie Self wrote:
>
>
> How about just making congress a part time organization of say 90 days a
> year? The rest of the year they have to be actually IN the district
> they represent and they have to talk to the people in that district.
> They have too much time to screw us as it is now. The president would
> have the power to call them to session at times of emergency.
>

Some states have part-time legislatures. The rest of the year the lawmakers
have to get out and make a living in the real world. Seems to work OK.

How about requiring, every legislative session, every lawmaker to take a
rigorous oral examination on the U.S. Constitution, with special emphasis on the
Bill of Rights, and allow them to vote only if they pass with flying colors?

>
> Then, change the voting rules so that only people within the middle
> class income range can vote. Only income from actual work counts.
> Interest, dividends, stock sales, etc. don't count. No more freeloaders
> and no more richies. Just the so-called "average joe".
>
> Wayne
>

Sounds kinda like Heinlein's "Starship Troopers."

"Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Dave In Houston"wrote:
>
>> Bring on the Flat Tax and maybe we can put this argument to bed.
>
> Probably the most inequitable method of taxation of all.
>
> Low income people must spend the highest percentage of their income to
> survive, while the more affluent require a smaller percentage of their
> income to survive.
>
> The result:
>
> If a flat tax were imposed, the low income memembers of society carry the
> heaviest tax burden.
>
> Lew


Not completely true. The flat tax proposals usually have an exemption for
the lowest wage earners and even steps for others. What is eliminated is
all deductions. Why it won't pass is simple. You no longer need tax
lawyers and accountants. You won't read about Joe the mailman paying more
taxes than the CEO of a billion dollar corporation with a staff of
accountants.


Flat tax is something like
Up to $25,000 no tax
25001 to 75,000 7%
75001 to 175,000 9%
175.001 to whatever etc.

No mortgage deductions, no oil drilling credits, offshore assets, no reason
to pay a tax accountant.

"Fred the Red Shirt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:3a1dec3d-bbed-4e65-8ce4-1a6f09769861@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
> I also remember some of the lunatic fringe claiming that FDR
> wanted war to pull the US out of the Depression--those megalomaniacs
> trying to conquer the world must has escaped their attention...
>
> ....

You must be a blissful individual.

FDR commited or caused acts of war to be commited in an effort to get into
the war in Europe, and stated flatly that he preferred the Japanese to
strike the first blow as well.

The country, on the other hand, was pretty happy selling machinery and oil
for money, not Lend-Lease, FOB a US port. Did more for the economy than
simply make-work and printing money.

It might interest you to know that we supported colonial powers, and were
one ourselves in the Pacific. Imagine if the current crop of press-pigs had
had an opportunity to work on that?

"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, "J. Clarke"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Are you saying that 30 years ago OPEC charged Europe a different price
>>from the US? I'd like to see your documentation on that.
>
> Point is, oil is priced in US dollars. If you're paying in Euros, when the
> value of a Euro in US dollars goes up, it costs you less.
>

But as a tourist, we convert to Euros and the price of gas is up in
addition. I paid $6.40 a gallon in April but it was $10 in November. That
is liters converted to gallons and Euros converted to dollars.

"Tim Daneliuk" wrote

> Ron Paul

www.goooh.com first.

Well hell ... we can wish, can't we?

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 11/30/07
KarlC@ (the obvious)

J. Clarke wrote:
> Charlie Self wrote:
>
>>On Dec 8, 4:10 pm, Just Wondering <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>J. Clarke wrote:
>>>
>>>>Just Wondering wrote:
>>>
>>>>>Han wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>[email protected] (J T) wrote in
>>>>>>news:[email protected]:
>>>
>>>>>>>So, maybe the thing to do would be to pick someone that's
>>>>>>>actually qualified for the job, but doesn't want it, and just
>>>>>>>make them president. And, if they do a good job they only have
>>>>>>>to serve
>>>>>>>four years.
>>>
>>>>>>Can't be done anymore. Who would accept that nomination? But
>>>>>>while
>>>>>>we're on the subject, who would you propose? That is a serious
>>>>>>question, for a change.
>>>
>>>>>Make "None Of The Above" a choice on every ballot. If it gets
>>>>>more
>>>>>votes than any candidate, all the candidates on the ballot go on
>>>>>the scrap heap, the parties have to come up with new names for
>>>>>the
>>>>>runoff
>>>>>election, and the office remains vacant until someone can garner
>>>>>more
>>>>>votes than "none of the above."
>>>
>>>>So we go for the next century without a government? Who keeps the
>>>>criminals in check after the police all have to quit policing and
>>>>get civilian jobs because they haven't been paid in five years?
>>>
>>>Not at all. Most offices will still be filled the first go-around,
>>>certainly enough legislative offices will be to pass a spending
>>>bill. I think the result would be a wakeup call to the parties, to
>>>shake them up and make them offer candidates that don't make you
>>>hold your nose when voting for the lesser of two evils.
>>>
>>>Another proposal: Eliminate career politicians by enacting
>>>universal term limits of no more than 16 years total in all
>>>elective
>>>offices (local, state, and federal combined), with no pension or
>>>other retirement benefits.
>>
>>Kill even half the benefits and most of today's group wouldn't run
>>again, anyway. Put the federal politicos on the same sort of
>>retirement plan Joe Average gets down at the distillery and, whoops.
>>Do the same for medical care coverage. Make them drive their own
>>damned cars, at what, 37 cents a mile? Allow no vehicle larger than
>>a
>>mid-size sedan for any person who doesn't need a pick-up truck or
>>isn't in the military. Outlaw SUVs, black or otherwise (not a bad
>>idea
>>all around, anyway). Allow NO gifts, not even a 39 cent pen. Game,
>>set, match. Empty offices.
>
>
> Make 'em open their own damned mail so they have to wade through the
> junk mail, and make them take out their own damned trash so they have
> to pick out all the recyclables. And designate a team of auditors to
> watch each of them 24/7 including in the bedroom--violate one statute,
> just one, even if it's a ten cent fine and even if the statute has
> been overturned by the Supreme Court and out they go.
>
> Give 'em a barracks in DC to live in. No moving the family there
> (well, not unless they all want to sleep in the same Army-issue bunk).
> No need for them to have a car in DC either, the barracks can be an
> annex to the Capitol. And feed 'em GI chow. If they need to go
> somewhere besides work in DC then they can take the public transit
> (wanna bet that in 5 years DC would have the best, cleanest, safest
> public transit system in the world?)
>
> Oh, and they have to recite the entire US code (or whatever body of
> statute law they're liable to be adding to) verbatin and carry it in
> its entirety on their persons at all times printed on 12 pound bond in
> 12 point type.


