Posts by Brutus

log in
1) Message boards : Politics : Dallas PD HQ Attacked! (Message 1719631)
Posted 4 days ago by Brutus
What we have here is a natural phenomenon which reoccurs throughout history. I've come to the conclusion that it's a normal part of the cycle of civilization.

We have a system so large and so unwieldy that its overall effect cannot be blamed on any one person who is a part of it.

Whenever you see or hear words like " political establishment" or hear or see anyone claim "extremism" or "status quo", it is precisely this in which many thinking Americans are growing weary.

Our founders recognized this and saw the only way to give individual liberty maximum chance for generations to come and the only way to try to prevent future tyranny is through our second amendment.

I, too, was once a young victim of dishonest journalism and for several years wondered why some things were the way they were. But as I grew older and more experienced, I've come to understand why our constitution is truly exceptional when viewed from a larger, historical, world view. As the other major has pointed out from a couple of our truly intelligent founders, it's just a fact of life that we must renew our tree of liberty from time to time by reminding those who we select and put in our ruling class that they are not above the people who put them there.

Several folks (who want to make America great again) have recently found a way to described why whenever something happens on the news about guns, they immediately (and predictably) start spouting off about gun control. They call it "liberal Tourette Syndrome." That phrase is resonating because it has an element of truth behind it. But I'm beginning to digress.

This natural phenomenon of the cyclical destruction of civilization can be blamed on no one. But it can be blamed on everyone also. Go ahead and claim "godwin's law" but I must point out what led to hitler's gas chambers--no one person was responsible for it, only one or two at the very top *could* be held responsible but they were in a position of power over those who could hold them responsible. Any one-person part of the chain of events which led to grouping people into the gas chambers and then throwing the switch could all say "All I did was move them from here to here", or "All I did was flip this switch at 1PM every day like I was instructed, I didn't know what it was doing until now." -- All of them could say I didn't do it! Our system allows many at the top multiple ways to escape responsibility--endless appeals, presidential pardons, being in a position of power over those who could hold you responsible, etc.

This same thing has happened in the past, this same thing is happening before our very eyes and this same thing will happen again in the future. (Clyde keeps saying this and it appears no one is hearing him, so I'm mentioning it too.) It's a natural, cyclical rhythm in which there is no immediate way to fix, but I believe our founders figured out a way to smooth out and begin to regulate (as viewed from a world-history perspective).

It might be precisely because of our second amendment that our society will *not* end up in some extreme position such as... (godwin's law.) What's better for society? A couple of crazies who occasionally go around shooting up malls, schools and news reporters or our whole society ending up deciding genocide makes sense (as planned parenthood is well on the way to justify)? Lawless ruling class, dishonest journalism, and a majority who are cautious about challenging the status quo... "Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed."

How do you make sure the crazies don't get guns? *You can't!* If you try to take away all guns, the crazies become more efficient/effective. And the crazies won't just be limited to a few disgruntled employees, but will begin to include and proliferate among our ruling class. (Again... godwin's law...)

Our constitution has some foundations in it. Phrases like "all men are created equal" and "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them,..." It has some pillars which made this country great. Our second amendment is one of these pillars.

The continuous attacks by those who have varying selfish personal goals have been successfully chipping away at the foundation of this country.

Our only hope for survival is to get back to the basics--basics which have demonstrated in the past to be successful.

It is my belief that it is better to have a few unaccounted for guns in the wild which a few crazies can get their hands on and for us to tolerate the occasional mad-man shooting spree than to allow our ruling class to attempt to remove all guns from society. Just the knowledge by our ruling class that there are so many guns out in society, I believe, is enough to keep them in check. It is my belief that having so many guns out in society by so many law abiding citizens is enough to prevent any *real* extremism which has happened in the recent past of world history.

----- , former assistant secretary of state just released an opinion on the status of our government. He has a pretty good explanation about our apparently imminent downfall. The only problem with his opinion is that he omits our return to greatness because of the foundational pillars ensconced in our constitution.
2) Message boards : Politics : Racist? [yes you are] (Message 1718207)
Posted 7 days ago by Brutus

One side says they were too loud. The other says they were not.

One side says no police were involved. The other side says that a deleted Facebook post shows otherwise.

No reason, at this point, to know which side is telling the truth.

When such a post is deleted, it usually indicates the post was in error.

3) Message boards : Politics : Dallas PD HQ Attacked! (Message 1716959)
Posted 10 days ago by Brutus
Well, when is the Netherlands going to get smart and just go ahead and ban assault rifles? If they would just make assault rifles illegal, incidents like these would no longer happen. It's just crazy stupid not to just outlaw something as evil as an assault rifle. Take away assault rifles and bad guys wouldn't be able to get assault rifles. Why would anybody need one anyway?


What? Assault rifles are already illegal in the Netherlands? You mean you have people in the Netherlands who don't follow the law? Just how can that be? What if those UNARMED, LAW ABIDING U.S. Marines had not been there? Jeez!


I am a LAW ABIDING “good guy” citizen of the U.S. and I have a Romanian made AK-47. I keep a loaded magazine in it and keep it by my bedside all the time. To gun aficionados, it is known as a "loose tolerance weapon." Ya see, there's a balance between accuracy and reliability. If you want reliability, you get less accuracy. If you want accuracy, you get less reliability. The AK-47 was designed for reliability. It's only accurate to about 3 inch groups at 100 yards.

Most gun fights happen within a few yards and many of those within a few feet. So 3 inch groups at 100 yards is accurate enough for me and for why I bought it. At 10 yards, I can hit a human-sized target from the hip with 100% accuracy. (for those of you who don't know what that means, it means I'm not looking down the barrel trying to line up the sites.) And if someone breaks the window on my front door at night to do nefarious things to me, my family and my property, I'm relying on my ability to grab my AK-47, orient myself, say in a clear, loud command voice, "I have a gun! Leave now or I'll shoot!" And the next thing the bad guy(s) would hear would be the distinctive sound of chambering a round in an AK-47. Two things: clear message followed by a sound that says I'm serious. It now becomes their choice if they want as many as 30 (relatively heavy) bullets coming at them at about 2,500 feet per second. I'm relying on the fact that most bad guys are chicken-s**ts and would immediately drop everything and run--thus preventing me from doing actual harm to them.

I would get into a little bit of American history here and talk a little bit about our 2nd amendment, but I've tried that before and many of you in here would just poo-poo it, call it outdated and stuff like that.

Outlaw guns and only outlaws will have guns. You want only the bad guys to have guns? I don't. As much as I respect the police (Clyde), I can't rely on them being there *when* I need them--I understand the police cannot be everywhere all the time. I want to be able to stand up to bad guys when they present a threat.

