better read and understand this

[Gunner3456]

Yeah I guess clicking on the link posted above would be too difficult and time consuming for you.

One more time just for you buggy.
At the bottom, over on the right side, it does indeed say:
ASSETS PER CITIZEN

LIABILITY PER CITIZEN

And that's just the liabilities that are unfunded mandates, like Social Security, Medicare and dotgov prescription drugs.

They amount to:
$108.4Tr
Total existing US debt:
$ 55.8Tr

When we are shown the official debt numbers, they are bogus.

No one knows how much "we" owe in obligations the Federal Reserve has bought up using thin air, but we do know they have guaranteed all of the mortgages of Freddie and Fannie, and that's a much bigger number than our debt clock.

We do know that every dime of the Social Security and Medicare trust funds that we've paid into all of our lives has been spent in the general fund. The government "borrows' that money every year and blows it. That is an unfunded liability that isn't mentioned.

Next year the first of the baby boomers retires, and for 18 years after that the numbers just increase. There are about 90 million baby boomers, and far fewer younger people to support them in this Ponzi scheme.

Added together, our actual unfunded liabilities total more than $100 trillion which is about $330,000 per person or about one million, three hundred thousand dollars ($1,300,000.00) for every family of four. Yes, our government has run us each that far into debt.

Every US baby born today is $330,000 in debt as it takes its first breath.

Does anyone actually believe that we can afford to pay that? Does anyone actually believe that we can fund the baby boomers' retirements (social security, medicare, government and military retirement) from future tax receipts from the smaller group who will still be working?

Up until now, the working baby boomers paid taxes that supported their parents' retirements, but there are tons of working boomers so it worked out. Now the 90 million boomers won't have a big group behind them supporting them. This is the problem with all Ponzi schemes.

The government will try to print money to pay this, but that will make dollars worthless.

You will see a major default and crash in your lifetime.

 

[Stomper]

I simply stated the true, and obvious, that comparing real money with future obligations is not fair. If they want to compare the real national debt with real wealth than that is fair. If they want to do a hypothetical of future wealth in relation to future debt than that would be abstract, but could still be fair. They didn't do either of these, instead they presented this end of the world cite based on the most purposely flawed means of comparison.

For example, if you had a new baby, then by the reason of this cite we would call that a future obligation of $250K dollars and your household, also by the definition used in this cite, just might be considered bankrupt. What we aren't taking into consideration is that this baby will probably contribute financially and create wealth far above the cost of production. There are even more fallacies in the approach in the cite, but I'll stop here.

Hey Bug,

I see your point on "working" the numbers, but in the name of fairness didn't Obama & friends do the same thing with the touted numbers while pitching Obamacare...?

Didn't they say quality would increase...? Turns out they ("they", being "sanctioned" government types) are now saying "quality and efficiency" will have to take precedence over "quantity"... um, I believe that's fancy "multi-syllable" for "rationed healthcare".

Didn't they say ALL Americans would get health coverage...? Turns out there will STILL be several MILLION Americans w/o helathcare coverage under Obamacare.

How much did they say it was going to "save" the country money in medical expenses...? Turns out they ("they", being "sanctioned" government types) are NOW saying that the plan costs will far exceed what they estimated and will actually CONTRIBUTE to the national debt... duh, that was a no-brainer!


Yessir, them Progressives (on BOTH sides of the isle) are driving the bus @ 120-mph straight into Fascism... or worse (if that's possible).

 

[bugeye]

Yeah I guess clicking on the link posted above would be too difficult and time consuming for you.

One more time just for you buggy.
At the bottom, over on the right side, it does indeed say:
ASSETS PER CITIZEN

LIABILITY PER CITIZEN

And that's just the liabilities that are unfunded mandates, like Social Security, Medicare and dotgov prescription drugs.

They amount to:
$108.4Tr
Total existing US debt:
$ 55.8Tr

In '09 Obama said he and his guys were looking to cut $100 million from the budget,...

http://www.wimp.com/budgetcuts/




Not much for reading comprehension are you bugeye.

Like I said, you agree, you just don't know it yet!

I was heading out the door to go to work and didn't have to look, sheesh!
So, I misunderstood what you were talking about.
You're right the unfunded mandates are listed there, but again, since the orginal cite used total debt as these 'unfunded mandates', show on the debtclock, plus some other unexplained voodoo, and then contrasted that with current, not future, wealth, my point that it is an unfair comparison stands. You did get me on the detail of what was shown on the debt clock, but the numbers up top are the actual debt and that chart does not promote the comparison.

