Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Inor on March 20, 2010, 11:50:01 PM
-
So, now that it seems we are going to be stuck with Peebocare against the wishes of the vast majority of the American people (one poll I saw today had it as high as 76% against), what happens next?
Does the rage that I saw firsthand at the Kill the Bill rally last Saturday in St. Paul, just go away? Most of us Conservatives are very busy already doing our jobs, running small businesses, taking care of our families, etc. We do not have the time or the energy to keep up the pace from the last year for too long.
Do we just "suck it up" for now and work harder for less in hopes that we can change things somewhat in November? And then, hope the new people we elect will somehow be able to roll this whole mess back (highly unlikely)?
Do we start floating the idea publicly of a tax revolt like we did in 1993? That is "go Galt" in an attempt to try and starve the government out of all this crazy spend and takeover nonsense.
Or does this start to get really physically ugly?
I am just curious of some of your thoughts.
-
Or we can calm down and elect folks who promise to gut this legislation. Unless it's in the Constitution, it can be repealed at any time.
Besides, it ain't over yet. Assuming it passes, it still has to survive the court battle.
-
Oh, definition 4.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=peebo
I thought he was talking about this Peebo.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peabo_Bryson
-
I don't think its going to pass tomorrow, too many politicians are worried about being relected, especially if they do a roll call vote.
I think many see that Nancy Pelosi is punch drunk crazy.
-
If this thing passes, it will be another third rail. It will suddenly be a right of every American to have health care and Social Security, even when it bankrupts the country.
-
If this thing passes, it will be another third rail. It will suddenly be a right of every American to have health care and Social Security, even when it bankrupts the country.
Ya know, I'm not as convinced of that as I used to be. This "reform" has been so unpopular for so long, the next Congress might be persuaded to kill it. Especially if they are newly-elected replacements of the goons that voted for it. If we apply enough pressure.
Also, from what I'm told no benefits kick in for a few years; only the taxes to pay for them.
-
Or we can calm down and elect folks who promise to gut this legislation. Unless it's in the Constitution, it can be repealed at any time.
Besides, it ain't over yet. Assuming it passes, it still has to survive the court battle.
Sorry Rev, I do not mean to sound disagreeable especially since I think we are on the same team. But there has NEVER been an entitlement program that has been completely repealed by Congress in the history of the Republic. Once this thing passes, and at least some portion of it gets through the courts, our grandkids are stuck with it.
Please understand, I am ABSOLUTELY NOT advocating violence. But I am starting to think using the tax code against them might be the only way we can stop all of the madness that has been pushed on our Republic since 1912.
-
fisty, for the next Congress to repeal ObamaCare would require a veto-proof majority. Not going to happen (even assuming you could persuade the scoundrels to pass the repealing legislation in the first place).
-
The Supremes rule that forcing people to buy health insurance is unconstitutional. The health insurance plan loses a big chunk of its funding.
Meanwhile, a new Republican majority pushes for a repeal of the law because it can't be paid for without raising taxes or further increasing the deficit. If they keep the anger alive, there may be Democrat defectors to override an Obama veto.
Another scenario is that the Supremes rule it unconstitutional by 2013, and a Republican house, senate and president repeal it.
Remember, most of the so-called benefits don't kick in until later this decade.
-
Remember, most of the so-called benefits don't kick in until later this decade.
But many of the taxes to fund it kick in immediately. Oh, joy...
-
But many of the taxes to fund it kick in immediately. Oh, joy...
Making it a little easier to repeal.
Still, you make a good point.
-
Sorry Rev, I do not mean to sound disagreeable especially since I think we are on the same team. But there has NEVER been an entitlement program that has been completely repealed by Congress in the history of the Republic. Once this thing passes, and at least some portion of it gets through the courts, our grandkids are stuck with it.
So work harder.
Gun rights have been steadily chipped away since US vs Miller. We were faced with cry and accept defeat, or work hard to turn the tide. Well, it took an insane amount of work, but we have concealed carry in the overwhelming majority of states. Heller is done, McDonald is virtually done, we just need judicial review. Then we can go gangbusters.
Not saying it will be cheap or easy, but it is entirely possible without resorting to "man the barricades" theoretical scenarios.
-
Not saying it will be cheap or easy, but it is entirely possible without resorting to "man the barricades" theoretical scenarios.
Then what do we need the guns for? :lol:
-
Sorry Rev, I do not mean to sound disagreeable especially since I think we are on the same team. But there has NEVER been an entitlement program that has been completely repealed by Congress in the history of the Republic. Once this thing passes, and at least some portion of it gets through the courts, our grandkids are stuck with it.
Then surrender immediately.
Here's the thing:
If the already existing welfare state is allowed to persist and is never challenged, it will inevitably grow. If you resign yourself to believing that the current system is forever and never even fight it, it will grow and it will strangle you.
It does not matter if you defeat this bill or not - because the government is already huge, and if you resign yourself to the current state of affairs, then it will grow and grow and grow. And every time a new bit is added, the leftists will gloat: "But you can't repeal it! This is forever!"
Well no. We can repeal everything. Everything is up for grabs.
Slavery and the Prohibition and the draft were repealed. This too shall pass.
-
First it has a huge court battle. 38 states already have briefs prepared to file in court the second this obomination passes. Assuming the courts rule rightly there's a lot in this bill that will be removed and what will be left will be severely gutted if the entire thing isn't just thrown out.
Also, dems made a huge mistake in waiting four years for any noticeable benefit for anyone to kick in. It's completely vulnerable until then as no one is dependent on it, so it's not a third rail. Even after four years it will take time to progressively get enough enough people dependent that it becomes a no touch issue.
-
Besides Urban Dictionary, I can't find a reference to that nickname anywhere on the 'net, and have never heard it. Please refer to the forum rules stickied at the top of the board.
-
Do any of y'all think that there will be a Republican vote for Obamacare ?
-
Breakup of the Republic ? =|
-
Slavery and the Prohibition and the draft were repealed. This too shall pass.
Easy for you to say. You're not the one in the trenches here fighting to prevent this trash. You're not the one who stands to lose a multi-generation family business if you fail to prevent this trash. You aren't the one who's going to lose his health care, or his wife's health care, after this trash passes.
This too shall pass. At what cost? For a lot of us, politics isn't just an interesting internet debate topic any more.
Your cavalier attitude towards repealing this stuff is aggravating. Inor is right, once this sort of thing gets entrenched it's a safe bet that generations of people in the future will still be saddled with it. We can work on repealing it, work like hell, but Inor knows the truth of the matter. This stuff just doesn't go away.
-
Yes I do. Their are always plenty of RINO's.
-
Meh. I think you're both right, you're just talking past each other. I don't think MB really thinks it will be a cakewalk to repeal, and it's obvious that HTG hasn't accepted the social safety net as a bedrock certainty.
HTG, good job on the activism. Thanks.
-
Easy for you to say. You're not the one in the trenches here fighting to prevent this trash. You're not the one who stands to lose a multi-generation family business if you fail to prevent this trash. You aren't the one who's going to lose his health care, or his wife's health care, after this trash passes.
This too shall pass. At what cost? For a lot of us, politics isn't just an interesting internet debate topic any more.
Your cavalier attitude towards repealing this stuff is aggravating. Inor is right, once this sort of thing gets entrenched it's a safe bet that generations of people in the future will still be saddled with it. We can work on repealing it, work like hell, but Inor knows the truth of the matter. This stuff just doesn't go away.
