| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"Black Elk" |
| Date: |
28 Aug 2005 01:33:37 AM |
| Object: |
Neo-fascist Economics 101 |
Experts Warn Debt May Threaten Economy
Sunday August 28, 2005
By ROBERT TANNER
AP National Writer
You owe $145,000. And the bill is rising every day. That's how much it would
cost every American man, woman and child to pay the tab for the long-term
promises the U.S. government has made to creditors, retirees, veterans and
the poor.
And it's not even taking into account credit card bills, mortgages - all the
debt we've racked up personally. Savings? The average American puts away
barely $1 of every $100 earned.
Our profligate ways at home are mirrored in Washington and in the global
marketplace, where as a society America spends $1.9 billion more a day on
imported clothes and cars and gadgets than the entire rest of the world
spends on its goods and services.
-cont.-
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-5238534,00.html
--
"Those seeking profits," Jefferson wrote, "were they given total freedom,
would not be the ones to trust to keep government pure and our rights
secure. Indeed, it has always been those seeking wealth who were the source
of corruption in government. No other depositories of power have ever yet
been found, which did not end in converting to their own profit the earnings
of those committed to their charge."
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0618-03.htm
--
The fair use of a copyrighted work:
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site
is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest
in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.
For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml.
.
|
|
| User: "Werner Hetzner" |
|
| Title: Re: Neo-fascist Economics 101 |
29 Aug 2005 03:41:54 PM |
|
|
Black Elk wrote:
Experts Warn Debt May Threaten Economy
...if "we the people'' must pay for a "money pit'' we obviously don't want, does that not make us accountable to government?
http://1marketsquare.com/CapLP/Accountable.shtml
schools
http://1marketsquare.com/CapLP/PerformanceGap.shtml
http://1marketsquare.com/CapLP/ReportCard.shtml
http://1marketsquare.com/CapLP/Schools.shtml
http://1marketsquare.com/CapLP/Environment.shtml
http://1marketsquare.com/CapLP/Social%20Security.shtml
http://1marketsquare.com/CapLP/Health%20Care.shtml
http://1marketsquare.com/CapLP/Drugs.shtm
http://1marketsquare.com/CapLP/Education.shtml
http://1marketsquare.com/CapLP/Poverty.shtml
http://1marketsquare.com/CapLP/ExampleTOC.shtml
and more
Dollars in the common treasury are like fish in the common sea - anyone who can will harvest to extinction. That is why socialism is fundamentally corrupting and can not work. ----
Wasn't America supposed to be about voluntary agreement instead of forced obedience?
Isn't it high time to join The Resistance?
http://www.ny.lp.org/choice
----
"
In crafting the Bill of Rights, the framers were careful to acknowledge implicitly and explicitly two key truths:
The first is that government does not grant rights it acknowledges them. They exist independently of government. They're part of who and what we are. And, as Jefferson noted in the Declaration of Independence, the only legitimate function of government is to secure them.
The second is that government is a servant to whom we delegate powers, not a master who dispenses privileges. The Constitution carefully enumerates the powers we, the people, delegate to our government and it specifically denies that government any powers not so delegated. Our rights lie beyond the pale of that delegation. They are sacrosanct. Any government which infringes upon them is engaged in an intolerable usurpation.
"
www.badnarik.org
-----
A "right" as envisioned by the Founders meant that the government was not permitted to interfere with your pursuit of them, i.e., your pursuit of happiness was to be unhindered by government.
The "right" of free speech means that government cannot interfere with your free speech. The "right" of gun ownership means that the government cannot infringe your gun ownership. What does "right" to health care mean? It means that the government cannot stand in the way of your pursuit of health care, or impede your obtaining health care. The "right" to an attorney means that the government cannot prevent you obtaining an attorney to represent you.
Of course, "right" has incorrectly come to mean that someone must supply you with something. If your "right" to housing means that some slave must supply you with housing, and your "right" to health care means that some slave must supply you with health care, and your "right" to an attorney means that some slave must supply you with an attorney, does your "right" to free speech mean that some slave must supply you with a loudspeaker, or TV air time? Does your "right" to own guns mean that some slave must supply you with guns?
Gary Popkin,
NYC
http://1marketsquare.com/CapLP/Rights.shtml
---
It was another close election. We find ourselves warring against each other - - red states and blue; 'them against us'; Left vs. Right; Republicans vs. Democrats. These forces are just about equal. Each seeks to take, keep and expand the power to impose values on the other. Campaign finance laws not withstanding, this election cost much more than the last. Both sides spent as if in combat and more than many countries spend on a real war. All else -- other ideas for example -- is a distraction we can no longer afford in this new war between Americans. Win at all cost! Tons of money, advertising campaigns, phone banks, promises, defections, Get out the vote battalions, voter registration shenanigans, vote fraud, hoards of pollsters, and armies of lawyers have become our new reality. Except for that other war, the media covered little else and ignored other candidates.