My second point, that the real debt numbers are bad enough to make good arguments with, also stands. However, you can't make a good argument that the end is near using the real numbers, so they use voodoo numbers. We really don't need to give up yet, while I'm sure this will never be fixed it can be cut to a sustainable level of the GDP.

There is an element of self destruction involved in the gov cutting itself, and there would be a lot of resistance to some cuts, like ones for the military. Do you really think you could get the public to go along with cutting social security, medicare, medicade, pulling our troops out of the world, backing off on our wars, reducing weapons development, lowering the number of servicepeople, reducing preparadness for emergencies, dropping the spending for homeland security, playing less of a role in transportaion, housing, education, exploration, science funding, thousands of pork projects, and corporate welfare, and on and on.

Sounds like suicde for any admin that even started lining up the sacred cows.

 

[bugeye]

Hey Bug,

I see your point on "working" the numbers, but in the name of fairness didn't Obama & friends do the same thing with the touted numbers while pitching Obamacare...?

Didn't they say quality would increase...? Turns out they ("they", being "sanctioned" government types) are now saying "quality and efficiency" will have to take precedence over "quantity"... um, I believe that's fancy "multi-syllable" for "rationed healthcare".

Didn't they say ALL Americans would get health coverage...? Turns out there will STILL be several MILLION Americans w/o helathcare coverage under Obamacare.

How much did they say it was going to "save" the country money in medical expenses...? Turns out they ("they", being "sanctioned" government types) are NOW saying that the plan costs will far exceed what they estimated and will actually CONTRIBUTE to the national debt... duh, that was a no-brainer!


Yessir, them Progressives (on BOTH sides of the isle) are driving the bus @ 120-mph straight into Fascism... or worse (if that's possible).

Why is that fascism?
If the gov started taking over functions of private companies you would call that socialism, right. They didn't do that so then its fascist? What they did was pretty much leave the system where it was.

What happened in the health care law was that the sacred cows of insurance, pharma, and the providers were left in a position to overcharge in exchange for not resisting the bill - law. This is the only way it could have ever gotten through given our current political structure and the fact that our elected officals were gifted by these players also played a role. The bill got really watered down in the senate, where an increase in the gov competing with private insurance was removed. Whatever savings are really in the bill are through the agreements made between this admin and the players, and not all of that has been made public. As to the CBO's estimate of cost and defict reduction, I don't know if they used the value of the agreements or not. I should find out!

 

[Gunner3456]

First, anyone should worry that almost 1/2 of our spending is borrowed (gray area.) This is insane. That gray area is just part of our mounting debt.





Next, for anyone to cut the budget, he'd have to make some people very unhappy. It ain't gonna happen until we crash.

 

[Gunner3456]

Why is that fascism?
If the gov started taking over functions of private companies you would call that socialism, right. They didn't do that so then its fascist? What they did was pretty much leave the system where it was.

Fascism is a type of socialism where businesses are privately owned but the government dictates how to run them. GM and Chrysler? Banks? Now Wall Street?

Communism is a type of socialism where businesses are owned by the government.

Nowhere on this planet has either model ever worked. All have gone bust. Russia and China are rushing to abandon communism and socialism in favor of capitalism, and they are chiding us for slipping into socialism.

They are making the money too, and lending it to us as we fail.

 

[bugeye]

Fascism is a type of socialism where businesses are privately owned but the government dictates how to run them. GM and Chrysler? Banks? Now Wall Street?

Communism is a type of socialism where businesses are owned by the government.

Nowhere on this planet has either model ever worked. All have gone bust. Russia and China are rushing to abandon communism and socialism in favor of capitalism, and they are chiding us for slipping into socialism.

They are making the money too, and lending it to us as we fail.

Fascism, pronounced /ˈfæʃɪzəm/, is a radical and authoritarian nationalist political ideology.[1][2][3][4] Fascists seek to organize a nation on corporatist perspectives, values, and systems such as the political system and the economy.[5][6] Scholars generally consider fascism to be on the far right of the conventional left-right political spectrum,[7][8][9][10][11][12] although some scholars claim that fascism has been influenced by both the left and the right.[13][14]

Fascists believe that a nation is an organic community that requires strong leadership, singular collective identity, and the will and ability to commit violence and wage war in order to keep the nation strong.[15] They claim that culture is created by collective national society and its state, that cultural ideas are what give individuals identity, and thus rejects individualism.

The gov didn't take anything over to exploit it, heck we will be lucky to only lose half on these 'takeovers'?