Respectfully... MB lives in a socialist slash light communist hell, the depths of which you will never understand and every American should thank their respective deity for every single day for the fact that we have never experienced it. The closest analogy I can think of is imagine the US controlled by a coalition of the Taliban, the Communist Party and the most hardcore anti-capitalist European socialists.
Compared to being legally ordered to carry identification documenting your religion, laws forbidding you to marry outside your ethnic group and a 73% tax is considered quite moderate, I'm quite sure a lot of our issues seem quite a bit more mundane. Not to say we shouldn't be crushing socialism and neofeudalism whenever possible.
-
socialism and neofeudalism
Is there a difference?
-
Nevermind
-
So work harder.
I am not saying we should not continue to work to elect politicians who will try to roll these programs back. But thanks to the 17th and 26th Amendments to the Constitution, our government is closer to a Democracy than it is the original Republic. I read recently, and I cannot recall the source (sorry), that almost 53% of people are already recieving some kind of government subsidy either directly or through their employer. Do you honestly believe that you are going to convince these folks to vote for the politician that is going to take away their subsidy?
Eighteen years ago, I started a small business. I have built it to be moderately successful. If I do an orderly shutdown now, 15 people will lose their jobs, but my wife and I will be left with enough assets to live the rest of our lives in decent shape. If I "work harder" and keep it going, I will continue to pay a huge amount of tax to a government that is increasingly hostile towards me.
-
Who will that be then?
Who are these rinos that will be voting for Obamacare?
[popcorn]
-
and a Republican house, senate and president repeal it.
Well, we can dream. I wonder what they would do differently beyond this?
Be careful what you ask/pray/advocate for.
TC
-
The two most likely to vote for it--Snowe and Collins--have said they would not. I think this time the Republican leadership is keeping the members in line.
-
The two most likely to vote for it--Snowe and Collins--have said they would not. I think this time the Republican leadership is keeping the members in line.
Snowe and Collins are Senators. They voted against it on Christmas Eve, albeit they were leaning towards it as I recall.
I do not believe any Republican Congressmen will vote for it.
-
socialism and neofeudalism
Is there a difference?
In theory, sorta yes. In practice, no.
-
This just in, we're F*****
-
They just passed it. And we Just lost hundreds of jobs from a company that cannot remain profitable under this abomination. It's been nice, Invacare. http://www.invacare.com/cgi-bin/imhqprd/index.jsp
-
Besides Urban Dictionary, I can't find a reference to that nickname anywhere on the 'net, and have never heard it. Please refer to the forum rules stickied at the top of the board.
President Elect Barrak Obama
I don't see it as being disrespectful but it is kind of out of date.
-
yep, it passed.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/11/07/health.care/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/11/07/health.care/index.html)
-
There exists is only one suitable response to those who voted to pass this abomination.
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nwta.com%2FSpy%2Fspring99%2Ftar.jpg&hash=543d3467ed9c4d9db15c917d046b5ec4cae4314c)
:mad:
-
The only thing wrong with that illustration, is that the tree hasn't been watered.
-
They just passed it. And we Just lost hundreds of jobs from a company that cannot remain profitable under this abomination. It's been nice, Invacare. http://www.invacare.com/cgi-bin/imhqprd/index.jsp
Ain't done yet, I think. Still needs to be reconciled into one document and voted on again.
-
I wish I shared your optimism on this one man.
-
So it starts............... :mad:
-
We can work on repealing it, work like hell, but Inor knows the truth of the matter. This stuff just doesn't go away.
Even if it 'can be repealed', working like hell to repeal such a bill has costs all of its own, plus the bill must be suffered in the meantime.
-
Snowe and Collins are Senators.
Duh! :facepalm:
-
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”
-
Motion to send it back to committee. Forced another recorded vote.
Whatever their position, nobody is going to be able to duck responsibility on this issue.
-
I thought the article linked on Drudgereport.com said the Repubs were unanimous against.
-
I thought the article linked on Drudgereport.com said the Repubs were unanimous against.
Not a single Republican has voted for this bill.
Quite the era of cooperation Obama ushered in. Democrats and Republicans united.... against him.
-
First it has a huge court battle. 38 states already have briefs prepared to file in court the second this obomination passes.....
Isn't that enough to pass a Constitutional Amendment? Of course the sorts of other things that can come out of a Con Con might not be at all pleasant.
-
Isn't that enough to pass a Constitutional Amendment? Of course the sorts of other things that can come out of a Con Con might not be at all pleasant.
I think I've read elsewhere (and possibly mentioned on this board before) that we were only a couple of states away from being able to call a Constitutional Convention.
I don't know about you, but I sure as hell don't want the current crop of politicians to have a chance like that.
-
If there is a another Constitutional Convention, and something like the "Second Bill of Rights" is passed, saying what I am going to do at the point would violate Forum Rules.
-
There are two Americas, and they are pulling apart more and more everyday: one producing the wealth and paying the bills and playing by the rules, the other feeding off the first. Anyone who thinks these two Americas can be united, reconciled, harmonized at this point is smoking the funny stuff, repeating bromides spread by the propagandameisters. There is one and only PRACTICAL answer: divorce. Anything else is predicated on a vision of an America that disappeared at least two decades ago. It is time for Americans to take a head count, get clear about who they are and what they believe, and vow not to aid, abet, or, most importantly, subsidize their enemies any longer.
-
I'm going to sit and wait until I'm issued my Juden star, my guns are taken away, and a piece of the sky hits me on the head.
I've been waiting since all my liberal friends said it would happen when GWB was re-elected in 2005, and all my conservative friends said it'd happen when Obama was elected in 2008.
-
There are two Americas, and they are pulling apart more and more everyday: one producing the wealth and paying the bills and playing by the rules, the other feeding off the first. Anyone who thinks these two Americas can be united, reconciled, harmonized at this point is smoking the funny stuff, repeating bromides spread by the propagandameisters. There is one and only PRACTICAL answer: divorce. Anything else is predicated on a vision of an America that disappeared at least two decades ago. It is time for Americans to take a head count, get clear about who they are and what they believe, and vow not to aid, abet, or, most importantly, subsidize their enemies any longer.
This is pretty much it dead on. There are those that produce, and wish to simply live their lives and be left alone. And there are those who wish only to live by taking what others have produced. I don't see how there can really be any reconciliation between the two sides. they are as clear as a burglar and the homeowner he is robbing. Who common ground is there. Should the homeowner sit down with the burglar and talk it out as equals? Should he agree to give the burglar only some of his belongings? No. Thieves and moochers are to be cast off.
-
There are two Americas, and they are pulling apart more and more everyday: one producing the wealth and paying the bills and playing by the rules, the other feeding off the first. Anyone who thinks these two Americas can be united, reconciled, harmonized at this point is smoking the funny stuff, repeating bromides spread by the propagandameisters. There is one and only PRACTICAL answer: divorce. Anything else is predicated on a vision of an America that disappeared at least two decades ago. It is time for Americans to take a head count, get clear about who they are and what they believe, and vow not to aid, abet, or, most importantly, subsidize their enemies any longer.
I'm not sure what you're getting at with the divorce metaphor, but I'm thinking the answer is more along the lines of putting our collective foot down; politically. Beat them; politically. Don't argue with them or try to persuade them, just out-vote them, out-spend them, and out-recruit them. If we're successful, they'll still be living in our house, but we'll be wearing the pants, and we probably won't be on speaking terms with them.