Why is an election so important? Is it because so much power has never been so concentrated in so few? If power corrupts, what has happened to our perspective? Cant there be more colors than just red or blue? We keep getting evidence that politics as usual is dysfunctional. So why do we allow ourselves to see no other choices? Is choice even possible without diversity? What do you have when you have no choice? Cars arent either red or blue so why must we all be limited by Republican or Democrat rules?
Prohibitions, limitations and mandates now rule us all. Red voters hope to impose their values on the blue and visa versa. The red forces will limit, mandate or prohibit some things while blue cohorts would do the same to others. No matter the outcome, one half of the electorate will have gained more power to impose its values at the expense of the other half. Isnt that expense becoming unbearable and unsustainable for all?
Should we be ruled by anyone? Should values be forced on us and choices restricted by any party? Cant we try to liberate instead of regulate each other? Wasnt America supposed to be about voluntary agreement instead of forced obedience?
http://www.NY.LP.org/choice
http://1marketsquare.com/CapLP/index.html
if "we the people'' must pay for a "money pit'' we obviously don't want,
does that not make us accountable to government?
http://1marketsquare.com/CapLP/Accountable.shtml
schools
http://1marketsquare.com/CapLP/PerformanceGap.shtml
http://1marketsquare.com/CapLP/ReportCard.shtml
http://1marketsquare.com/CapLP/Schools.shtml
http://1marketsquare.com/CapLP/Environment.shtml
http://1marketsquare.com/CapLP/Social%20Security.shtml
http://1marketsquare.com/CapLP/Health%20Care.shtml
http://1marketsquare.com/CapLP/Drugs.shtm
http://1marketsquare.com/CapLP/Education.shtml
http://1marketsquare.com/CapLP/Poverty.shtml
http://1marketsquare.com/CapLP/ExampleTOC.shtml
and more
Dollars in the common treasury are like fish in the common sea - anyone
who can will harvest to extinction. That is why socialism is
fundamentally corrupting and can not work. ----
Wasn't America supposed to be about voluntary agreement instead of
forced obedience?
Isn't it high time to join The Resistance?
http://www.ny.lp.org/choice
----
"
In crafting the Bill of Rights, the framers were careful to acknowledge
implicitly and explicitly two key truths:
The first is that government does not grant rights it acknowledges them.
They exist independently of government. They're part of who and what we
are. And, as Jefferson noted in the Declaration of Independence, the
only legitimate function of government is to secure them.
The second is that government is a servant to whom we delegate powers,
not a master who dispenses privileges. The Constitution carefully
enumerates the powers we, the people, delegate to our government and it
specifically denies that government any powers not so delegated. Our
rights lie beyond the pale of that delegation. They are sacrosanct. Any
government which infringes upon them is engaged in an intolerable
usurpation.
"
www.badnarik.org
-----
A "right" as envisioned by the Founders meant that the government was
not permitted to interfere with your pursuit of them, i.e., your pursuit
of happiness was to be unhindered by government.
The "right" of free speech means that government cannot interfere with
your free speech. The "right" of gun ownership means that the government
cannot infringe your gun ownership. What does "right" to health care
mean? It means that the government cannot stand in the way of your
pursuit of health care, or impede your obtaining health care. The
"right" to an attorney means that the government cannot prevent you
obtaining an attorney to represent you.
Of course, "right" has incorrectly come to mean that someone must supply
you with something. If your "right" to housing means that some slave
must supply you with housing, and your "right" to health care means that
some slave must supply you with health care, and your "right" to an
attorney means that some slave must supply you with an attorney, does
your "right" to free speech mean that some slave must supply you with a
loudspeaker, or TV air time? Does your "right" to own guns mean that
some slave must supply you with guns?
Gary Popkin,
NYC
http://1marketsquare.com/CapLP/Rights.shtml
---
It was another close election. We find ourselves warring against each
other - - red states and blue; 'them against us'; Left vs. Right;
Republicans vs. Democrats. These forces are just about equal. Each seeks
to take, keep and expand the power to impose values on the other.
Campaign finance laws not withstanding, this election cost much more
than the last. Both sides spent as if in combat and more than many
countries spend on a real war. All else -- other ideas for example -- is
a distraction we can no longer afford in this new war between Americans.
Win at all cost! Tons of money, advertising campaigns, phone banks,
promises, defections, Get out the vote battalions, voter registration
shenanigans, vote fraud, hoards of pollsters, and armies of lawyers have
become our new reality. Except for that other war, the media covered
little else and ignored other candidates.