Wall street has thrown 500 million at congress and now repubs and dems both have regulation bills for the derivatives trade and they are just about the same, and they don't do much. I actually suspect that the repubs bill is a smokescreen and that they really will not be in support of any regulation. Regulation of the derivatives trade is absolutely essential, there is no doubt except in the minds of people who don't get it, or people who are making fortunes in it. Your nightmare is the gov taking over the corps and mine is where the corps take over the gov, I think I've got more reality, and way 'I now own your rear' money, supporting my point of view.

The war of words between China and the US boils down to our asking them to allow their currency to float (as all legitimate trade partners do) and them saying back to us, with anger and attitude, anything they can think of to change the subject.

Most Russians were better off during communism, than they have been under the mess of theft that has existed since, and they are moving back to the left at this time, trying to find a reasonable balance.

 

[Gunner3456]

Fascism, pronounced /ˈfæʃɪzəm/, is a radical and authoritarian nationalist political ideology.[1][2][3][4] Fascists seek to organize a nation on corporatist perspectives, values, and systems such as the political system and the economy.[5][6] Scholars generally consider fascism to be on the far right of the conventional left-right political spectrum,[7][8][9][10][11][12] although some scholars claim that fascism has been influenced by both the left and the right.[13][14]

If you drew a horizontal line and wrote "left" on the left end and "right" on the right end, you'd find the following:

On the far, extreme left you have maximum government control. That includes communism and fascism including dictatorships. Somewhat but not far to the right of that you'll have democratic socialism.

On the far, extreme right you have no government control and maximum individual freedom. That's called anarchy - every man for himself.

Fascism cannot fit on the right side because the government controls all business including the means of production. It is big government control and therefore far leftist.

Our founders saw us as somewhere between the center and the right, and closer to the far right. They spelled out very limited government and maximum individual liberty in plain words, over and over. They were afraid of big government and loss of freedom, because they had just escaped the King of England.

Hitler was perhaps the most famous of fascists. Some people are beginning to celebrate his ideas again, even though Germany was again bankrupt at the time he died.

 

[trainsktg]

There are those that believe the environmental movement is locking up forests and mining and drilling for the sake of the environment.

Then there are those that believe the government is allowing these national assets, known as "natural resources" to be locked up because they constitute the collateral we are using to borrow against.

What do you think?

There is no other logical conclusion why China et al would still be buying our debt if they would not be guaranteed hard assets as collateral. We default, then they move in and start cutting, mining and drilling.

Keith

 

[Gunner3456]

There are those that believe the environmental movement is locking up forests and mining and drilling for the sake of the environment.

Then there are those that believe the government is allowing these national assets, known as "natural resources" to be locked up because they constitute the collateral we are using to borrow against.

What do you think?

I believe that there are true envirowackos who want to lock up our resources. There truly are people who worship the earth, you know. It's their "religion." Link

Then I believe that there are large corporations who profit by importing resources rather than using ours. They get them elsewhere with cheap labor and little to no environmental restrictions. They have powerful lobbies.

I also don't discount the NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) selfish people who don't want their view altered. Maybe they don't want to see oil wells or refineries, or maybe they don't want trees cut which are within their view - all of this on even private land. They forgot that if you want to control what happens on land, you're suppose to buy it.

I don't believe that China thinks they can come and take our resources as payment for debt. Would we as citizens stand still for them logging our forests or pumping our oil and hauling it away? Would we just gather around and watch? I don't think so.

 

[bugeye]

If you drew a horizontal line and wrote "left" on the left end and "right" on the right end, you'd find the following:

On the far, extreme left you have maximum government control. That includes communism and fascism including dictatorships. Somewhat but not far to the right of that you'll have democratic socialism.

On the far, extreme right you have no government control and maximum individual freedom. That's called anarchy - every man for himself.

Fascism cannot fit on the right side because the government controls all business including the means of production. It is big government control and therefore far leftist.

Our founders saw us as somewhere between the center and the right, and closer to the far right. They spelled out very limited government and maximum individual liberty in plain words, over and over. They were afraid of big government and loss of freedom, because they had just escaped the King of England.

Hitler was perhaps the most famous of fascists. Some people are beginning to celebrate his ideas again, even though Germany was again bankrupt at the time he died.

First off, I messed up my last post and that definition was from wikkipedia and was cited at one point before I hit some weird key combo and everything disappeared.

I don't understand or accept your definitions of left and right, I use the traditional ones that you will find in a dictionary, not the new ones contrived as additional rightie propaganda. There are plenty of parallels between the American Right and traditional Fascists, also the real fascists we have around are on your side. If you look at the lefts WTO protests you will clearly see where the anarchists are, and I assure you they aren't down with Fox News.