OK, this is getting a little uncomfortable, so I'll stop. :laugh:
-
The way to put our foot down is to tell them we are not going to subsidize our own enslavement, that we are not going to subsidize their collectivist dream. What will that mean? Recognizing that we cannot be one nation any more without finding ourselves serfs whose labor and treasure belong to someone else. If they want a socialist state, let them have it, but not on our dime.
-
If they want a socialist state, let them have it, several miles to the north, in Canada.
Fixed that for you. =)
-
The way to put our foot down is to tell them we are not going to subsidize our own enslavement, that we are not going to subsidize their collectivist dream. What will that mean? Recognizing that we cannot be one nation any more without finding ourselves serfs whose labor and treasure belongs to someone else. If they want a socialist state, let them have it, but not on our dime.
How does one do that politically when the moochers outnumber the producers? When those who want your wealth outnumber you. We live in a time when you can be robbed, legally and with the robbers under the protection of the government itself. In fact, many of your robbers are the government. What peaceful recourse does one have when the entire political process is held by your enemies?
-
The real wealth of this nation, long-term, resides in its productivity and creativity, in is values, not in its current negative balance sheet. Either this minority you speak of will find a way to separate itself or it will migrate. In the shorter term I think we can expect the Golden Goose to become progressively constipated.
-
Besides Urban Dictionary, I can't find a reference to that nickname anywhere on the 'net, and have never heard it. Please refer to the forum rules stickied at the top of the board.
I just found a new reason to run for an elected office; then I'll be able to raise hell if anyone calls me anything but my full, legal name on here.
I guess the quoting function will have to be rewritten to handle that.
-
I just found a new reason to run for an elected office; then I'll be able to raise hell if anyone calls me anything but my full, legal name on here.
I guess the quoting function will have to be rewritten to handle that.
Its unbecoming and obnoxious. It feeds into a DU-like atmosphere. I'm sure there are plenty of forums on the web where its perfectly acceptable.
How does one do that politically when the moochers outnumber the producers? When those who want your wealth outnumber you. We live in a time when you can be robbed, legally and with the robbers under the protection of the government itself. In fact, many of your robbers are the government. What peaceful recourse does one have when the entire political process is held by your enemies?
Don't ask him questions he doesn't have the answer to. Unless its a witty metaphor about 'divorce', don't expect much content.
There are only two ways to effect change. The first requies activisim, patience, and motivation. Voting, actively pursauding people to the side of right, and possibly the creation of a new political animal free of the (R) moniker and mentality. The second is armed revolution. And, well, good luck with that, considering the overwhelming might of the US Federal Government. And I'm not of the shcool of thought that the military would not face off against citizens.
-
Similar topics merged.
-
And I'm not of the shcool of thought that the military would not face off against citizens.
I'm not sure if it makes you feel any better, but I am both in the military and just entering law enforcement, and I most definitely will not face off against citizens as you put it.
-
Its unbecoming and obnoxious. It feeds into a DU-like atmosphere. I'm sure there are plenty of forums on the web where its perfectly acceptable.
I have to agree with the no-nicknames rule. Sorry, it's very obnoxious and tiring. And it's such a cheap shot when there are endless real reasons to lampoon the SOBs with.
-
Isn't that enough to pass a Constitutional Amendment? Of course the sorts of other things that can come out of a Con Con might not be at all pleasant.
34 to call it, 38 to ratify. IIRC, each proposed Amendment would have to be ratified separately, which could limit their ability to do stupid stuff. (38 states agreeing on something isn't that common, so I'm impressed there are that many standing up to this.)
-
If we no longer have the right or ability to peacefully take our leave, then we are already slaves. If you think you are going to turn what you are seeing around with "activism, patience, and motivation," you haven't been reading the papers or watching tv for a long, long, LONG time. You're dealing with bandits and thugs and looters, and you want to go slow and reason with them and slowly attract adherents. As if you had the time. As if you had elections you could still count on to be legit. Dude, when Lorettta Sanchez stole that election from Bob Dornan back in freakin' 1998, the GOP did NOTHING, and 12 years later we are where are. Wake up. I did not proffer "armed insurrection," YOU did. I believe we may--may--have the ability to use our militancy to get political autonomy in some form. If they want to shoot us, well, they will do that, and then the options will change. It's happened elsewhere, and many died, and some left. So be it.
-
To the OP: My guess is this will be like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc.
That is, once the furor dies down it will become popular and there won't be any large scale political support against it. I would be careful about overestimating oppisition...most of the Dems who don't like it don't like it because of worries about abortion or worries that it did not go far enough and create a public option. Don't mistake that lack of support for genuine dislike of the package.
Otherwise, if it turns out to be bad and unpopular it will hurt the Democrats badly, the Republicans will come back in to power and they will either repeal or modify it. Rinse and repeat.
Just my 2c though, we'll just see how it shakes out. Honestly though, no-one will know for sure either way for at least a year or two. But you can count on the strong emotions fading as the media focuses on other issues, no matter how it turns out.
-
If we no longer have the right or ability to peacefully take our leave, then we are already slaves. If you think you are going to turn what you are seeing around with "activism, patience, and motivation," you haven't been reading the papers or watching tv for a long, long, LONG time. You're dealing with bandits and thugs and looters, and you want to go slow and reason with them and slowly attract adherents. As if you had the time. As if you had elections you could still count on to be legit. Dude, when Lorettta Sanchez stole that election from Bob Dornan back in freakin' 1998, the GOP did NOTHING, and 12 years later we are where are. Wake up. I did not proffer "armed insurrection," YOU did. I believe we may--may--have the ability to use our militancy to get political autonomy in some form. If they want to shoot us, well, they will do that, and then the options will change. It's happened elsewhere, and many died, and some left. So be it.
So what praytell is your bright idea then? "Political autononmy"? How? Spell it out, I'm not all that smart.
-
To the OP: My guess is this will be like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc.
That is, once the furor dies down it will become popular and there won't be any large scale political support against it. I would be careful about overestimating oppisition...most of the Dems who don't like it don't like it because of worries about abortion or worries that it did not go far enough and create a public option. Don't mistake that lack of support for genuine dislike of the package.
Otherwise, if it turns out to be bad and unpopular it will hurt the Democrats badly, the Republicans will come back in to power and they will either repeal or modify it. Rinse and repeat.
Just my 2c though, we'll just see how it shakes out. Honestly though, no-one will know for sure either way for at least a year or two. But you can count on the strong emotions fading as the media focuses on other issues, no matter how it turns out.
It's funny, my guess is it will be like Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security as well!
In that, if we don't fix them, they will kill our country. All this did was shorten the time horizon before collapse.
YAY WEIMAR!
-
It's funny, my guess is it will be like Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security as well!
In that, if we don't fix them, they will kill our country. All this did was shorten the time horizon before collapse.
YAY WEIMAR!
Well we will see, won't we?
-
Don't ask him questions he doesn't have the answer to. Unless its a witty metaphor about 'divorce', don't expect much content.
There are only two ways to effect change. The first requies activisim, patience, and motivation. Voting, actively pursauding people to the side of right, and possibly the creation of a new political animal free of the (R) moniker and mentality. The second is armed revolution. And, well, good luck with that, considering the overwhelming might of the US Federal Government. And I'm not of the shcool of thought that the military would not face off against citizens.