And as Donald Trump is demonstrating, what they say on most news outlets is dishonest. Most people *want* good guys like me to be armed.
4) Message boards : Politics : Hey! You Gots Dat Shipment Packed Stacked and Ready to Go? (Message 1716447)
Posted 11 days ago by Brutus
Bill O'Reilly's talking points yesterday sum up the results of democrat, politically correct, left-wing policies quite nicely.

-The Democratic Party has gone so far left, most American's are disgusted.

-Despite redistributing trillions of dollars, the poverty rates for all groups have gone up.

-High taxes and constricting regulations have actually harmed the poor.

-The Iran nuke deal is bad. ISIS continues to run wild committing atrocities all over the place.

-Iraq has collapsed, Afghanistan will soon collapse.

-Ukraine has been battered by Putin.

-The Middle East is one giant mess.

-All on president Obama’s watch.

-Here, democrats oppose keeping illegals out of the USA and support entitlement spending on them even as the national debt approaches $20T.

-Democrats oppose holding foreign nationals who defy deportation and commit violent crimes responsible.

-Democrats oppose investigating planned parenthood for allegedly selling the organs of babies.

-Democrats support leniency for dangerous drug dealers, calling them "non-violent."

-The list of craziness goes on and on.

As for this particular thread topic (my comments):

The subject of abortion is still not settled. Even though Roe v. Wade was a supreme court decision 43 years ago, that does not mean that it is settled. The American people accepted it under the terms (1) do it if you want, but don't tell me about it, and (2) don't make me pay for it. We've been arguing about it since then. There are several examples where supreme court decisions have been reversed. Google "supreme court cases that have been reversed" and you'll easily find cases such as Dred Scott v. Sandford and Plessy v. Ferguson--two of which have been mentioned in these forums in recent past. (Same sex marriage is going to be another unsettled thorn in the backside...)

And now, we find out we are paying for it and being forced to watch it.

These recent videos of planned parenthood are despicable. There is no defense for them. Yet the democrats continue to defend them by saying things like they are edited. Edited or not, hearing people say things like,

"using less crunchy techniques" (in order to do less damage to the specimen)


“‘Hey Holly, come over here, I want you to see something kinda cool. It’s kinda neat,’” O’Donnell said the coworker told her. “So I’m over here, and the moment I see it I’m just flabbergasted. This is the most gestated fetus and the closest thing to a baby that I’ve seen. And she’s like, ‘Okay I want to show you something.’ And she has one of her instruments and she just taps the heart and it starts beating and I’m sitting here and I’m looking at this fetus and its heart is beating and I don’t know what to think.”

The American people are sick, disgusted and horrified by this. And the American people are sick and tired of people who keep calling this "women's access to affordable health care." And the American people are horrified to find out we are paying for it.

This is nothing short of "tax payer funded murder for profit" and there is no defense for this. And if you look at the actual demographic statistics, the left should be calling it what it is from their perspective.

The democrats cannot reconcile this. Especially when their democratic front runner for the next presidential election defends planned parenthood while attacking Scott Walker in one moment and then in another moment attacks Jeb Bush's stance on "anchor babies" by saying "They're called babies." The hypocrisy is overwhelming!

As for renaming this thread "The Republican War Against Women," this is a prime example of reductio ad absurdum.
5) Message boards : Politics : Happy Birthday Voting Rights Act - And the Good fight continues (Message 1710592)
Posted 22 days ago by Brutus
Alright. I've said everything I want to say in this thread. I understand... you guys have demonstrated very strong convictions. And I see I'm not going to change that. I see things a different way. Maybe I see things you don't see and you see things I don't see. Not gonna fight. Generally speaking, all I've been trying to say is that there are lessons in recent history we are ignoring. And we are ignoring some new problems that have recently presented themselves.

This split government has been making things worse in recent years--we all agree on that, right? Let's just go ahead and put one side in charge of everything and see what happens. Either side...

I'm so burned out worrying about the future of the country I gave almost 30 years of my life to in the military; I'm running out of energy to care anymore.
6) Message boards : Politics : Happy Birthday Voting Rights Act - And the Good fight continues (Message 1710415)
Posted 23 days ago by Brutus
Cliff, I detect some animosity in your posts. And I'm going to assume it is justified from your perspective. And I'm not going to claim you're wrong because I see something different from what you see, but my perspective is that I want *everyone* who has a *right* to vote, to vote. And I want everyone who has a *right* to vote, to vote *once*. I want these voters to be informed, I want some level of assurance that there are no shenanigans going on at any of the polls, and I want a future for this country that includes prosperity, individual liberty and happiness for all its citizens.

In the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson wrote, "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed."

But how would Americans "consent" to be governed? Who should vote? How should they vote? The founders wrestled with these questions. They wondered about the rights of minorities. In their day, that meant worrying if the rights of property owners would be overrun by the votes of those who did not own land. James Madison described the problem this way:

The right of suffrage is a fundamental Article in Republican Constitutions. The regulation of it is, at the same time, a task of peculiar delicacy. Allow the right [to vote] exclusively to property [owners], and the rights of persons may be oppressed... . Extend it equally to all, and the rights of property [owners] ...may be overruled by a majority without property....

Eventually, framers of the Constitution left the vote question to the states. But then this lead to unfair voting practices in the some states, as you are fully aware.

Then came the Voting Rights Act of 1965. This act specifically focused on preventing racial discrimination against citizens wanting to vote. It was a good law because it effectively stopped the "idiotic thing(s) that the White Citizens committees could come up with that would prevent minorities from voting". That was 50 years ago. We have new problems now and this good law may need modifying in order to meet the challenges of these new problems.

Since we have no way to track voter fraud, there is no voter fraud reported. Since no voter fraud is reported, there is no reason to track voter fraud. This circular reasoning makes no sense.

You say "many" states require a "state-issued ID" to register to vote. That "many" may not be as "many" as you think. Some do not. For example, a quick google shows that in Arkansas, California and Colorado you can register to vote by showing documents such as utility bills, bank statements or paychecks. (as long as you have a mailing address...)

Connecticut only requires "*some* pre-printed form of identification that shows your name, address, signature or photograph."

And that's 4 out of only 7 states that I googled.

You mentioned "In Texas for instance, a gun license is valid, but some types of what was normal identification is no longer valid, including Student photo IDs from colleges & universities. Now does that make any normal sense?"