Hitler came out of depression that spawned over 20 political parties. He made speeches about the superiority of the domestic stock, the inferiority of minorities, and preached nationalism and love of country, so that is more your side of fence too, right? Hitler came to power with thug tactics and public support. Once he had power the first thing he did was to wipe out the SA and it's leader who helped put him in power (see night of the long knives), so he could look more moderate. Betrayal is basic to all politics and given the state of affairs, the common view of things that the right has due to it's reliance on media with one point of view, the ease with which the support can be obtained with just a few words about guns and religion and loving America, I'd have to say that the odds of your side putting in a future dictator are far greater than the lefts.

As to our founders, my take on them if very different from yours, I see them as a diverse group of exceptional people that argued to a compromise.

You can't give the left the fascists because we never agree with each other enough to create a fascism.

 

[Stomper]

There is no other logical conclusion why China et al would still be buying our debt if they would not be guaranteed hard assets as collateral. We default, then they move in and start cutting, mining and drilling.

Keith

Hey Keith,

You pose a good question on why China is still buying our debt, but from what I have learned it isn't because they are planning to move in and start harvesting our resources. Look back in history to all waged "wars" since WWII up to today... they have all been "regional", (relatively) contained, and have had no ABSOLUTE winner... WHY? The USA has (always had) a military capability that ABSOLUTEY CANNOT be matched on the battlefield, if the "dogs" were TRUELY let loose.

It's because ALL the economies around the world were (nearly) inexorably "linked" during the cold war era. This was done as a means to prevent outright TOTAL world war and nuclear holocaust, if one country wiped out another country, the victor's economy would be a shambles and collapse due to the simbiotic economic structure of the world, making that a POWERFUL deterrent... it seemed like a good idea at the time (and it DID prevent WWIII).

All that "machinery" was put into place under the guise of "preventing world war", now fast forward to today... Greece's economy is flatering, they're FEELING it in Germany, France and Italy. Now that Gemrmany, France and Italy's economies are "suffering", Iceland is FEELING that. Now that Iceland is on "the edge", the UK is FEELING that. Now that the UK is floundering, the USA is FEELING it... now that the USA is the epitomy of OUTRIGHT HAVOC, China's economy is feeling it.... see how it works?

To answer your question on why China continues the insane practice of buying our debt, is simple... economic survival, if we go down they go down. You have over a BILLION Chinese citizens that are getting turned on to a higher standard of living. Don't you think the Chinese Politburo is nervous over the prospect having all those people get cranked at them if their economy tanks?

All wars lead to more wars, all wars are merely a distraction to keep the eyes of the masses off the REAL GAME... of this was done under the GUISE/DISTRACTION of war... the infrastructure was installed the "prevent WWIII", now it's TRUE purpose is about to be implemented... global economic slavery. Not all prisons, and "re-education camps" are made of walls and barbed wire. There is a proverb, "the borrower is a SLAVE to the lender"... and we're about to get a taste from our new master(s)... if we don't rise up as UNITED STATES CITIZENS and do the right thing, COUNTRY FIRST... ideology LAST!

 

[Stomper]

... I'd have to say that the odds of your side putting in a future dictator are far greater than the lefts.

You mean like ramming through Obamacare despite a 65% opposition to its then current form? BTW- the % of opposition has NOT lessoned since it's passage... it's even MORE so as more and more of it's impact is coming to light. A "dictatorship" doesn't have to mean just "one person" (i.e. a Hitler or Stalin) running the show. I think Americans would DEFINATELY rise up against a "single dictator" and that is what is taking so long to awaken the electorate... we have MANY dictators in the halls of congress acting as a single virus, and (hopefully) a concerted election will be the cure.

As to our founders, my take on them if very different from yours, I see them as a diverse group of exceptional people that argued to a compromise.

They argued out a REPUBLIC... not a democracy. They argued out a CONSTITUTION that SHALL NOT be ignored... not a rule by fiat via "executive orders". BTW- both sides are guilty of that, and I despise them BOTH. Provisions were made to change the Constituion through the amendment process, if you want things to "progress" do it the RIGHT way and use that process, and IF you were to prevail I stand by it (even if I didn't like it)... oh, that's right... "your side" would NEVER win that way. They have to "legislate" things into oblivion until it gets so convoluted that sane men would tend to give up... hopefully there's a new day coming in November.

You can't give the left the fascists because we never agree with each other enough to create a fascism.

NO GROUP of people will EVER agree on EVERYTHING, but I contend that progressives agree "enough" that BIG GOVERNMENT is the solution, and that my friend ultimately leads to a totalitarian government... communism, or fascism, NEITHER of which you can lay at the feet of TRUE "American Conservatism".