You talk in bromides. You present false dichotomies. You sound like so many of the talking heads in the media. The time came and went for the political sea-change you dream of. The culture of entitlement and of mendacity and cheating replaced earlier, more sober virtues. The population that played by the rules and understood why the rules existed has been diluted, not by numbers but by a 50-year assault on assimilation. We can take a stand or we can try somewhere else. If the Federal government has the awesome power you say it has, what is the point of patient activism? There is none; it is already lost. IF you are right. I'm not sure you are. I think it's possible to carve out territory in which to preserve America as we have known it; territory both geographic and conceptual. That is something we need to attempt, and it is there that our militancy and activism and patience should be applied. We need a place to regroup and recoup our energies before we got swamped by the "one nation" anthem that is really collectivism with a happy face.
-
I'm not sure if it makes you feel any better, but I am both in the military and just entering law enforcement, and I most definitely will not face off against citizens as you put it.
Law enforcement already faces off against US citizens every day when they use force to enforce victimless and unconstitutional crimes. I wouldn't expect them to change their tune when unconstitutional crimes are slightly different. I'm not sure about the military, but remember New Orleans.
-
Okay, I'm still not really sure what you're saying.
Just what are you proposing? Just how do you see that playing out?
-
What is political autonomy? Look to other nations. You can have regions where different rules apply. This was true, certainly, in parts of Europe, pre-EU, but it is de facto becoming true again, with the arrival of Muslims in quantity and it is happening here with illegal immigration. Is it an ideal situation? Certainly not; it's volatile. No one would say otherwise. But it is a way of buying time and hanging on to something precious while we can during which many other historic forces, some unseen and unpredictable, will play out. That doesn't mean that if it gets bad enough--and it certainly has the potential for that--that many of the best and brightest won't just leave. There are always refuges for people with brains, ambition, and resources. Maybe it will be Uruguay, Singapore, New Zealand, or the island of Tasmania, maybe it will be sea-going city-states that are techno-islands. Freedom has been around since the mystery cults thousands of years ago, whether on the surface or esoteric.
-
Law enforcement already faces off against US citizens every day when they use force to enforce victimless and unconstitutional crimes. I wouldn't expect them to change their tune when unconstitutional crimes are slightly different. I'm not sure about the military, but remember New Orleans.
There's plenty enough willing lefties to fill the shoes of the fired LEOs that refuse to oppress.
-
We unite and tell the Federal government that in the States of X, Y, and Z we demand the right to establish our own rules, by the consent of the governed there, while still keeping allegiance, for collective security, with a national state. We do this peacefully, with the idea that "diversity," so honored now, must indeed be given its real chance to flower. Those parts of America that want socialism should have it, but those who do not should not be burdened financially with it. Let the experiment in diversity bloom with a thousand points of light.
-
As many are saying there, there will be no lack of willing oppressors. So? That isn't new, it's where we already ARE. If we do nothing, we will simply become hosts for parasites to feed on. Dead Citizens Walking.
-
Okay, I'm still not really sure what you're saying.
Just what are you proposing? Just how do you see that playing out?
I think he's proposing a sea of 10th amendment oriented State-level protest against FedGov, which results in flyover America attempting to secede or dramatically separate itself from the Union over radically different expectations of taxation and individual responsibility.
It will essentially be the reverse perspective of the Civil War, where the "Union" forces (FedGov) seek to keep their slaves (profitable, responsible Americans) while the "Confederate" forces seek to carve out their own territory from the heart of the US. It will start from the State legislature level, it will be messy and passionate, it will get only moderately violent (riot level with a handful of assassinations by both sides, not insurrectionist/guerrilla, and certainly not mobilized warfare) and end badly no matter how it ends.
The offenses to our liberty we face today are much greater than those faced in the 1760's and 1770's. We can lie down and take it, we can fight in a civil manner, or we can fight in an uncivil manner.
Still working on option #2, here.
-
There's plenty enough willing lefties to fill the shoes of the fired LEOs that refuse to oppress.
Except that they don't know how to operate a firearm.
-
Anyone who thinks Social Security will be solvent after the boomers hit is delusional. Anyone who doesn't see that Medicare/Medicaid is already a failure isn't reading the headlines about physicians not taking those types of patients. I can't believe anyone would use those as an example of success.
-
I think he's proposing a sea of 10th amendment oriented State-level protest against FedGov, which results in flyover America attempting to secede or dramatically separate itself from the Union over radically different expectations of taxation and individual responsibility.
Look to recent history: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belavezha_Accords (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belavezha_Accords)
Is it really so unthinkable that something similar could happen here? Several states have already filed suit on the Constitutionality of health care. The next domino to fall will be the U.S. credit rating, closely followed by a collapse of the dollar. Once that happens, is it really so impossible to think that some states will just decide to "opt out" of Medicare or even Social Security?
-
Does anyone really believe the Fed will allow states to separate themselves in some fashion, even if it is only for a limited autonomy? My gut tells me the Fed will do whatever it believes is necessary to keep that from happening.
Ours is a dying Republic. As I have said here before, it is dying, essentially and simply, from old age. We have had a good long run as a nominally free republic.
The Fed may behave in an irrational fashion as things unwind. Dying things often do.
-
Look to recent history: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belavezha_Accords (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belavezha_Accords)
Is it really so unthinkable that something similar could happen here? Several states have already filed suit on the Constitutionality of health care. The next domino to fall will be the U.S. credit rating, closely followed by a collapse of the dollar. Once that happens, is it really so impossible to think that some states will just decide to "opt out" of Medicare or even Social Security?
The IRS and the income tax system makes state-level tax protest against Federal entitlement programs quite difficult.
I believe the FedGov would leverage a large enforcement wing to somehow re-obtain their funding. Direct harassment of businesses via IRS/FBI visits. Rules on paper created by State Legislatures do not apply when no force backs them up... especially when the Fed tax man is at the door right now. What do you do, call the local cops on the federal tax enforcers?
When HR people and Accounts Payable people at businesses start getting arrested by Federal agents, you're gonna start having some interesting collisions of priorities. HR-Sally, who makes $35K a year, isn't gonna go to prison over tax fraud. Companies that do business in interstate commerce aren't going to face the courts over the tax implications. Smaller companies that work only in-state won't have the resources to fight off the FedGov.
Or... the bank calls up the Accounting department to say that the Feds have frozen all accounts belonging to your company. Is the bank supposed to NOT follow the federal court order to do so?
Opt out of SS and Medicare and ObamaCare? When it's enforced by the IRS? Not possible, IMO, without a more concrete "divorce" (in longeyes vernacular) of tax bases and currency.
The only "opt out" is to dismantle the monster.
-
I've said many times and in many places. I think that we are realistically staring down the barrel of a civil war. No, I'm not being melodramatic. Stick with me for a few moments, and see if the scenario I portray is plausible. (oh, and I firmly believe that ObamaCare is a major accelerant in this process)
Taxes will continue to increase. To fund the pie-in-the-sky everything-for-everybody plans that the liberals keep ramming down our throat. There will be a tipping point at which enough people realize that this doesn't work when the majority of people will finally put their foot down and say NO MORE.
We'll see a proposal for HUGE cuts to every welfare program out there. I'm saying 80-90% cuts. If not more. Those that have made their living by mooching off the producers in this nation will find themselves very abruptly, and very deliberately, cut off. The media will call this racist, heartless, every name in the book. It will pass. Maybe not overwhelmingly, but it will pass.