I assume you mean a "Concealed Handgun License" or "CHL". A Texas CHL is more convincing to anyone asking for ID than most other forms of ID. It means you willingly submitted yourself (and paid) to be FINGERPRINTED, PHOTOGRAPHED, BACKGROUND CHECKED and have NO PRIOR FELONIES, WARRANTS, or OUTSTANDINGS. I received a copy of my "rap sheet" in the process--it is blank. A Texan who shows a CHL is someone who doesn't need any thing else to demonstrate that he/she is a citizen and has a right to vote. Anybody can get a student photo ID from a college or university. All a student ID means is that you're taking a class. Doesn't mean anything else. How does it make sense that someone taking a class at a nearby college has a right to vote?

As for your question: "Why after all these many years of what has been established VOTER IDs, do we all of a sudden need new additional IDs simply because an African-American was voted into the highest office of this country not once, but twice, with not only the largest minority turn out but also lest I forget the largest WHITE WOMAN turnout in history of this country. Why, please explain it so that this simple old retired black man can understand - WHY?"

I think you're asking a question with a pre-loaded, false premise. Now, again, I'm not going to disagree with "because an African-American was voted into the highest office of this country not once, but twice, with not only the largest minority turn out but also lest I forget the largest WHITE WOMAN turnout in history of this country," but I will disagree (with) your claim, "simply because." I'm sure we could find instances of real racism, but I believe most want to tighten controls on our voting procedures for other reasons, such as saving our country from financial ruin.

Just to let you know what my perspective is... it seems to me that any modicum of standard that is introduced these days is immediately attacked as racist.

How many people are voting more than once? We don't know.
How many illegal aliens are voting? We don't know.
How many people are voting without an informed opinion? We don't know, but it seems like most these days.

When we financially crash as a nation, I don't want the reason to be that we couldn't even keep our elections on an even keel and the reason we crashed is that 11 to 30 million illegals (along with some legals) voted to crash it.

If I have some level of assurance that there are no shenanigans going on at any of the polls and we put another democrat in the white house, and this nation crashes financially, I'll accept it more willingly because I'll have some level of assurance that a financial crash is what we voted for.

I'll leave it at that. And all I can hope for is that you somehow believe that I have nothing but the best of intentions for all citizens of the U.S.A.
7) Message boards : Politics : Happy Birthday Voting Rights Act - And the Good fight continues (Message 1710094)
Posted 24 days ago by Brutus
Well let me start by first saying that I don't think we should allow just anyone who shows up at the polls to vote. I think we need to use at least some form (of) discrimination in who we allow to vote. Without some rudimentary form of discrimination, we are allowing ourselves to be voted into failure at an accelerating rate.

Our educational system has been failing at teaching our youngsters even the fundamentals of self-government, natural rights and what the rule of law means. Because our educational system is failing at teaching some of these basics, it is affecting their attitudes, motivations and behavior.

One of our founders, Thomas Jefferson, recognized this and expressed the idea that a properly functioning democracy *depends* on an informed electorate. He also said "The field of knowledge is the common prosperity to all mankind." We are failing to pass on the field of knowledge to our younger generations.

Without further expanding on this, let me just say that having to show an Identification Card is the *least* form of discrimination we can demand to prevent the 11 to 30 million illegals (no one knows how many) from showing up at the polls and tipping the scales of a legislative question, in which they have no long-term interest, towards the further demise of this country.

And as the other major listed, without a proper Identification Card, you are not allowed to participate in the most basics of other aspects of living in the United States--so why should it be such a big deal to ask our citizens to show their Identification Card when they show up to vote?
8) Message boards : Politics : Donald Trump for President? (Message 1709717)
Posted 25 days ago by Brutus
-Over $200T in untracked unfunded liabilities
-Tracking $19 Trillion in debt and rising ($24T is where the real problems begin)
-71% of our budget is for entitlements and debt service
-Health care costs spiking because of Obamacare
-Our education system continues to decline
-91M people unemployed
-50M people on food stamps

-We have no borders and we coddle the illegals who come through and commit felonies
-We are borrowing from China and now giving it to Iran to produce nuclear weapons
-Our military is collapsing and radical Islamic extremism is rising

(just to name a couple of incidences where *many* people should have gone to jail...)
-Our IRS has been used to target political opponents and no one is being held accountable
-Our intelligence agencies are collecting information on our citizens without a warrant
-Our VA is killing our vets and only *one* person was fired
-Our GSA is lavishly wasting taxpayer money, boasting about it and no one was fired
-Our embassies are attacked and their pleas for help are ignored--people died, and no one was held accountable
-Our democrat presidential candidate transmits classified info from her private email server and no one is being held accountable

-Our executive branch has gone despotic with unconstitutional executive orders and regulations
-Our legislative branch is ignoring their constitutional separation of powers
-Our judicial branch is writing new laws and we are selectively enforcing them (and want more laws to selectively enforce)

Lawyers with political experience is what's causing this nation to fail.

In 2010, republicans said, "make us the majority in the house and we'll put a stop to this madness." We made them the majority in the house and they didn't do anything to stop this madness.

In 2014, republicans said, "make us the majority in the senate and we'll put a stop to this madness." We made them the majority in the senate and they haven't done anything to stop this madness.

We don't have two political parties anymore. All we have in Washington DC now are lawyers with political experience. More lawyers with political experience isn't the solution, lawyers with political experience is the problem.

We are becoming a lawless society because our ruling class has become lawless.

Donald Trump *admits* he has paid politicians in the past to receive favors. He knows how the game is played. Guess what? He has no donors. He's self-financed. He's beholden to nobody. I believe him when he says he wants to make America great again. He's the only one, I believe, who could get on national television and call out *by name* those lawyers with political experience who are destroying this country. These unspoken, unwritten rules of “decorum” among our ruling class (another form of political correctness) are one of the reasons we can't correct anything that is wrong in our government.

The only others who I could, in good conscience, vote for are Dr. Ben Carson and Carly Fiorina. Neither one of them has political experience. Political experience is a liability in this day and age as far as I'm concerned. And they have proven they can deal with large problems and large solutions.

The only lawyer with political experience I could even think of voting for is Ted Cruz. He has proven through his *action* in the senate that he is trying to do the right thing for this country.

If Donald Trump goes third party, I'm still voting for him. If people say I gave the white house to clinton because I voted third party, I'll respond with, "You are correct." "I'd rather have another clinton in the white house rather than another bush." I want a democrat in the white house when we hit $24T in debt.
9) Message boards : Politics : To Work or Not? (Message 1708278)
Posted 28 days ago by Brutus
From one major to another, that's quite a post you have there. I do not see any obvious errors in it. I was tempted to try something like that myself; however, after my analysis of this audience, I came to the conclusion that it was not worth my effort.