BTW- Hitler took out the SA players i.e. Ernst Röhm because he was a threat to Hitler's power, NOT to appear "moderate"... plain and simple. Röhm was actually under the delusion that he was (ultimately) fully equal to Hitler in both power and status and referred to Hitler as, "the ridiculous corporal" ... he was simply a useful idiot, and his SA thugs were merely used to intimidate the German citizens via terrorists tactics... nowadays its more "civilized" and the acronym of our day for the SA is the "IRS". The modern day despots' ammo (of choice) is currency rather than bullets, although bullets will still be (gleefully) employed when currency holds no sway.

 

[Gunner3456]

First off, I messed up my last post and that definition was from wikkipedia and was cited at one point before I hit some weird key combo and everything disappeared.

I don't understand or accept your definitions of left and right, I use the traditional ones that you will find in a dictionary, not the new ones contrived as additional rightie propaganda. There are plenty of parallels between the American Right and traditional Fascists, also the real fascists we have around are on your side. If you look at the lefts WTO protests you will clearly see where the anarchists are, and I assure you they aren't down with Fox News.

Hitler came out of depression that spawned over 20 political parties. He made speeches about the superiority of the domestic stock, the inferiority of minorities, and preached nationalism and love of country, so that is more your side of fence too, right? Hitler came to power with thug tactics and public support. Once he had power the first thing he did was to wipe out the SA and it's leader who helped put him in power (see night of the long knives), so he could look more moderate. Betrayal is basic to all politics and given the state of affairs, the common view of things that the right has due to it's reliance on media with one point of view, the ease with which the support can be obtained with just a few words about guns and religion and loving America, I'd have to say that the odds of your side putting in a future dictator are far greater than the lefts.

As to our founders, my take on them if very different from yours, I see them as a diverse group of exceptional people that argued to a compromise.

You can't give the left the fascists because we never agree with each other enough to create a fascism.

This is nonsensical ramble. Communists, socialists and fascist are leftists. Leftists believe in and have a powerful government. Many are dictatorships. The left is in control of DC today and they keep giving us bigger government and more government control. See health care, cap and trade, Obama taking control of GM and Chrysler, many banks and next Wall Street. You many think those are all good ideas, but they are leftist ideas.

The farthest right you can go is anarchy - no government and maximum freedom. Hitler's fascist Nazi party was as far left as you can get - maximum government to the point of a dictatorship and the government controlling all businesses.

 

[bugeye]

You mean like ramming through Obamacare despite a 65% opposition to its then current form? BTW- the % of opposition has NOT lessoned since it's passage... it's even MORE so as more and more of it's impact is coming to light. A "dictatorship" doesn't have to mean just "one person" (i.e. a Hitler or Stalin) running the show. I think Americans would DEFINATELY rise up against a "single dictator" and that is what is taking so long to awaken the electorate... we have MANY dictators in the halls of congress acting as a single virus, and (hopefully) a concerted election will be the cure.





They argued out a REPUBLIC... not a democracy. They argued out a CONSTITUTION that SHALL NOT be ignored... not a rule by fiat via "executive orders". BTW- both sides are guilty of that, and I despise them BOTH. Provisions were made to change the Constituion through the amendment process, if you want things to "progress" do it the RIGHT way and use that process, and IF you were to prevail I stand by it (even if I didn't like it)... oh, that's right... "your side" would NEVER win that way. They have to "legislate" things into oblivion until it gets so convoluted that sane men would tend to give up... hopefully there's a new day coming in November.





NO GROUP of people will EVER agree on EVERYTHING, but I contend that progressives agree "enough" that BIG GOVERNMENT is the solution, and that my friend ultimately leads to a totalitarian government... communism, or fascism, NEITHER of which you can lay at the feet of TRUE "American Conservatism".


BTW- Hitler took out the SA players i.e. Ernst Röhm because he was a threat to Hitler's power, NOT to appear "moderate"... plain and simple. Röhm was actually under the delusion that he was (ultimately) fully equal to Hitler in both power and status and referred to Hitler as, "the ridiculous corporal" ... he was simply a useful idiot, and his SA thugs were merely used to intimidate the German citizens via terrorists tactics... nowadays its more "civilized" and the acronym of our day for the SA is the "IRS". The modern day despots' ammo (of choice) is currency rather than bullets, although bullets will still be (gleefully) employed when currency holds no sway.

Ok that last line was a joke, with some truth to it, not a serious comment.

I question your figures and trends about the popularity of the health care bill.

By your take, Isn't a republic where you have many dictators?