Crime will increase. Slowly at first, but it will increase. Some "disadvantaged youth" trying to steal to maintain the lifestyle they had under welfare will be shot, likely by a white person. This will be the match that ignites the fuse. It may not catch the first or second time, but it will eventually catch. The overt reason for this "racial violence" according to the media will be just that, race. The real reason, of course, is the haves versus the wants. Rather, want without actually having to work for it. Of course, those who want without actually having to work for it will seize on this justification, and start rioting. People will defend themselves.
The other options, in my opinion, are either overt secession, or national bankruptcy.
-
The other options, in my opinion, are either overt secession, or national bankruptcy.
Yay Weimar!!
-
What do you do, call the local cops on the federal tax enforcers?
It could certainly be done, yes. The problem isn't nearly as intractable as you say. States have law enforcement personnel of their own. And laws and courts to back them up. And prisons, and even a military, God forbid...
So make it a state crime to enter State X to arrest Sally in HR for failing to complying with illegal/unconstitutional Federal laws. If the FedGov enforcers show up at Sally's door, arrest them and charge them with wrongful kidnapping or somesuch, convict 'em and throw 'em in jail. States have the practical ability to do it, they just lack the will.
How many Federal bureaucrats from DC would risk imprisonment in Idaho on Indiana to try to collect a few dollars for their employer?
And if Big Bank tries to seize assets from Sally's company, the state can step in and seize a like amount of assets from Big Bank and award them to Sally's company as damages.
Obviously this would lead to a constitutional crisis, with the states and the Feds arguing over who has what right to do things. But since the Feds are already acting outside their authority, I think the states are nearly duty-bound to respond strongly. I hope it doesn't come to this, obviously. But who knows.
Truly, all the Feds have is DC and a few military bases. 98% of their power derives from the cooperation of the people and the states. Without that, they have nothing (nearly nothing).
-
The other options, in my opinion, are either overt secession, or national bankruptcy.
Nah, I think taxes will slowly increase, and things will continue to muddle along for a good while. Once this is established as the new status quo, people will simply accept it, like they do with every other social program. Bout that time, we'll see another one coming through congress.
Sure, eventually it will fall apart, but heck - the USSR lasted what, 70 years?
-
I'll be impressed when the red states refuse all federal money over what they personally give in taxes.
That would be a great way to make a point, and actually do something besides blow hot air.
-
The IRS and the income tax system makes state-level tax protest against Federal entitlement programs quite difficult.
Unfortunately, I think money and the tax code may be the only effective weapon we have against these people in the immediate future.
A political solution would require real Conservatives with leadership abilities, and I just do not see that in the GOP right now. It takes at least 10 years to groom a candidate for national office and our Republic does not have that long. The crop of Republicans that will be elected in November (by an overwhelming majority) will mostly be the "go along to get along" type.
-
Nah, I think taxes will slowly increase, and things will continue to muddle along for a good while. Once this is established as the new status quo, people will simply accept it, like they do with every other social program. Bout that time, we'll see another one coming through congress.
Sure, eventually it will fall apart, but heck - the USSR lasted what, 70 years?
Even in the very worst case where this health care reform bill is as bad as the typical APS denzin thinks it is I don't see anything more dramatic than this happening. If it turns out to be a giant boondoggle the Dems might get ousted, but that is about it.
-
Unfortunately, I think money and the tax code may be the only effective weapon we have against these people in the immediate future.
A political solution would require real Conservatives with leadership abilities, and I just do not see that in the GOP right now. It takes at least 10 years to groom a candidate for national office and our Republic does not have that long. The crop of Republicans that will be elected in November (by an overwhelming majority) will mostly be the "go along to get along" type.
So, are you saying America will collapse within ten years? Or do you mean something more metaphorical than that?
-
So, are you saying America will collapse within ten years? Or do you mean something more metaphorical than that?
I am saying that within 10 years the Executive branch of the federal government will have gained so much power that Congress will be irrevelent. The President will just issue an Executive Order if Congress does not do what he says. Once that happens, even Presidential elections will not matter since the President will have the ability to set the rules of the election however he wants. I.E. Hugo Chavez
-
I don't see an actual revolution occuring any time soon . . . the only thing I could see touching that off in the forseeable future is something the left-wing loons agonized over Bush doing: suspending elections and declaring himself president-for-life.
Now, I don't doubt that Pelosi, Reid, Obama, et.al would like to pull something like that, but I don't think even their delusions have reached the point where they'd think they could get away with suspending elections, or refusing to accept defeat at the polls; it would cause civil disobedience on an unprecedented scale . . . perhaps even the US military would intervene against the politicians who tried it.
The only thing I can see possibly leading to massive anti-government action would be a successful WMD attack with the rogue nation identified . . . and a POTUS who would refuse to retaliate in kind. Things would get pretty dicey then.
-
They wouldn't need to suspend elections have enough experience with electoral fraud.
And if they can suddenly fabricate 20 million new voters to vote for their side, they may not even need the fraud.
-
Good point, Inor. Look at the number of "czars" appointed by Bush, and the number that Obama has added. These are all bureaucrats who are usurping the powers of Congress. It's completely unconstitutional, but nobody has called either president on it.
I'm waiting for Reid to get a bill passed that eliminates federal elections, and for Pelosi to have Reid's bill deemed to pass, thus giving the Democrats absolute control of the government forever. I'm being facetious, but not by much.
Geez, as I was typing this HankB posted something very similar. Great minds and all that... ;)
-
My memory is foggy, I don't recall any specific Czars under Bush. Which ones were they?
-
Didn't he appoint a "
MotherLandFatherLandRodina HomeLand 'Security' Czar?"
-
My memory is foggy, I don't recall any specific Czars under Bush. Which ones were they?
Wikipedia claims Bush had 35. I only remember the "Afganistan Czar" and the "Drug Czar".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._executive_branch_czars (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._executive_branch_czars)
The government had this to say about it:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/the-truth-about-czars/ (http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/the-truth-about-czars/)
Of course, if you look at the top of the page, you will notice it was written by Anita Dunn so it is a pretty good bet that it is complete B.S. =D
-
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fd.yimg.com%2Fa%2Fp%2Fap%2F20100321%2Fcapt.1ab02f5d8ae543c9b3c9434fba088492-1ab02f5d8ae543c9b3c9434fba088492-0.jpg%3Fx%3D354%26amp%3By%3D345%26amp%3Bq%3D85%26amp%3Bsig%3D7Zmtp4iciBUGlbABvXcvrg--&hash=753361bb3464f1ec5d0e379ab7946e9e99f0e061)
I can't help but mumble "We represent, the Lollipop Guild, the Lollipop Guild, the Lollipop Guild" every time I go to drudge and see this pic. =D
We are being run by the naive idealistists from munchkin land.
-
All the talk of the dissolution of America is much less academic and much more ominous, now that I have kids. Same as with SHTF or TEOTWAWKI. Unlike when I was younger & single, I have a lot to lose.
Time (Required) To Die
How long did it take Rome to fall after the republic was replaced by empire under Octavian?
How many times was Rome sacked before the Roman Empire in the West was considered gone?
How long from the first sacking to the dissolution of the empire in the West?
What I'm getting at is that what was known as "Rome" took its sweet time to die from the moment liberty was extinguished (Octavian's assumption of power) until the last time a barbarian crapped on the Roman Senate floor, trotted off with the last meager sack of loot, and turned off the lights.
Similarly, I suspect that it might take what we call "America" a while to become history. Heck, Rome expanded in size & power for a while after the Republic was destroyed. Folk reconciled themselves to the new tyranny and the new tyrant and carried on. There might be territorial gains made in the future, perhaps a peaceful annexation of some of Canada & Mexico, when America is less like America and more like Canada & Mexico. Even if the economy tanks, America could dedicate a large proportion of the smaller GDP to .mil and maintain dominance.