I will; however, try to remind folks about economics 101.

It becomes quite clear for our visual learners if we can provide a picture. For example, supply/demand graphed when comparing artificially high wage rates with respect to the supply of workers.

Here's an example:

10) Message boards : Politics : To Work or Not? (Message 1707756)
Posted 2 Aug 2015 by Brutus
Peer reviewed no longer has the quality assurance it used to have. Its pretty easy to write a paper full of nonsense, literal nonsense, and have it published in a 'peer reviewed' journal.

Wow, now here's something that makes sense. Anybody can type anything and put it on the net today and make it *look* legitimate. I must admit, to see something like this out of you Mnwerb is pleasantly surprising. ... +1

Secondly, one of your sources was the Heritage foundation, aka people with a extremely conservative-Republican agenda. Of course they will write that raising the minimum wage will cost jobs. And to a greater extend, that is also true for other economists. Depending on their position within economic theory they will pretty much always say the same thing no matter what. Current dominant economic theories are all based on the top down model, which means more money at the top means more money at the bottom and obviously if you look at it from that perspective, spending more money at the bottom is bad for people at the top and therefor also bad for people at the bottom. Of course, trickle down economics is a disaster that has only benefited the rich and no one else. But that hasn't stopped economists from still following the idea because hey, if reality doesn't fit with their theory, the fault clearly lies with reality and not their precious theory.

But that didn't last for long.

First of all, "conservative-Republican" are two words that don't belong together any more. I don't know how much of a view you have of politics in the U.S. today, but we have a Republican congress which espoused conservative principles to get elected, but then immediately proved they definitely are *not* conservative through their action (or inaction) after they were elected. Their words no longer match their actions, which now makes them no better than the Democrats. Our congress has ceded so many constitutional powers to the executive branch (and the judicial branch) lately that they are too numerous to list here. That subject could merit another thread.

I will not (at this time) broach the subject of the term "trickle-down economics" with you at this time in the interest of narrowing my point even though it does relate heavily to the question, "to work or not?".

So let me get to my point. Let me ask you this, just where do you think "current dominant economic theory ... all based on the top down model" comes from?

James Madison, one of our founders of this once great nation, described himself as a "liberal," but the definition of "liberal" has changed relatively recently (as have many other terms and phrases from history). As a member of the 1st congress, he made his view on political science quite clear on the subject of government interference in the free market.

"I own myself the friend to a very free system of commerce, and hold it as a truth, that commercial shackles are generally unjust, oppressive and impolitic — it is also a truth, that if industry and labor are left to take their own course, they will generally be directed to those objects which are the most productive, and this in a more certain and direct manner than the wisdom of the most enlightened legislature could point out."

The social planners of today insist there are congresses and presidents that know better how to make the world right through managed manipulation of the marketplace by an unlimited government. Today's social planner believes that as long as they say they are trying to help the population become prosperous, this stated purpose alone gives them legitimacy for and authority to ignore the rules which made us prosperous in the first place. According to modern liberals, their good intentions gives them free reign to regulate all aspects of individual lives because, for some reason, they believe they are smarter than the people they rule over and if everyone just did things the way *they* want things done, everybody would be happier. This sounds good, but is that reality? Current events shows demonstrably that doesn't work. Let's see what *actually* happens in Seattle with a $15/hour minimum wage. Just who are these self-proclaimed "social planners?" Who benefits from this "top down model" right now? Who would benefit from this "top down model" in the future?

After WWII, our soldiers came home and did a couple of things. We had a BIG national debt (nothing compared to what we have today), a bunch of people happy the war was over, and a shift from producing war materials to focusing on the "American way of life." Life, liberty and happiness. We focused on paying off our war debt (we failed...) and making life better with electricity, city planning, washing machines, cars, air conditioning, etc, and of course making families. This was the beginning of our "baby boomer" generation. When the first of the baby boomers woke up from their childhood slumber, they saw prosperity--but only if you followed the rules. To go to school or not go to school... Get a job, work 8 to 5, 50 weeks a year. Start off small, keep at it and eventually you'll have a comfortable retirement. Well, in the 60's, many of them rebelled. They didn't want to work for their rewards. They saw a bunch of rewards and surpluses around them and for some reason (probably drug induced), began to think they were entitled to those rewards even though they did nothing to deserve them.

The counterculture-era phrase popularized by Timothy Leary in 1966, "Turn on, tune in, drop out" mesmerized many from that generation looking for rewards and benefits without earning them. The problem stems from the fact that we allowed them to turn on and tune in, but we did not allow them to drop out in the name of "civilized society." Now we have a bunch from that era who are now collecting benefits which they never really paid for and more on the way shortly.

Today, 13.5% of our population is age eligible for our national Old Age and Survivor's Insurance Benefit program (also known as Social Security). In 10 years, it'll be 25.8%. In 20 years, it'll be 40%. (And this is without accounting for the extended age due to advanced medicine.) (But Obamacare's real objective may be to reduce the expected life time of some of our older folks... but that subject merits another thread.)

So, it's easy to do the math and see clearly we are headed towards a financial disaster if we do not change our ways.

So which do you think would work better?

1) A large centralized planning committee tasked to monitor and control the behavior of 310M+ people? Sure, they say they'll do great things if you give them all the money and let them decide how to distribute it. But what money? Our economy is on the brink of crashing as it is. If we allow them to take more from the economy, who do you think will have first dibs on the money? How efficient do you think they'll actually be? Can you show me how the U.S. government has taken money out of the economy and put more back in without raising the debt limit? (we have no more debt limit we abide by today, but again, that could be another thread.) Or...

2) Allow maximum freedom for individuals (the people), unencumbered by unnecessary, non-applicable rules and regulations (which are selectively enforced by bureaucrats unable to keep up with such a dynamic group) to figure out for themselves how to best fix and maintain their needs? Start by eliminating most of the federal programs and pushing responsibilities back down to the states, as originally intended by our founders?

As far as I can see, the solution is neither with the Democrats nor the Republicans anymore. Someone like Donald Trump, I believe, would have the best chance of fixing this once great nation by "firing" incompetent federal employees, securing our borders, his "art of the deal" with other nations and jobs, jobs, jobs.

There no longer is a question of, "to work or not" anymore. The only option left is to work.
11) Message boards : Politics : To Work or Not? (Message 1706984)
Posted 31 Jul 2015 by Brutus
To work or not? $15/hour? Relation between welfare and work? Impact from the power to tax? Does Marxist redistribution of wealth through an all powerful centralized government actually help society? "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs." What is each abilities? What is each needs?