I actually think the future shape of Fascism in the US will be corporate control. Really the only thing working against it is the same thing that has kept us safe all along, they can't agree either. I don't get the rest of paragraph but , as far as what was done the repubs had the most to say about that, for political gain they decided not to participate, if they had we could have prob. gotten some tort reform, too bad for us.

Progressive agree that we need a system with the public, the gov and business in a balance. We see the right acting in such a way to favor the business end of things. We think that end has been getting way too much power already. We trust the gov a bit more then we trust the corps, but these days not by much, and we can all see that they are becoming one in the same, with the same sets of interests. To balance this we need a united public but forces are polarizing us, and as I've said we don't even have a common reality.

I could take you on over Rohm too, but I don't have too, betrayal is basic to all politics, and even with your take my point stands. Hitler ousted Rohm with the assistance of the German Military, and that was the force he needed the most, and they hated Rohm.

I don't share your opinion of the IRS, but of course, I hate to pay them too. I don't see any future upopia where we won't have to pay taxes. I love my country, not everything it does for sure, but this is just about the best place in the best time ever. And the end is not here yet, perhaps this comedy of errors will accidently make us all proud again.

P.S. the constitution is ancient and only 12 pages long, you folks keep wrapping yourselves up in it while channeling for the founders, in some secret rightie mystical ritual. So does Jefferson slap you on the rear and say "You're the man!"?

 

[Gunner3456]

By your take, Isn't a republic where you have many dictators?

Not at all. We are a republic and congress only thinks they are our dictators, LOL.

A republic in our case is the group of 50 states, each with as much power as any other, regardless of population. Montana, with a population of fewer than one million people has the same number of senators as do California and New York. Montana has as much voting power in the senate as much bigger states.

That can't be considered a democracy because in a democracy the majority rules. As Thomas Jefferson said, "a democracy is nothing more than mob rule where 51% of the people can take away all of the rights of the other 49%."

Our founders hated the concept of a democracy for that reason. They instead set us up as a constitutional republic where first the constitution rules, and any laws made by congress which violate the constitution are void. The majority cannot violate the constitutional rights of a minority.

We are not a democracy but rather a nation of laws, with our constitution being the primary set of laws. The constitution protects all of us from a greedy majority or a would-be dictator. Well, at least it used to and many of us want to force that issue and make the feds start obeying the constitution again.

Look at how a bunch of states are pushing back on Obamacare, calling it unconstitutional because it violates the sovereignty of the states. I have no idea how the supreme court will rule on that, but if they follow the constitution, Obamacare is dead. It's been a long, long time since states pushed back at the feds and told them to stop over stepping their bounds. We'll just have to see if the supreme court agrees.

Unfortunately, even the supreme court can become corrupt and if it does, our rights (including our gun rights) can be void overnight. We also have interesting states' rights fights going on against the federal government right now about guns as you are well aware. Some states are telling BATF to butt out. We'll see how that goes.

Arizona just passed a law claiming it's sovereign right to deal will illegals. Obama et al want to fight that too.

At the least it's getting interesting. FWIW, the "Tea Party" types will be backing candidates who still believe in states' rights, and who want smaller federal government. We'll have to wait and see how that goes.

We live in interesting, if a bit frightening times (economically.)

 

[bugeye]

This is nonsensical ramble. Communists, socialists and fascist are leftists. Leftists believe in and have a powerful government. Many are dictatorships. The left is in control of DC today and they keep giving us bigger government and more government control. See health care, cap and trade, Obama taking control of GM and Chrysler, many banks and next Wall Street. You many think those are all good ideas, but they are leftist ideas.

The farthest right you can go is anarchy - no government and maximum freedom. Hitler's fascist Nazi party was as far left as you can get - maximum government to the point of a dictatorship and the government controlling all businesses.

This is a nonsensical ramble that ignores well set definitions.
You're also ignoring my truthful key arguments, that ALL the existing facsists are lined up with the right and ALMOST ALL of most anarchists are with the left. Pardon my reality but it trumps your philosophical expedient.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left–right_politics

"Traditionally, the Left includes progressives, social liberals, social democrats, socialists, communists and anarchists.[2][3][4][5] The Right includes conservatives, reactionaries, monarchists, nationalists and fascists.[6]"
...
"The contemporary Left in the United States is usually understood as a category including New Deal liberals, Rawlsian liberals, social democrats and civil libertarians, and is generally identified with the Democratic Party. Due to the extensive pejorative use of the term liberal, some parts of the American Left decided in the 1980s to begin using the term progressive instead. In general, left implies a commitment to egalitarianism, support for social policies that favor the working class, and multiculturalism. The contemporary Left usually defines itself as promoting government regulation of business, commerce and industry; protection of fundamental rights such as freedom of speech and separation of church and state; and government intervention on behalf of racial, ethnic, and sexual minorities and the working class.