Why is an election so important? Is it because so much power has never
been so concentrated in so few? If power corrupts, what has happened to
our perspective? Cant there be more colors than just red or blue? We
keep getting evidence that politics as usual is dysfunctional. So why do
we allow ourselves to see no other choices? Is choice even possible
without diversity? What do you have when you have no choice? Cars arent
either red or blue so why must we all be limited by Republican or
Democrat rules?
Prohibitions, limitations and mandates now rule us all. Red voters hope
to impose their values on the blue and visa versa. The red forces will
limit, mandate or prohibit some things while blue cohorts would do the
same to others. No matter the outcome, one half of the electorate will
have gained more power to impose its values at the expense of the other
half. Isnt that expense becoming unbearable and unsustainable for all?
Should we be ruled by anyone? Should values be forced on us and choices
restricted by any party? Cant we try to liberate instead of regulate
each other? Wasnt America supposed to be about voluntary agreement
instead of forced obedience?
http://www.NY.LP.org/choice
http://1marketsquare.com/CapLP/index.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Topaz" |
|
| Title: Re: Re: Neo-fascist Economics 101 |
29 Aug 2005 07:28:44 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 20:41:54 GMT, Werner Hetzner <whetzner@mac.com>
wrote:
Should we be ruled by anyone? Should values be forced on us and choices
restricted by any party? Cant we try to liberate instead of regulate
each other? Wasnt America supposed to be about voluntary agreement
instead of forced obedience?
The meaning of "right" and "left" has changed. I stay with the
original meaning for the same reason I refuse to call homosexual
perverts "gay". The word "gay" was originally a good thing.
The right is for outlawing homosexual perversion,
prostitution, abortions, heroin, and other bad things. It puts the
good of the nation first and ahead of the freedom of individuals to
corrupt the culture of the nation.
Leftists believe in the Rede of Witchcraft which states-- If it
harm none, do what will you will. This sounds nice, but like the apple
that the witch gave to Snow White it has poison within. The Rede of
Witchcraft is the Bible of liberalism. It would legalize homosexual
perversion, prostitution, drugs, etc.
The right is for building a great nation. Leftists care only
about individual freedom and are opposed to any laws that would make
the nation better. There are beaches where normal families will not go
because homosexual perverts practice their perversion on the beach.
When the liberals say they are for freedom this is kind of thing they
are talking about. Of course people should be free to do what they
want most of the time. There is no argument there. Liberals are
talking about being free to do things that many people object to and
want outlawed. Their philosophy, taken to its logical conclusion,
would not allow the law that says drivers have to stop at the red
lights. Their philosophy would allow heroin to be sold on grocery
store shelves and allow ads promoting heroin on TV. Their philosophy
would result in chaos and degeneracy.
Libertarians are liberals who want freedom for the Ebenezer
Scrooges to be as greedy as they want. They have the same philosophy
as other leftist who want to legalize heroin and prostitution, namely
that the state can't tell them what they can't do. People don't like
laws stopping them from doing things, and we should sympathize with
that, but sometimes that is not the most important thing. Capitalists
want freedom for greed, other liberals want freedom for degeneracy,
but good laws would make a nation good.
The Communists were leftist and they said they were fighting for
freedom. In Spain they sided with the anarchists. The Communists and
the anarchists were the same people or the same type of people. The
Communists were for having government but only temporarily. They said
that their government was necessary only until the whole world was
Communist. After the world was Communist they wanted to dissolve the
government and have an anarchy.
The right wing cares about the future. Leftists only care about the
present. If their philosophy results in a nightmare future like in
Soylent Green or some other futuristic nightmare they are not
interested and insist that nothing could be more important than the
freedom of individuals to be as decadent as they want. To see the kind
of society
libertarians are fighting for see the movie "8MM", they aren't for the
snuff part, but
other than that it shows liberalism in action.
www.spearhead-uk.com http://www.natvan.com
http://www.thebirdman.org http://www.RealNews247.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Parsifal" |
|
| Title: Re: Neo-fascist Economics 101 |
30 Aug 2005 03:03:46 AM |
|
|
*The right is for outlawing homosexual perversion,
*prostitution, abortions, heroin, and other bad things.
Tell me what's wrong with homosexuality? Are you homosexual? Then what
business of yours is it what consenting adults do in their bedroom?
Heroin? What business of yours is it what I want to use to go through
life? Alcohol cause much more damages and is a drug and is higly
addictive, yet, it is legal. Interesting...
The rest of your posting is too stupid to even argue...
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Werner Hetzner" |
|
| Title: Re: Neo-fascist Economics 101 |
30 Aug 2005 12:05:04 AM |
|
|
Topaz wrote:
..
Libertarians are liberals who want freedom for the Ebenezer
Scrooges to be as greedy as they want. They have the same philosophy
as other leftist who want to legalize heroin and prostitution, namely
that the state can't tell them what they can't do. People don't like
laws stopping them from doing things, and we should sympathize with
that, but sometimes that is not the most important thing. Capitalists
want freedom for greed, other liberals want freedom for degeneracy,
but good laws would make a nation good. ...