Today, almost 50 Million people in the U.S. are on means tested food stamps. It has spiked since the "war on poverty" began. Almost 1 in every 6 in the U.S. are on food stamps.

The founders of this once great nation recognized the need to take care of the sick and indigent who couldn't help themselves. John Locke wrote “The law of nature teaches not only self-preservation but also preservation of others, ‘when one’s own preservation comes into competition.’” In other words, society is organized for the security of its members as well as their liberty and property. A society that fails to respond to those in need jeopardizes its own preservation.

In the early days of the American experiment, local governments — not the feds — assumed this responsibility. But there was careful emphasis that “poor laws not go beyond a minimal safety net,” and that aid be provided only on the condition of labor. Only the truly helpless, those “who had no friends or family to help, were taken care of in idleness.”

Thomas Jefferson explained:

The poor, unable to support themselves, are maintained by an assessment on the tithable persons in their parish. This assessment is levied and administered by twelve persons in each parish, called vestrymen, originally chosen by the housekeepers of the parish. These are usually the most discreet farmers, so distributed through their parish, that every part of it may be under the immediate eye of some one of them. They are well acquainted with the details and economy of private life, and they find sufficient inducements to execute their charge well, in their philanthropy, in the approbation of their neighbors, and the distinction which that gives them. ... Vagabonds, without visible property or vocation, are placed in workhouses, where they are well clothed, fed, lodged, and made to labor.

In his proposed Virginia “Bill for Support of the Poor,” Jefferson explained that “vagabonds” are:

able-bodied persons not having wherewithal to maintain themselves, who shall waste their time in idle and dissolute courses, or shall loiter or wander abroad, refusing to work for reasonable wages, or to betake themselves to some honest and lawful calling, or who shall desert wives or children, without so providing for them as that they shall not become chargeable to a county.

Benjamin Franklin explained:

I am for doing good to the poor, ... I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I travelled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer. There is no country in the world where so many provisions are established for them [as in England] ... with a solemn general law made by the rich to subject their estates to a heavy tax for the support of the poor... [Yet] there is no country in the world in which the poor are more idle, dissolute, drunken, and insolent. The day you [Englishmen] passed that act, you took away from before their eyes the greatest of all inducements to industry, frugality, and sobriety, by giving them a dependence on somewhat else than a careful accumulation during youth and health, for support in age and sickness. In short, you offered a premium for the encouragement of idleness, and you should not now wonder that it has had its effect in the increase of poverty.

Franklin anticipated today’s welfare state, in which, poverty remains but the more money you throw at it, the more poverty it produces.

The founders of this once great nation saw danger in overly generous welfare policy — that it would promote irresponsible behavior. That, in turn, would threaten the inherent natural right of every individual “to liberty, including the right to the free exercise of one’s industry and its fruits.”

Our founders would not be surprised. While living in Europe in the 1760s, Franklin observed: “in different countries ... the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.”

Today, the U.S. has 70 means-tested anti-poverty programs, only one of them actually encourages self-reliance.

Since we have been centralizing power and control away from local governments towards Washington DC, the administers of welfare programs in Washington DC no longer have an immediate eye on every part of it and cannot be acquainted with any aspect of the details and economy of private life or distinguish between Vagabonds and the truly helpless.

So, the answer to the question, "To work or not?" is obvious. It can be answered with another question, "Why work?"
12) Message boards : Politics : To Work or Not? (Message 1705049)
Posted 25 Jul 2015 by Brutus
Guy, that's a nice fairy tale, did you make it up by yourself? Taxes are the price of civilization.

Yeah ,lets see him name one country in the past that didnt require taxes or tribute?

argumentum ad absurdum
13) Message boards : Politics : To Work or Not? (Message 1705002)
Posted 25 Jul 2015 by Brutus
Everything starts with agriculture and mining.

After telling king george III to bugger off, the founders of this country wanted to fix the 3/5th compromise and did this with the Northwest Ordinance of 1787. The Northwest Ordinance of 1787 said, go west and claim land--but you can't use slaves. Some people went west, found uninhabited land, built log cabins and started to make a life for themselves and their children.


Somebody tilled the earth with his mule, home made wooden tiller, and planted some seeds from some wild fruits/vegetables he also found on the ground. An acre of land was defined as the area you could till in a day. Worked it, watered it, weeded it, now he has more fruits/vegetables than he can preserve and eat until next planting season.

Somebody on the next piece of land finds iron deposits. Cuts some wood, starts a fire, heats it up, molds the iron into knives, tillers, and horse shoes.

The farmer sees with better knives, good horse shoes and a better iron tiller, he can be more productive. The blacksmith can't eat iron. He needs tomatoes, corn and wheat to survive.

Wow! An opportunity for free trade!

The government steps in, taxes the sale of iron goods, wheat and corn and then builds a road that soon caves in full of pot holes.

Then the government claims, "You didn't do that on your own!" "You need government!"

And then sets the minimum wage at which you can hire some one to do work which requires absolutely no thinking to $15/hour.

Thank goodness for government. I don't know how we could have done it without them.
14) Message boards : Politics : Donald Trump for President? (Message 1704137)
Posted 22 Jul 2015 by Brutus
The only qualifications required to become the POTUS is to be 35 and a citizen, but that doesn't matter anymore because we no longer pay attention to the U.S. Constitution. And the current POTUS doesn't even meet that requirement unless you believe a forged birth certificate out of the state of Hawaii which is an ardent supporter (and the most communist state in the union) of the current POTUS.

The people who meet the other requirements you infer are not going to provide the solutions to our imminent demise. It is precisely the requirements you infer which are the problems.

First, you take money from donors who expect favors in return if you are elected.

Then, when elected, you quickly learn you are at the bottom of the existing hierarchy because they use terms like "freshman" on you. Play along with your superiors and they will take care of you. Try to go against them and you don't get a committee chair.

Then, if you try to do something that will actually fix a problem, you quickly learn one group or another screams and your donors threaten to quit giving you re-election money. Keep the status quo and you get to keep your job.

You are, at this point, very comfortable with your "position of power" and don't want to do anything that will mess it up. You are now a member of a puppet class among the ruling class who's treated like royalty and you are well compensated for it--as long as you play along.

You are left in a perpetual state of focusing on your next election and hoping that maybe one day enough of your seniors will die and then you'll be able to do what you want to do--which will be by then outdated, unneeded and wasteful but you'll do it anyway.

These are the qualifications of "everyone else" (other than Donald Trump, Carly Fiorina and Dr. Ben Carson.)