The contemporary Right in the United States is usually understood as a category including social conservatives, Christian conservatives and free market liberals, and is generally identified with the Republican Party. In general, right-wing implies a commitment to conservative Christian values, support for a free-market system, and traditional family values. The contemporary Right usually defines itself as promoting deregulation of banking, commerce, and industry."

And that is how it is, sheesh!

 

[Gunner3456]

This is a nonsensical ramble that ignores well set definitions.
You're also ignoring my truthful key arguments, that ALL the existing facsists are lined up with the right and ALMOST ALL of most anarchists are with the left. Pardon my reality but it trumps your philosophical expedient.

<broken link removed>

"Traditionally, the Left includes progressives, social liberals, social democrats, socialists, communists and anarchists.[2][3][4][5] The Right includes conservatives, reactionaries, monarchists, nationalists and fascists.[6]"
...
"The contemporary Left in the United States is usually understood as a category including New Deal liberals, Rawlsian liberals, social democrats and civil libertarians, and is generally identified with the Democratic Party. Due to the extensive pejorative use of the term liberal, some parts of the American Left decided in the 1980s to begin using the term progressive instead. In general, left implies a commitment to egalitarianism, support for social policies that favor the working class, and multiculturalism. The contemporary Left usually defines itself as promoting government regulation of business, commerce and industry; protection of fundamental rights such as freedom of speech and separation of church and state; and government intervention on behalf of racial, ethnic, and sexual minorities and the working class.

The contemporary Right in the United States is usually understood as a category including social conservatives, Christian conservatives and free market liberals, and is generally identified with the Republican Party. In general, right-wing implies a commitment to conservative Christian values, support for a free-market system, and traditional family values. The contemporary Right usually defines itself as promoting deregulation of banking, commerce, and industry."

And that is how it is, sheesh!

Find something better than Wikipedia, which can be written by anyone with a big agenda and a tiny brain.

Look how it contradicts itself, for cryin' out loud:

"Traditionally, the Left includes...and anarchists."

"The contemporary Left usually defines itself as promoting government regulation of business, commerce and industry;"

Now, how in the heck can you have both "regulation of business, commerce and industry," and "anarchy" which means "a state of lawlessness and disorder" and "having no government leader?"

That is the most stupid writeup I've ever seen, and I've seen some stupid ones from Wikipedia.

 

[bugeye]

Not at all. We are a republic and congress only thinks they are our dictators, LOL.

A republic in our case is the group of 50 states, each with as much power as any other, regardless of population. Montana, with a population of fewer than one million people has the same number of senators as do California and New York. Montana has as much voting power in the senate as much bigger states.

That can't be considered a democracy because in a democracy the majority rules. As Thomas Jefferson said, "a democracy is nothing more than mob rule where 51% of the people can take away all of the rights of the other 49%."

Our founders hated the concept of a democracy for that reason. They instead set us up as a constitutional republic where first the constitution rules, and any laws made by congress which violate the constitution are void. The majority cannot violate the constitutional rights of a minority.

We are not a democracy but rather a nation of laws, with our constitution being the primary set of laws. The constitution protects all of us from a greedy majority or a would-be dictator. Well, at least it used to and many of us want to force that issue and make the feds start obeying the constitution again.

Look at how a bunch of states are pushing back on Obamacare, calling it unconstitutional because it violates the sovereignty of the states. I have no idea how the supreme court will rule on that, but if they follow the constitution, Obamacare is dead. It's been a long, long time since states pushed back at the feds and told them to stop over stepping their bounds. We'll just have to see if the supreme court agrees.

Unfortunately, even the supreme court can become corrupt and if it does, our rights (including our gun rights) can be void overnight. We also have interesting states' rights fights going on against the federal government right now about guns as you are well aware. Some states are telling BATF to butt out. We'll see how that goes.

Arizona just passed a law claiming it's sovereign right to deal will illegals. Obama et al want to fight that too.

At the least it's getting interesting. FWIW, the "Tea Party" types will be backing candidates who still believe in states' rights, and who want smaller federal government. We'll have to wait and see how that goes.

We live in interesting, if a bit frightening times (economically.)

I pretty much agree with you.
Except, the states are taking on the health care reform law because of political expedient. The supreme court is well stacked to the right (5 to 4) and they may find this law unconstitutional, even if it isn't. The Tea Party is going to vote GOP anyway, this is not news to anyone. It isn't unusual for the feds to prevent a state law from going into effect, how many times did we have to pass the assisted suicide bill? It also isn't unusual for the feds to let the states keep a law that is not compliant with federal law, like the pot laws.