I like the sentiment, but this one's not realistic. The U.S. Code, and all of
the states' statutes, are too massive for anyone to memorize. How 'bout this
instead? Any legislator who wants to pass a bill has to submit it to a
committee of its opponents, who will prepare a test on its important points.
Anyone who wants to vote for the bill has to take and pass the test first.


>
> Rotate the sessions--don't always have them in the Capitol in DC--one
> year DC, another New York, another Dallas, another Yellowstone Park
> (gotta get 'em out of the damned cities sometimes) and just for fun
> every decade or so put it outside the country--Congress having a
> session in Riyadh or Moscow or Papeete would do wonders for their
> outlook I suspect)
>

Fred the Red Shirt wrote:

> I realize that is the socialist perspective and I reject it.
>
> First of all, any retirement plan functions like insurance,
> some claimants get more than they put in while others
> get less. Social Security was running a surplus up until
> the time that LBJ convinced the Congress to merge it into
> the General Fund, even without investing the money.

SS is still running a surplus and will be for the next decade or so.
From it's inception under FDR, the SS surplus has been "invested" in
intra governmental bonds by law. This means any surplus has always been
bought from SS by the federal government in exchange for an IOU. What
was changed is the federal government accounting of this - the surplus
received from SS is counted as revenue for the current fiscal year, and
the IOU is NOT counted as an expenditure. This leads folks to believe
there really was a surplus in the late '90s when in fact the national
debt has increased every year since 1960.

The SS and the 150 or so other trust funds account for $4 trillion of
the $9 trillion debt.

Politicians who talk about "raiding" the trust fund are either ignorant
of the current law and situation or trying to obfuscate thinking that
the public doesn't know there's no money in the fund to be raided and
there never has been. They also reject the only other form of
investment which would be non governmental notes and equities
(privatization) as being too "risky" and instead suggest increasing the
withholding thereby accumulating debt at an even faster rate!

Han wrote:

> If someone earns $10/hr, should he pay the same percentage of
> income in taxes as someone earning $100/hr? Or $1000/hr? Would that be
> fair?
>
>
This example is overly simplistic to illustrate a simple point. Suppose a 10%
flat tax. A earns $10K a year, B earns $100K, and C earns $1M.
A pays $1,000 in taxes, B pays $10,000, and C pays $100,000. A also qualifies
for many government "entitlement" programs that B and C don't qualify for, which
give C $8,000 in benefits in addition to his $10K wage. Does C get a hundred
times more back in the way of government services and benefits than does A? No,
he doesn't, he's still subsidizing the cost of services and benefits provided to
A. What's unfair about A paying for a fraction of what he gets, rather than
paying nothing at all? What did B or C do that they should be punished by
having their money taken away from them and giving it to A?