On the other side, arguing for a speedier dissolution, is the "increased pace of time" these days. Things are happening faster & faster than they used to, with regard to significant events and great change.
Don't be surprised if "The Country Formerly Known As America" shambles on for a good long while before collapsing.
It ALL Ends Some Day, And It ALWAYS Ends Badly
If one is to run with the "speedier dissolution" scenario, we have some exemplars:
How many French Republics have come & gone since 1789?
The Wiemar Republic is another.
Imperial Russia.
Austro-Hungarian Empire
Ottoman Empire
The last three persisted for centuries, but all collapsed in a shambles relatively quickly, given the right stimulus.
Three of five of the above entailed rampant revolutionary violence (French, Russian, Wiemar) that lasted for years and killed many.
Two of the five (Wiemar & Ottoman) entailed genocide on the "megadeath" scale.
Given the "speedier" scenario, I think the Wiemar example is closest to what might happen. Economic chaos along with the rise of extreme right & left political movements, as the more moderate (mostly right) parties are suppressed or co-opted. Then, it was the National Socialists and the Communists.
More recently, think of how the UK Conservatives have become "Labor Lite" and given rise to the UKIP. Same thing with the Dutch, as the old center-right excludes some of the real worries of the people and Geert Wilders and his party take up the slack.
How many issues are now looked on with horror by the Republican establishment and labeled as racist by the Dems? Now, America is supposed to be exceptional, so that maybe the Tea Party movement will strengthen and (unlike the Nazis & Commies in Wiemar) bring government down to size, rather than down on the other statist party. The fact that all the Tea Party furor is happening in the Tea Party organizations and not in the Republican organizations is a sign the Republicans are not seen as distinct from the problem.
-
Didn't he appoint a "MotherLandFatherLandRodina HomeLand 'Security' Czar?"
That's a cabinet position, nominated by the Prez and approved by the Senate per the Constitution.
I think maybe I take a different meaning for the term "Czar" than wiki and Balog do. To me a Czar is a high-level position akin to a cabinet member, but with the distinction that Czars are arbitrarily appointed with out any pretext of following the constitutional requirement for Senate advise and consent. There are any number of window-dressing type advisers who aren't czars because they don't amount to anything, and there are any number of important positions like Homeland Security Secretary who, while important and high-level, are still not a Czar because they get their job through the correct procedures.
Anyways...
-
That's a cabinet position, nominated by the Prez and approved by the Senate per the Constitution.
That makes everything better, then.
-
That makes everything better, then.
Better? Maybe.
Legal? Oh yeah.
-
Does anyone really believe the Fed will allow states to separate themselves in some fashion, even if it is only for a limited autonomy?
Did anyone really believe the USSR would break up? =|
-
I think maybe I take a different meaning for the term "Czar" than wiki and Balog do.
Let's just look at this way... From the book "A Patriot's History of the United States", which is an outstanding book by the way, when JFK came into office, the White House staff consisted of 23 people. By 1971 it had grown to 5395! I was not able to find what it is at now, but I would be hard pressed to believe it has shrunk. That does not include over 2 million people that work for agencies directly controlled by the President. The healthcare bill adds more than 32 thousand people to the IRS alone.
Even if we had another Calvin Coolidge waiting in the wings, does anybody still believe this government could be shrunk significantly from the top?
-
I'll be impressed when the red states refuse all federal money over what they personally give in taxes.
That would be a great way to make a point, and actually do something besides blow hot air.
This. When the funds are held over state's heads for compliance, they generally cave on almost every issue.
-
We unite and tell the Federal government that in the States of X, Y, and Z we demand the right to establish our own rules, by the consent of the governed there, while still keeping allegiance, for collective security, with a national state. We do this peacefully, with the idea that "diversity," so honored now, must indeed be given its real chance to flower. Those parts of America that want socialism should have it, but those who do not should not be burdened financially with it. Let the experiment in diversity bloom with a thousand points of light.
That'll be the day. The fed.gov has repeatedly used force against its own citizens when special treatment or cessation is threatened.
-
It's funny, my guess is it will be like Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security as well!
In that, if we don't fix them, they will kill our country. All this did was shorten the time horizon before collapse.
YAY WEIMAR!
(Yes, I'm quoting myself to post this)
http://cafehayek.com/2010/03/a-few-thoughts-on-the-health-care-legislation.html
I’m sorry it passed, but there are many consolations. The current system of health care—a mish-mash of top-down regulation and private attempts to respond to it—is bankrupt, both intellectually and financially. It is a nominally “private” system but the hand of government is the dog, not even the tail that wags the dog. Given the role of medicare reimbursment, and the tax-advantaging of generous private plans, there is very little room left for the invisible hand. The simple way to say it is that too little health care is currently paid for out of pocket. The patient is not the customer. And the current system is broke. The generosity of the system cannot be maintained int he face of the aging of the population. So it’s not like the status quo is so great...
The existing legislative promises of Medicare and Social Security are a train wreck that cannot be avoided without radical change. Expanding coverage just brings the train wreck closer. It’s a nice idea but it is unaffordable. We have taken a step closer to Greece. We have taken a step closer to national bankruptcy. I don’t know whether to laugh or to cry about that part.
-
Who said they wouldn't resort to using force against secessionists? That's to be expected from "control freaks," no? But that's not the end of the story either, is it? If and when the Feds starting shooting ordinary Americans, for whatever reason, that's the day a lot of things change forever.
-
I'm going to make a prediction...
Might not be due to Healthcare. But another push or two, especially soon, and you're going to start hearing about policritters injured and killed. At which point, I would bet on either full-blown martial law, or at least all the "anti-terror" tools resently created being used wholesale against American citizens.
And honestly, I'm begining to wonder if that isn't the intent...
-
Alright, this isn't going to cause a collapse soon.
All we did was move the day of reckoning closer. I'm betting 10 years closer.
However, every other major country knows we can't be spending this much money. It may be they expect that we will reign things back in.
If so, the ONLY reason we are still able to sell bonds is that the purchasers expect the Republicans will take over in November and stop this reckless course.
We can survive this crap. We can repeal it.
We're in dangerous territory, though. The United States is no longer the safe bet. Obama wanted us to be "just another country" and he's at least succeeded in that.
Here's the thing though. We have this year to fix things. If the level of spending isn't SIGNIFICANTLY cut back next year, our bond rating will fall, our interest rates will increase and we will have to spend large amounts of money on simply debt payments.
Should that happen... Weimerica.
-
We can survive this crap. We can repeal it.
On what logic and facts do you base this statement upon? Sure, repeal is technically possible. Pragmatically, I don't see any evidence to suggest we (Americans) ever will.
Also, there was an article on drudgereport about the US losing it's AAA rating: link (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aYUeBnitz7nU)
-
Maybe you can't repeal it, but you can sure as hell say you aren't interested in obeying "alien" law.
Is martial law the real intent? That could very well be, but from what I've seen of our operations abroad I think imposing military control on a nation of 300-plus million people would be, well, more than challenging.
If Obama can't ignite the economy--and how can he with his policies?--he is going to hit the wall when he tries to get through the double economic whammy of "cap and trade" and an illegal alien amnesty.
Anger isn't what will take down Obama; clarity and frankness will. He has yet to be called out for who and what he is by a critical mass of Americans, but that day is fast approaching.