The status quo is what's happening to Greece and Puerto Rico right now.

If Dr. Ben Carson can figure out how to separate conjoined twins (at the top of the head) with his team, he can figure out anything happening from the viewpoint of the POTUS--and I believe he would do a better job at it because he has proven he has the capacity to use reason, logic and common sense. And he'll be able to do things for different reasons, better reasons, moral reason, and higher reasons.

Yes, Donald Trump is worth billions. He did this by *dealing* with other people. This fact alone makes him more qualified than the current POTUS by some order of magnitude. I would love nothing better than to see his signature, "YOUR FIRED!" line with his finger pointed at each of several of the failing executive department heads and even whole departments.

Fat, drunk and stupid is the status quo. We need to change from the status quo if we are to have any hope at all as a nation. Otherwise, when the bubble pops, the poor will lose what little they have, the middle class will become poor and the rich/ruling class will get it all. What happens after that, no one knows for sure, but history shows usually there is less freedom, less oportunity and less happiness for the majority.
15) Message boards : Politics : Donald Trump for President? (Message 1704023)
Posted 22 Jul 2015 by Brutus
The way I look at it is there are two groups of people to choose from.

One group has been working for several decades and has succeeded at putting us on the edge of financial disaster. This group thinks it's ok to borrow as much as they want under the idea that just *saying* "full faith and credit" is just as good as a secured debt while knowing full well they are going to reach in and take some of that money, pay off their minions, and then will the rest to their grandchildren and then not pay it back because they know by the time enough people figure it out, they will be long gone and there will be no way to hold them accountable for lying, cheating and stealing. In the end, they are nothing more than political prostitutes used by today's modern nameless/faceless/unaccountable "robber barons."

The other group has proven singlehandedly they are successful with their own money because they worked hard in the beginning, figured out how to get a useful education, continued working hard and provided a service which people were/are willing to pay for because they wanted it and thought the price was reasonable, provided jobs for people first hand, planned for their future and are now able to reap the rewards of a life time of effort. And because these people are *free* from the *normal* constraints of a typical politician, they are able to look objectively at what's happening, tell it like it is, and proclaim boldly and proudly what they are going to do if elected without fear of offending anyone that matters.

This "other" group currently consists of three people: Donald Trump, Carly Fiorina, and Dr. Ben Carson.

The first group is: everyone else... This group has done nothing in the private sector. This group has never produced anything. This group has done nothing but beg for money, say things the polls tell them they should be saying, and then they always proceed to *not* do any of what they said they were going to do, but only accomplishes what those who give them the most money (modern day robber barons) tell them to do.

You want to fix the economy? Put a business person in the white house. You want to fix health care? Put a doctor in the white house. You want to crash the nation? Put another career politician in the white house.

Donald Trump is strong in the polls right now because he's saying the things many of us have been saying for years. He's strong in the polls right now because more people believe he means what he says. He's strong in the polls right now because he's a successful business man and what he's done in the past gives him a lot of credibility. And most important, he's not beholden to any modern day "robber barons". My only concern is that he's flaring up early and he may not be able to keep this up for another 15 months.

Carly Fiorina? CEO of Hewlett-Packard 1999-2005. You want a women president? Ya, ok, I'd vote for her.

Dr. Ben Carson? Pediatric brain surgeon. Believes in a higher authority. Level headed. He may not be as flamboyant, egotistical or as rebellious as the current african-american in the white house, but I believe he could fix a lot of things wrong in the U.S. right now. Ya, I'd vote for Dr. Ben Carson.

Those are the only three people I could vote for. (except in the democrat primary, I'm voting for bernie sanders because hillary is too far right-wing). I don't see any difference at all among all others.

Of the three, I would like to see Donald Trump in the white house. He's the only one of the three who would use the same rules to fix this country that the first group has been using for decades to screw up this country. If he wins the white house, all of a sudden, you'll see all the TV networks begin screaming "unconstitutional!;" however, there are so many examples of that same behavior from recent times that their screaming may not have the negative effect on undoing the wrongs that have been committed on society by the first group. Carly Fiorina and Dr. Ben Carson, I fear would follow the rules and the other two branches of government would lock up; thus, preventing anything being done to actually fix things. And in 3 1/2 years the media will be calling them "do nothing presidents."

The *last* thing this country needs is another career politician in the white house who's going to continue to push the limits on ignoring the U.S. Constitution.

On one hand, we are so close to resetting our currency right now, I'd really like someone like bernie sanders or hillary clinton in the white house when it happens. On the other hand, I'd really like someone in the white house that really has a chance at making this country great again.
16) Message boards : Politics : USA Social Security Benefits Crisis and Solutions.... Let's talk. (Message 1703699)
Posted 21 Jul 2015 by Brutus
Its not my damn fault our goverenment has their heads up their keysters.

Yes, it is your fault. And it's mine also. And many other people's fault who think it's not their fault.

This cultural shift of "me me me" began in the 60's, when a bunch of pot heads pissed on the tradition, order and reason that made this country successful by saying they didn't want to work, didn't want to live within their means and didn't want to plan for their future. This cultural shift has now metastasized into a cancer which is going to take a lot of pain and suffering, along with some healing and forgiving to get past. Unfortunately, history shows that we'll probably be forced into a lot of *unnecessary pain and suffering* along with a lot of animosity, finger pointing and blaming (and possibly some bloodshed.)

Our founders saw this coming. I have pointed this out in recent posts. The argument is we've changed and our rules need to change when the real truth is *we have not changed.* The argument is we began evil as a nation, we remain evil as a nation today and we need to quit being evil today when the real truth is we did not begin evil and the change that is being demanded by these sheep is leading to real evil.

This social security debacle is just a minor symptom of what's really wrong with our government. And the people who are saying it like it is and presenting real solutions are being mocked, ridiculed and shamed by a growing majority of sheep who have created a downward spiral of several generations of children who are being shielded from the truth of what we've learned about human nature in the recent past.

There are several prominent speakers on the national circuit today with real solutions. There are several prominent writers who have written books with real solutions in the past decade or so. But I won't bother naming names here because I will be mocked here.

I've come to believe real solutions can still begin with focusing on state legislatures.

I'm not sorry for my rant.
17) Message boards : Politics : USA Social Security Benefits Crisis and Solutions.... Let's talk. (Message 1703448)
Posted 20 Jul 2015 by Brutus
How 'bout we just go ahead and admit "what government meant before" no longer matters? How 'bout we just go ahead and admit we now live in a post constitutional America? How 'bout we just go ahead and admit that the rules, as numerous as they are, and as many as are being written now, are no longer relevent for what ever the issue is today? I could list several examples, but that would be getting off topic.