How good are you? Why are you better than your neighbor? What is a good
law? How do you know it's good? If laws are so good, why do we need the
police to enforce it? If laws are so good, why do people not obey?
When people disobey are they bad or just disobdient? Is Civil
Disobedience good or bad?
http://www.ny.lp.org/resist
.
|
|
|
| User: "Topaz" |
|
| Title: Re: Re: Neo-fascist Economics 101 |
30 Aug 2005 06:43:19 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 05:05:04 GMT, Werner Hetzner <whetzner@mac.com>
wrote:
How good are you?
Very
Why are you better than your neighbor?
My neighbors are nice people but probably don't tell the important
truths on the internet.
What is a good
law?
For one, you have to stop at the red lights.
How do you know it's good?
There would be traffic jams otherwise.
If laws are so good, why do we need the
police to enforce it?
Because some people are not good.
If laws are so good, why do people not obey?
Most people obey good laws. Laws are made because not all people are
good.
When people disobey are they bad or just disobdient?
If it is a good law then they are bad.
Is Civil
Disobedience good or bad?
It depends on whether the government is good or not.
www.spearhead-uk.com http://www.natvan.com
http://www.thebirdman.org http://www.RealNews247.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Werner Hetzner" |
|
| Title: Re: Neo-fascist Economics 101 |
31 Aug 2005 07:49:26 PM |
|
|
Topaz wrote:
On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 05:05:04 GMT, Werner Hetzner <whetzner@mac.com>
wrote:
...
When people disobey are they bad or just disobdient?
If it is a good law then they are bad.
Is Civil
Disobedience good or bad?
It depends on whether the government is good or not.
You mean when they agree it is good. It all depends. It depends on your
point of view.
You and many other people try to ignore laws they think are not good.
Just look at college kids. They are not supposed to drink. Are drinking
laws good or bad?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Topaz" |
|
| Title: Re: Re: Neo-fascist Economics 101 |
01 Sep 2005 06:18:14 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 01 Sep 2005 00:49:26 GMT, Werner Hetzner <whetzner@mac.com>
wrote:
You mean when they agree it is good. It all depends. It depends on your
point of view.
You and many other people try to ignore laws they think are not good.
I don't know of any laws we should break. It's not worth it. We
can't change anything if we a sitting in a jail cell. We shouldn't
even break the gun laws no matter what we think of them. People go to
prison over guns all the time. Unless they live in Harlem or someplace
they are safer without guns, if they can get them legally. If you get
in any hassle with the cops they will ask you if you have guns. It is
illegal to lie to them and staying silent makes you look suspicious.
To change the laws there are two possibilies, revolution, and a
political party. And a revolution would surely fail. There are third
parties in Europe that are accomplishing a lot. In America people
think only Republicans and Democrats have a chance. But nothing is
going to change with either one of these. We need to vote for third
parties, not to try to win in the current election, but to give third
parties support so they may win some time in the future.
Just look at college kids. They are not supposed to drink. Are drinking
laws good or bad?
We should have some drinking laws. But outlawing drinking entirely
has been tried and wasn't such a hot idea. I am not aware of any
problems with the drinking laws the way they are now.
www.spearhead-uk.com http://www.natvan.com
http://www.thebirdman.org http://www.RealNews247.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Neo-fascist Economics 101 |
30 Aug 2005 01:54:17 AM |
|
|
Black Elk wrote:
Experts Warn Debt May Threaten Economy
Sunday August 28, 2005
By ROBERT TANNER
AP National Writer
You owe $145,000. And the bill is rising every day. That's how much it would
cost every American man, woman and child to pay the tab for the long-term
promises the U.S. government has made to creditors, retirees, veterans and
the poor.
And it's not even taking into account credit card bills, mortgages - all the
debt we've racked up personally. Savings? The average American puts away
barely $1 of every $100 earned.
Our profligate ways at home are mirrored in Washington and in the global
marketplace, where as a society America spends $1.9 billion more a day on
imported clothes and cars and gadgets than the entire rest of the world
spends on its goods and services.
That's only because America spends more on mall automotive
repair shop restrooms per day than the entire rest
of the world spends on living.
-cont.-
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-5238534,00.html
--
"Those seeking profits," Jefferson wrote, "were they given total freedom,
would not be the ones to trust to keep government pure and our rights
secure. Indeed, it has always been those seeking wealth who were the source
of corruption in government. No other depositories of power have ever yet
been found, which did not end in converting to their own profit the earnings
of those committed to their charge."
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0618-03.htm
--
The fair use of a copyrighted work:
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site
is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest
in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.
For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml.
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