"Fred the Red Shirt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:f71284ed-9a29-4981-b650-9f99031208e6@n20g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> You must be a blissful individual.
>>
>> FDR commited or caused acts of war to be commited in an effort to get
>> into
>> the war in Europe, and stated flatly that he preferred the Japanese to
>> strike the first blow as well.
>
> Yes, have you ever heard of Hitler, Mussilini and Stalin? Fighting
> the Nazis in Africa and Europe was quite preferable to waiting until
> they landed on Long Island. Just my personal opinion.
>
> Ironically, Hitler turned on his ally Stalin so that the Soviets
> became
> our ally, Hilter being the greater threat at the time. But keep in
> mind that early in the War we sent aid to the Finns to fight against
> the Soviets.FDR was anticipating a world war against Germany,
> Japan, Italy, AND the Soviet Union.
>
>> ...and stated flatly that he preferred the Japanese to
>> strike the first blow as well.
>
> I'd like an exact quote with context for that statement.
>
> My guess, at this point, is that FDR, if he said anything at all
> on the subject, said something to the effect that we should not
> declare war on Japan unless the Japanese attacked us first.
>
>>
>> The country, on the other hand, was pretty happy selling
>> machinery and oil for money, not Lend-Lease, FOB a US
>> port. Did more for the economy than simply make-work
>> and printing money.
>
> He did manage, over the objections of the Republicans, to
> sell some arms to Finland to assist in their defense against
> the Soviet Union.
>
>>
>> It might interest you to know that we supported colonial powers, and were
>> one ourselves in the Pacific. Imagine if the current crop of press-pigs
>> had
>> had an opportunity to work on that?
>
> The contemporarary press-pigs supported American Colonialism
> of course. Remember the Maine?
>

As I said. Blissful. I could give you chapter and verse on the FDR
reference, but you REALLY need to read up on some History before you appear
even more ignorant. So I'll leave it to you.

While you're shopping, look up the meaning of "neutral."

"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> And he never got elected when he was alive, so what makes you think he
> would when he's dead?

Even dead he is better than most of the candidates running this time around.

J. Clarke wrote:
> Doug Winterburn wrote:
>
>>J. Clarke wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I know that NRA/ILA has been reasonably effective in getting the
>>>Congress to vote the way I want them to.
>>>
>>>Yeah, PACs get their power from money but that money can come from
>>>a
>>>million people contributing ten bucks as easily as from Microsoft
>>>contributing 10 million.
>>>
>>
>>...or from a bunch of geezers contributing to AARP.
>
>
> Hey, it's not going to be long before I become a "geezer". Geezer
> Power!!!!
>
> And unless you luck out and die young, it's gonna happen to you to.
>
AARP (American Association of Retired People) is something of a misnomer. You
don't have to be old, you can join AARP at age 50. And you don't have to be
retired, either. I joined because AARP members can get hotel discounts, and the
first time I used the discount saved me more money than a three year membership.

Han wrote:

> While for us oil has gone up from $30/barrel, for Europeans it has gone
> up less, taking the exchange rates into account. (Indeed, I still do not
> understand why European rates for gasoline are close to 3 times what we
> pay in New Jersey).

Almost 2/3 of the price of European gasoline is tax.

J. Clarke wrote:
> Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>
>>J. Clarke wrote:
>><SNIP>
>>
>>>Not sure that penalizing them for deficit spending is necessarily a
>>>good idea. Sometimes that helps the economy.
>>
>>
>>This is arguable. The government produces nothing, hence cannot
>>add to the GDP.
>
>
> The effect is indirect.
>
>
>>But even if it did so, the Federal Government
>>has no Constitutional authority to "help the economy".
>
>
> Comes under "promote the general welfare".
>
>
That language comes from the preamble to the constitution, which, despite what
some people including apparently you believe, does NOT grant the federal
government any power.

Rod & Betty Jo wrote:

>
> ....incidentally I do feel a Government should tax and spend as little
> as possible but they are responsible for fulfilling the publics mandate
> for desired services or functions.
>
I'm curious about how far you think that responsibility goes. If the public
desires universal "free" health care, for example, is the government responsible
to tax and spend enough to make that possible? What if the public desires
universal free ivy league quality higher education, or universal housing, or
universal sirloin steaks at hamburger prices?

J. Clarke wrote:
> Just Wondering wrote:
>
>>Han wrote:
>>
>>>[email protected] (J T) wrote in
>>>news:3892-47598E19-457@storefull- 3337.bay.webtv.net:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>So, maybe the thing to do would be to pick someone that's
>>>>actually qualified for the job, but doesn't want it, and just make
>>>>them president. And, if they do a good job they only have to
>>>>serve
>>>>four years.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Can't be done anymore. Who would accept that nomination? But
>>>while
>>>we're on the subject, who would you propose? That is a serious
>>>question, for a change.
>>>
>>
>>Make "None Of The Above" a choice on every ballot. If it gets more
>>votes than any candidate, all the candidates on the ballot go on the
>>scrap heap, the parties have to come up with new names for the
>>runoff
>>election, and the office remains vacant until someone can garner
>>more
>>votes than "none of the above."
>
>
> So we go for the next century without a government? Who keeps the
> criminals in check after the police all have to quit policing and get
> civilian jobs because they haven't been paid in five years?
>
Not at all. Most offices will still be filled the first go-around, certainly
enough legislative offices will be to pass a spending bill. I think the result
would be a wakeup call to the parties, to shake them up and make them offer
candidates that don't make you hold your nose when voting for the lesser of two
evils.

Another proposal: Eliminate career politicians by enacting universal term
limits of no more than 16 years total in all elective offices (local, state, and
federal combined), with no pension or other retirement benefits.