1. Cap on benefits? Maybe, but probably not gonna happen. Too many relying solely on social security to pay their bills. Too many would scream "that party that hates poor people are making poor people poorer by not keeping up with inflation!" Means testing? Probably gonna happen. I'm prepared to grumble about it when it happens, but I (and many others who know they are targets) have planned for this/are planning for this. (you're welcome...)

2. Broaden categories of income subject to SS Tax? Probably not gonna happen. Too many donors would call "foul!" to those in office they contribute.

3. Raise retirement age? Might happen. That may be the first thing that happens because they are forced to do it in the face of dire book keeping consequences.

4. Make people relying on "other" government sanctioned retirement systems start paying into SS when they won't be withdrawing from it when the time comes? Don't think that's going to happen. It's more likely these "other" government sanctioned retirement systems will be absorbed into the SS retirement system (kinda like what's happening with our government sanctioned health insurance systems...) and the benefits promised in your original government sanctioned retirement system will become null and void and you'll be accepting a lower payout when the time comes.

5. Extend current IRA/401K systems to be even more favorable? It's more likely the government will seize private IRA/401K systems.
18) Message boards : Politics : Liberal or Conservative? (Message 1703069)
Posted 19 Jul 2015 by Brutus
Who's responsible for moving the SS trust fund into the general fund? It's always been part of the general fund, it's just accounting tricks* on what you call it and where the money is. The truth of the matter is the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) and Disability Insurance (DI) funds are used by the treasury department to issue bonds. To call them "funds" is *Orwellian Double Think (speak). The truth of the matter is these funds are part of our national debt. ($2.7T in 2011)

The social security act was passed by a filibuster proof democrat senate, a majority of democrats in the house, and the democrat president Franklin D. Roosevelt--the one responsible for term-limiting presidents in writing.

It's really difficult to nail down when our federal government went on a spending spree, but since the social security act, we've added some other spending programs which most people are unaware. Many people cite the social security act of 1935 because it just happens to be one of the bigger ones.

A quick google with return lists such as:

And they are handled by agencies with "rule writing authority" such as this:

Since there is no connection between revenue and spending in Washington DC, whenever there's a surplus, our greedy ruling class (and those who vote for them) easily and conveniently forget that (at least *some*) surplus's should be saved for future projected deficits. Since the social security act was originally written to be a "pay as you go" service, and since it was before the "baby boom" years when we had an explosion in population after WWII and an explosion in tax payers, our greedy ruling class used those years to promise more government programs, more government spending and more "free stuff" in order to gain votes and concentrate power. Hence, we've been borrowing against the "social security trust fund" for many years. They call it "intra-government debt" to fool the population into believing it isn't against the public. (*more Orwellian Double Think) Since FDR, we've had, for the most part, democrats in charge of our ruling class. (up until the Clinton years)

We've gotten ourselves into quite a mess over the years and the people who are truly responsible for this mess are no longer around to be held accountable. So where do we proceed from here? I propose two things in which all future legislation should be based.

1. Simplify the rules (so as many people can understand them; hence, increase productivity through enhanced competition.)

2. Quit rewarding failure, such as the bank and car manufacturer bail outs. Let the small bubbles POP. Ideas/products and tomfoolery with unsuspecting investors' money can be disposed of in a manner which doesn't burden future generations. (Bernie Sanders says, "If it's too big to fail, it's too big to exist." He's got my vote in the democrat primary -- our federal government has become too big to fail.)

How about a central government which is responsible for only things most appropriate at the top level, such as being responsible for international relations, maintaining a military, standards and weights, and maybe a few other things like interstate highways, post offices and currency? And leave all the little things to the local governments to handle?

For example, a poor person raised and living in Brooklyn cannot be helped the same way as a poor person raised and and living in Bird City Kansas. "One-size fits all" doesn't work at some point and we've passed that point long ago. Our federal government (obama) is now (has been) collecting demographic data across the nation and is now in the process of seizing control of individual neighborhoods. Is this something appropriately handled at the federal level? I think not.

Hasn't our federal government grown "too big to fail?" Who's going to bail us out when the bubble pops?

Isn't it time we move beyond FDR's "New Deal" and LBJ's "Great Society?" Haven't we experienced enough of these failures to realize we need to do away with them and try something else?

Or is it that we want to enjoy the ride of living on borrowed time up until we experience a very large "pop" in our economy?

At the end of our revolutionary war, our founders were left to deal with a very large war debt. Many of them agreed it was morally wrong to leave that debt for future generations. Because of changing human nature, has it now become morally right to keep passing debt on to our future generations until some future generation has to deal with a major, catastrophic reset in our society?
19) Message boards : Politics : Educating Unthinking Uncritical Consumerism... (Message 1702525)
Posted 17 Jul 2015 by Brutus
Critical and insightful thinking? being destroyed by the destruction of the traditional family. With out the traditional family, the most critical time in your life is being dominated by replacement baby sitters called "children's television programming" which are cartoon depictions of progressive utopias without money, winners or losers, and there are no consequences for one's actions. Individualism is bad, the collective — and especially the environment — are good.

In theory, it sounds plausible. Any of you in here *actually* read Karl Marx Manifesto of the Communist Party? In practice, it never works. It always leads to evil, oppression, misery, and suffering.

When kids graduate from the likes of Sesame Street, they move to the overflowing septic tanks of liberalism called by many names such as twitter, facebook, and most other channels and programming on the television. The *truth* continues to be hidden by elementary school yard tactics, such as name calling, ridicule, and peer-pressured group-thinks. I see these very tactics within these forums. The constant beeping, buzzing and ringtones of today's portable electronic devices continue to brain-wash their users and prevent them from critically thinking about what they see from a historical perspective. Thus, the old adage, "if we don't learn from history, we are doomed to repeat it."

Just what exactly *is* critical and insightful thinking? If it's nothing more than *you* (personally) basing your logic, reasoning, thoughts and instincts only on what *you've* personally heard, touched, felt, seen and experienced, then isn't the fact that we've all experienced different things justify the differences in what we are trying to convince everyone else of? And isn't (at least part of) the problem the existance of people with strong opinions who block out the experiences of others because they've personally not experienced what others have experienced?

For example, I recently had someone I love die in front of me, on a hospital bed. What she said to me before her last breath, and what I've experienced (twice) in an *almost* asleep state is undeniable proof to me that we not only have a physical part, but we also have a spiritual part which continues on after our physical part wears out.

Now, according to a collection of books which some people put faith in, there is logic, reason, tradition and order to what happened on that hospital bed. No further explaination is needed.