-
Pragmatically, I don't see any evidence to suggest we (Americans) ever will.
Any kind of belief that 'the welfare state is forever' is nothing but a psychological weapon for the leftists.
The leftists fear nothing more than an up-or-down discussion on whether you need or want an American welfare state. Oh, they hold all the cards – the media, the government, the academia – but still they are afraid, down in the core of their souls, that they will lose. It is thus why they deride abolition as impossible, and abolitionists as crazy: because they fear nothing more than to have the abolitionists grow strong enough to give them an open fight.
They want to go back to the pre-Goldwater years, where there was no serious anti-Welfare-State thought in the American mainstream, so they're safe and secure forever and nobody ever challenges them. They want a universe in which they won in the 1930's, establishing their revolution, and they will now control the landscape forevermore.
The idea that the system is forever, or that it can't be abolished without catastrophic social disruption, is a Leftist weapon. It functions in the same way, and for the same purpose, as military leaflets dropped behind enemy lines, extolling your own forces as invincible and the enemy's cause as hopeless.
When an individual accepts that he will live and die unfree, there, upon the battlefield that is that one person's mind, the Socialists win.
-
Alright, this isn't going to cause a collapse soon.
All we did was move the day of reckoning closer. I'm betting 10 years closer.
However, every other major country knows we can't be spending this much money. It may be they expect that we will reign things back in.
If so, the ONLY reason we are still able to sell bonds is that the purchasers expect the Republicans will take over in November and stop this reckless course.
We can survive this crap. We can repeal it.
We're in dangerous territory, though. The United States is no longer the safe bet. Obama wanted us to be "just another country" and he's at least succeeded in that.
Here's the thing though. We have this year to fix things. If the level of spending isn't SIGNIFICANTLY cut back next year, our bond rating will fall, our interest rates will increase and we will have to spend large amounts of money on simply debt payments.
Should that happen... Weimerica.
Preparing for bed last night I realized another forseeable consequence of this.
Now that America is just "another country" and not THE safe country in the world, investments in this country are now more risky. In this I am not talking about lending to the US Government, but investments in the businesses in this country are now more risky.
They are now more risky because there are now significantly increased chances that our economy will 1) collapse 2) massively increase taxes and/or 3) confiscate "unfair" profits. The chances of these three were effectively zero four years ago.
Investors could rely on the fact that America made only small changes. It was the safe place to invest. We are not anymore. (I know I'm repeating myself, but this is important.)
And here's why: I'm quite sure people are aware that the United States has a "trade deficit." Personally, I don't care about the trade deficit. We get cheaper goods from abroad and they get a higher standard of life. It's great.
Balancing out that "trade gap" was an "investment gap". Our currency doesn't have to adjust because foreigners use the dollars we spend on foreign goods on investment in the United States.
If that investment falls, the value of the dollar to foreigners will fall. (Aside: This is in addition to the decrease in value due to a greater chance that the US dollar may experience massive inflation due to a economic collapse.) As such, it will become more and more expensive to purchase foreign goods.
Some people may cheer this, but to me it means the cost of living for every person in the United States will increase. The quality of life in the United States will fall, even without a collapse.
-
Except that they don't know how to operate a firearm.
Don't be so smug. Not all lefties are unarmed and passive. It's a dangerous habit to assume they're all granola crunching hippies.
Chris
-
Not only has America become a comparatively less safe place to invest, it has become a place where investment risk itself is now being controlled, for broader political ends, by our government. There is no way any more to invest for income, inside America, without reaching into risky territory. This heavily impacts seniors, for example; profligate government spending and Fed strictures have made what used to be a three or four per cent world into a one per cent world. The only people with reliable retirement income streams are and will be those who have government pensions, who are therefore under the government's thumb and can be counted on to back government politically. Obama's "war against risk" is a war against liberty.
-
Not only has America become a comparatively less safe place to invest, it has become a place where investment risk itself is now being controlled, for broader political ends, by our government. There is no way any more to invest for income, inside America, without reaching into risky territory.
One of these things is not like the other.
'Splayn plz.
If the government is controlling investment risk (socializing investment loss), then how is there risky territory in which to invest?
-
If you are on government assistance you are okay, if you are not you are beleaguered. Debt instruments pay next to nothing if short-term or, if longer term, face serious capital risk if rates are forced up.
Government, as I see it, is doing both: increasing risk for ordinary savers and investors and entrepreneurs while "socializing investment loss," as you put it (correctly) for the "extraordinary" (the politically-connected financial class). For the politically favored--although this is a shifting scene--there is such a thing as de facto riskless investing. Take mortgage REITs that can lever three or four to one while having Fannie and Freddie back their investments. So long as the Fed keeps interest rates artificially low, these companies are almost riskless cash cows.
-
Government, as I see it, is doing both: increasing risk for ordinary savers and investors and entrepreneurs while "socializing investment loss," as you put it (correctly) for the "extraordinary" (the politically-connected financial class).
Deserves repeating.
Many, many cases, but the GM/Chrysler "bankruptcy" that saved union benefits and screwed investors is but one.
-
Don't be so smug. Not all lefties are unarmed and passive. It's a dangerous habit to assume they're all granola crunching hippies.
Chris
Remember, these guys were leftists in the Progressive tradition:
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2Fa%2Fa2%2FFlag_of_Nazi_Germany_%25281933-1945%2529.svg%2F220px-Flag_of_Nazi_Germany_%25281933-1945%2529.svg.png&hash=27a1a8b09d41bd18ffde58033054eed17e974662)
-
I was thinking on a smaller scale, but that works as well.
Chris
-
One of these things is not like the other.
'Splayn plz.
If the government is controlling investment risk (socializing investment loss), then how is there risky territory in which to invest?
I don't think he means risk the same way in both sentences. If I may presume, I believe he is referring to the government controlling market risk in the first statement. But "risky territory" is referring to the risk of having the wealth you made in the market, seized by the government.
-
Any kind of belief that 'the welfare state is forever' is nothing but a psychological weapon for the leftists.
Why do you persist in this foolish belief?
When the people actually in this country, the people actually involved in politics on the ground level trying to roll this stuff back, the people with actual experience about which you're speaking, when we all unanimously tell you that repealing entitlements is a difficult and intractable problem, you might do well to listen and learn, rather than claim that we've all been duped by the left and that you somehow know better.
There's an awful lot more to repealing this stuff than your naive attitudes would indicate. The difficulties we've encountered over the years aren't mere trickery from the left meant to lull us into complacency. The challenges are real, they are solid, and they have been stymieing our best efforts for generations.
Show a little respect for the work we're trying to accomplish, and for all of our efforts to date. If it were just a matter of not falling for the left's tricks, we would have solved this mess long ago.
Just sayin'...
-
Where have I said anything about it being easy?
-
You've said several times, in several threads, that we shouldn't believe repeal is difficult because that's just a trick of the left.
Well, sorry pal, we don't believe repeal is difficult because we've been tricked. We believe repeal is difficult it because we have some experience in these matters and we know it to be true.
-
There's an awful lot more to repealing this stuff than your naive attitudes would indicate. The difficulties we've encountered over the years aren't mere trickery from the left meant to lull us into complacency. The challenges are real, they are solid, and they have been stymieing our best efforts for generations.
Show a little respect for the work we're trying to accomplish, and for all of our efforts to date. If it were just a matter of not falling for the left's tricks, we would have solved this mess long ago.
Ditto that!