The economy is in flux, I'm betting for it, but for goshsakes, don't expect me to defend that on objective grounds, lol.

I see the same problems you do, our loss of manufacturing, our reliance on paper pushing, and our becoming a service economy. We can't compete with China in engineering and production fields, they live for a month on what we need for a day, their work force is productive, their educational system is cranking out high quality engineers at twice our rate (with that gap increasing exponentially), at low costs without them being $50K in debt for their education. They seem to have structured a system where private firms cooperate, rather than try and take advantage of each other, and we are being left behind by our own greed. So, do we talk tariffs, heck no that will polarize us, do we talk supporting our manufacturing industries, heck no that is socialism - 'free GM so it can crumble', do we create a huge Manhattan type project to create technology that would remake the worlds economy and make our debt look like nothing (fusion power!), heck no let the Europeans do it we spent too much on wars for nothing and being the worlds cops. In addition the USA is the worst imperialist nation ever, regardless of where we take over we only lose money on the deal.

What do we do? There aren't that many options.

We could have lots of inflation, that is usually good for parties that are way in debt, heck no, can't do that either, so the Fed keeps giving the member banks money for nothing and they keep buying T bills with it so they can make a few % on it, talk about a useless self perpetuating cycle! Meanwhile high on the lofty plains of Olympus some very clever weasel has just figured out how to make billions from a few signed pages of paper that aren't even worth the fiber they are printed on. But these folks are going to get their comeuppance, you thought I was going to say by the gov didn't you, nope it's the Chinese, heck any country that can produce a good air compressor that can be sold here at a profit for $100 is going to be able to produce that useless paper for 1/1000th the costs of our investment banks!

And I'm kidding on the square here!

 

[Gunner3456]

I pretty much agree with you.
Except, the states are taking on the health care reform law because of political expedient. The supreme court is well stacked to the right (5 to 4) and they may find this law unconstitutional, even if it isn't. The Tea Party is going to vote GOP anyway, this is not news to anyone. It isn't unusual for the feds to prevent a state law from going into effect, how many times did we have to pass the assisted suicide bill? It also isn't unusual for the feds to let the states keep a law that is not compliant with federal law, like the pot laws.

The economy is in flux, I'm betting for it, but for goshsakes, don't expect me to defend that on objective grounds, lol.

I see the same problems you do, our loss of manufacturing, our reliance on paper pushing, and our becoming a service economy. We can't compete with China in engineering and production fields, they live for a month on what we need for a day, their work force is productive, their educational system is cranking out high quality engineers at twice our rate (with that gap increasing exponentially), at low costs without them being $50K in debt for their education. They seem to have structured a system where private firms cooperate, rather than try and take advantage of each other, and we are being left behind by our own greed. So, do we talk tariffs, heck no that will polarize us, do we talk supporting our manufacturing industries, heck no that is socialism - 'free GM so it can crumble', do we create a huge Manhattan type project to create technology that would remake the worlds economy and make our debt look like nothing (fusion power!), heck no let the Europeans do it we spent too much on wars for nothing and being the worlds cops. In addition the USA is the worst imperialist nation ever, regardless of where we take over we only lose money on the deal.

What do we do? There aren't that many options.

We could have lots of inflation, that is usually good for parties that are way in debt, heck no, can't do that either, so the Fed keeps giving the member banks money for nothing and they keep buying T bills with it so they can make a few &#37; on it, talk about a useless self perpetuating cycle! Meanwhile high on the lofty plains of Olympus some very clever weasel has just figured out how to make billions from a few signed pages of paper that aren't even worth the fiber they are printed on. But these folks are going to get their comeuppance, you thought I was going to say by the gov didn't you, nope it's the Chinese, heck any country that can produce a good air compressor that can be sold here at a profit for $100 is going to be able to produce that useless paper for 1/1000th the costs of our investment banks!

And I'm kidding on the square here!

I pretty much agree with you except for the reason the states are pushing back on Obamacare. They can't afford it and it's being pushed on them in an unfunded way. It's also being pushed on you and me in an unfunded way. You and I are going to be required to buy health insurance or pay a fine if we don't have it. The states are saying that's an overreach of the feds' constitutionally limited authority.

Yes, 65% of Americans don't want this bill so you're right they have politics on their side, but that's not the constitutional argument.

Our federal government is so far out of control that we are borrowing almost 1/2 of all we are spending. Don't try that at home, lol.

We're up sheet creek and this shows it. "Deficit" in gray means borrowed - running up debt.