And according to another collection of books which some others have put faith in, which haven't been compiled because this would be an admission to something contrary to many of the books put together, there is no logic, reason, tradition or order to what happened on that hospital bed. And because I can not repeat it, or have someone else repeat this, and you can't repeat it under laboratory conditions, you mock me.

Both collections of books have truths and not-so-much truths. Both collections of books can be misinterpreted.

Which group is more "open-minded, tolerant and forgiving" of the other?

As for a possible solution to "unthinking uncritical consumerism"...

Can't have total freedom, that would be anarchy. Can't have total control, that would be tyranny.

How about a system where the concentration of power is prevented, yet enough power is distributed among several groups to handle that which is best handled at that level.

For example, we could create a system where three groups of folks at the top have limited, defined, enumerated areas of control, as agreed to by all those they are elected and appointed over and split the power in a way which allows one group to prevent the other two groups from gaining further power which leads to tyranny. Things defined as most appropriately handled at the top could be handled at the top, and all else by default could be handled at progressively lower levels of group leaders. These lower levels of group leaders could be formed in similiar ways as to allow as much say from the governered as possible. These lower levels of group leaders can become progressively smaller until we hit the "traditional family unit." Traditional family units have been proven to be very effective and as small as group leaders need to get to be effective.

While allowing maximum personal freedom, these lowest group leaders could be responsible for raising children to think critically and insightfully and to ignore obvious scams such as the "nigerian prince emails" and the "your computer is producing error" robocalls.

This is a basic idea that most leaders are fully aware of. It's called span of control. There are only so many people someone can supervise before leadership becomes ineffective. One person can not effectively supervise 310 million people.
20) Message boards : Politics : (Un)Justify Same Sex Marriage (Message 1696544)
Posted 28 Jun 2015 by Brutus
(you see? this is why I think the politics forum should be removed--bobby doesn't post for almost a year and then starts a new thread designed to inflame everybody here and then leaves.)

This latest dictate from the SCOTUS is an exercise in unconstitutional power and about something that doesn't matter. They *didn't* legalize same-sex marriage in all states, they *forced* same-sex marriage on the states that don't want it.

I've been watching Clyde post in here for the last year and I don't believe anybody is seeing what he has been repeating over and over.

I, too, believe it's naive to think we are not going to fail as a nation. After all, look at history! All nations eventually fail.

The U.S. was set up to *limit* federal power and allow the states to compete among each other with free trade, uninhibited travel, standardized weights/measures, standard currency, and a national post office, (and a few other things) which encouraged innovation and economic forces to prevent state governments from destroying themselves because people would go to the successful states and abandon the failed states.

But we, as a nation, are now demanding and succeeding at centralizing all power, authority and control in the hands of the few "ruling class of people" in Washington DC--which will, as history hath shewn time and time again, will destroy this nation.

We are focusing on the things that don't matter and claiming victory, while we are totally ignoring the things that are going to destroy us.

The natural state of humans is that the rich/powerful rule the poor/weak mercilessly. It takes a lot of will-power and effort to rise above the natural state of humans. We've lost our will-power and no one wants to put any effort into it.

Even our founders knew this.

July 4, 1776,


Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

Obama is actually keeping his promise to "fundamentally transform America." Just look at his growing list of accomplishments!

At the end of the Constitutional Convention of 1787, Dr. James McHenry asked Benjamin Franklin, "Well, Doctor, what have we got--a Republic or a Monarchy?" Ben Franklin's response was, "A Republic, if you can keep it."

The beginning of this latest oncoming constitutional crisis really began when the "progressive" movement began in the late 19th century when the Carnagies (steel), Rockefellers (oil), Vanderbilts (railroads), Fords (cheap mass production), Morgans (banking) (and such) rose to become extremely wealthy and the poor began questioning if allowing so few individuals so much wealth was morally right in the late 19th century. The real "progress" at the federal level began in the early 20th century.

16th Amendment, 1913 -- federal income tax (first real gain in federal power)

17th Amendment, 1913 -- direct elections of U.S. Senators (first real and successful attack on state's powers since the federalist papers)

Since then, progress at the local level proliferated to produce such great cities such as modern day Detroit, Fergerson MO, Stockton CA, Washington DC, and several others on the growing list of cities filing for bankruptcy or are about to file for bankruptcy. And the ruling class of those cities are looking to a higher authority to rescue them--federal government. And federal government is responding because a growing number of people believe government is created to "take care of the people." If government is not taking care of the people, then they are not doing their job. And obama is being hampered by congress. So the people are demanding we ignore congress--their representatives. And the supreme court is scared out of their robes to do anything that prevents progress because the people will demand that they do their jobs and "take care of the people." So they are "taking care of the people" now.

I try to remain thankful that the majority of my life (and my immediate family's lives) were in a time when resources were plentiful and I'm trying not to worry about what happens in the future any more. Are we, as a nation, going to have what it takes to recover from all the economic bubbles that sure look like they are about to pop? What happens when they start popping?

The federal reserve is keeping interest rates at near zero. (check it out--numbers like .08% to .20%) Donald Trump says the point of no return is a national debt of $24T. (who are you going to trust? A self-serving bureaucracy of self-appointed members of the ruling class? Or a successful businessman used to dealing with large numbers?) We're over $18T in debt now. What does that mean? About another 5 or 6 years before a cascading series of bubbles pop and the only way to get out of it may include *having* to create a new doller. 10 George Washington dollars will have to be traded in for one new Hillary Clinton dollar by a certain date or it will become worthless. After all, what's the big deal? Mexico just went through this in 1996 and they're doing fine, right?

Look at the front page of Drudge today. Looks like Greece is going to crash financially? Is anybody asking why Greece is about to crash financially? NO, we're too busy celebrating things that don't matter, like same-sex marriage being forced into the states that don't want it.

This issue about same-sex marriage isn't going away. This and the new definition of the word "state" in the obamacare subsidies case has set a monumental and historic precedence on judicial activism.

After all, I (along with Clyde) believe it's naive to think we are not going to fail as a nation. Look at history! All nations eventually fail.

P.S. The only way I know how to deal with what's happening to our country now is to start splitting my vote--which is what the democrats have been doing for several election cycles now. I'm pretty sure I'm going to vote in the democrat primary for bernie sanders... since hillary is so right-wing. And then decide if I'm going to vote for the republican front runner in the general election (probably not) or hand-write Donald Trump, Carly Fiorina, or Dr. Ben Carson on my ballot. The *last* thing this country needs is another career politician in the white house.

Next 20

Copyright © 2015 University of California