There has NEVER been an entitlement program that has been repealed in the history of the Republic. If we somehow manage to get this repealed, it will be the first time any government "givaway" program was stopped. To say it is going to be difficult may be the understatement of all time.
-
You've said several times, in several threads, that we shouldn't believe repeal is difficult because that's just a trick of the left.
Well, sorry pal, we don't believe repeal is difficult because we've been tricked. We believe repeal is difficult it because we have some experience in these matters and we know it to be true.
No. That's not what I said. I said that we shouldn't believe repeal is impossible. I've always said it'll be difficult.
-
Do you understand that in this case there isn't much practical difference between "difficult" and "impossible"?
-
Micro:
It's not impossible.
The problem is not only is it difficult, but there's a ticking clock.
And, with the passage of this monstosity, the ticking just got faster.
The problem is that ticking clock isn't counting time until we can't repeal Obamacare. It's counting the time until the country collapses from the weight of Obamacare, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security.
As the ticking gets faster, we can't repeal just one. They ALL must be repealed.
So, now we have more work to do and less time to do it. To say the least it's very discouraging seeing as we've never repealed an entitlement.
We can't even repeal the farm subsidies for millionaires! (And $Billion companies).
-
Ditto that!
There has NEVER been an entitlement program that has been repealed in the history of the Republic. If we somehow manage to get this repealed, it will be the first time any government "givaway" program was stopped. To say it is going to be difficult may be the understatement of all time.
Dude. This is America. If we were the type of folks to be told the odds were impossible and then just gave up, we'd be Europeans.
We've built the first modern airplanes and helicopters. We've put people on the moon and dozens of robots on Mars. We have more satellites currently in orbit for people's morning commute music than most countries on the planet have total. Yes, it'll be difficult. Yes, it will seem impossible. So what? We're Americans, that's how we roll. That's how we've always rolled. If we didn't uphold our traditions, we deserve to be back-slapped by every Founding Father, every old school inventor, every old school engineer (the Apollo 13 engineers would be allowed to apply the pimp slap), etc and be shipped back to old country.
-
We might be able to do it. We might not. I never cease to be amazed at the engineering marvels the Romans produced, but even they fell eventually. All is not lost, but victory is far from certain. All we can do is try...
-
Ditto that!
There has NEVER been an entitlement program that has been repealed in the history of the Republic.
The Medicare Catastrophic Coverage Act.
It was billions upon billions of dollars in scope.
It lasted about a year, and then it was repealed.
-
Dude. This is America. If we were the type of folks to be told the odds were impossible and then just gave up, we'd be Europeans.
I never said anything about giving up.
Rep. Michele Bachmann had a tele-townhall yesterday. The general sense that I got from it was extreme disappointment but yet determination. It is just going to take some time to "lick our wounds" try to figure out a reasonable strategy to repeal it. At one point, she mentioned the old rules of how we pass laws do not seem to apply anymore. We have to figure out what the new rules are, then we can move forward.
But, I do appreciate the "pep talk". Weeks like this one, I could use a little more optimism, so thanks. [popcorn]
-
The only thing we can't repeal is the basic laws of economics. We're on a runaway train that everyone knows is heading for a bad end.
To stop the entitlement programs we've already put in place would entail "survival mode" thinking that would shock and awe our soft-hearted population. Acknowledging our actual economic state--our massive indebtedness--would be, for most Americans, beyond traumatic. We're not talking just "austerity," we're talking something much worse: actually Saying No to the fantasies of two, three generations. Getting sober in an addicted polity is going to be some bad-ass form of national rehab.
It is hard to imagine reversing the momentum without huge social upheaval. Even secession, in whatever form, would mean pulling away the checkbook on which socialism absolutely depends.
-
The only thing we can't repeal is the basic laws of economics. We're on a runaway train that everyone knows is heading for a bad end.
Worse yet, we've already passed the windmill :O
(and of course there is no bridge over the canyon)
-
Worse yet, we've already passed the windmill :O
(and of course there is no bridge over the canyon)
That's ok, I'm working on a hoverboard for my family.
I'll still try to stop the train, though.
-
Worse yet, we've already passed the windmill :O
(and of course there is no bridge over the canyon)
You're not thinking 4th-dimensionally!
-
Worse yet, we've already passed the windmill :O
(and of course there is no bridge over the canyon)
Wow, I didn't realize how apt that analogy is.
One main difference. Doc brown KNEW that if they got up to 88 miles an hour, they wouldn't go crashing into the ravine. He knew this because he'd done it before.
Those who are driving our train (country) over a cliff are SURE if we get up enough speed, we won't crash. The problem is there's 90 other wrecked trains down there, but they're sure ours won't be one of them. :facepalm:
-
Wow, I didn't realize how apt that analogy is.
One main difference. Doc brown KNEW that if they got up to 88 miles an hour, they wouldn't go crashing into the ravine. He knew this because he'd done it before.
Those who are driving our train (country) over a cliff are SURE if we get up enough speed, we won't crash. The problem is there's 90 other wrecked trains down there, but they're sure ours won't be one of them. :facepalm:
Well, du-uh. Those other 90 trains didn't have the right people driving them. Nancy, Harry and the Pres know how to do it right!
jb
-
Any kind of belief that 'the welfare state is forever' is nothing but a psychological weapon for the leftists.
The leftists fear nothing more than an up-or-down discussion on whether you need or want an American welfare state. Oh, they hold all the cards – the media, the government, the academia – but still they are afraid, down in the core of their souls, that they will lose. It is thus why they deride abolition as impossible, and abolitionists as crazy: because they fear nothing more than to have the abolitionists grow strong enough to give them an open fight.
They want to go back to the pre-Goldwater years, where there was no serious anti-Welfare-State thought in the American mainstream, so they're safe and secure forever and nobody ever challenges them. They want a universe in which they won in the 1930's, establishing their revolution, and they will now control the landscape forevermore.
The idea that the system is forever, or that it can't be abolished without catastrophic social disruption, is a Leftist weapon. It functions in the same way, and for the same purpose, as military leaflets dropped behind enemy lines, extolling your own forces as invincible and the enemy's cause as hopeless.
When an individual accepts that he will live and die unfree, there, upon the battlefield that is that one person's mind, the Socialists win.
The problem is, there is no will among the majority of the population for any kind of socialism abolishment movement. Here at APS some posters realize what it would actually mean to go back to a government that had powers similar to what was originally given to the Fed. Most people do not, even the conservatives. They will be right with you on abolishing the new socialist evil of the day, but you will lose them as soon as they realize the loss of a ‘welfare’ state means. America has been involved in Federal socialist programs for too much of its history to go back now. Most people, even conservatives, have grown used to the trappings of a modern semi-socialist state.
Honestly, at this point I think the ‘true’ libertarian cause is dead, it is simply more work than most Americans are willing to try. The only thing I can think that would work is a demonstration of what it actually looks like in practice, and attempt to show that it really is a good political philosophy. But I don’t see that happening either…things like the Free State Project never seem to go anywhere. I wish you could collectively get an island somewhere and show everyone how the system works in practice.
Otherwise I think your best bet is to either work for fiscal conservativism within the current system, emigrate (I don’t know where), or wait for the predicted economic collapse and try to step in then. Although you’ll still be hampered by the lack of a track record.
If Freehold were real, I would love to live there. But it isn’t. http://www.amazon.com/Freehold-Michael-Z-Williamson/dp/0743471792/ref=pd_bxgy_b_img_a