Let's Screw The Homeowner (For A Change!)...

NPeteN said:
Spoken like a true citizen of the first world.

Capitalism merely exported the slave labor, the wars etc...
Click to expand...

I don’t argue. But what did unchecked Socialism achieve? Between them, Mao and Stalin killed more people in the 20th century that anything else (perhaps more than everything else combined ?).

I don’t recall seeing any third world countries ‘saved’ by communist / socialist regimes. Please correct me if I’m wrong. I do see Russian involvement in Syria, and Chinese buying up agriculture and mineral lands in Africa, but none have any socialist motive.

I know that is not the socialism you have in mind, hence the phrase ‘unchecked socialism’... and hence my belief that a centralist capitalist system (ie, left of what we currently see in several countries) is the least bad system we’ve got. Currently.

People have idealised a socialist paradise ever since Platos ‘Republic’... unfortunately humans can’t seem to make it work, or at least have failed to do so in the last 2,000 years...
 
Fast Eddie said:
I don’t argue. But what did unchecked Socialism achieve? Between them, Mao and Stalin killed more people in the 20th century that anything else (perhaps more than everything else combined ?).

I don’t recall seeing any third world countries ‘saved’ by communist / socialist regimes. Please correct me if I’m wrong. I do see Russian involvement in Syria, and Chinese buying up agriculture and mineral lands in Africa, but none have any socialist motive.

I know that is not the socialism you have in mind, hence the phrase ‘unchecked socialism’... and hence my belief that a centralist capitalist system (ie, left of what we currently see in several countries) is the least bad system we’ve got. Currently.

People have idealised a socialist paradise ever since Platos ‘Republic’... unfortunately humans can’t seem to make it work, or at least have failed to do so in the last 2,000 years...
Click to expand...

Agreed.
But we must keep trying Nigel, ha!

Perhaps the theorists and political thinkers should fuck off and just let people do what people do?
 
hmmm,

We failed to succeed in the last 2,300 years or more.

Whilst I agree we should never say never, I would like us to approach any such massive experiments, that have proven to have unimaginably huge consequences, with a degree of analysis on why it’s not worked in the past, what’s gone wrong in the past, and what going to be done differently in future.

Unfortunately, this is very, very, lacking. Most just seem to want to go left, irrespective of the consequences, because they are anti right.

I fear we both live in idealistic dream worlds, somewhat different worlds, but both equally unrealistic as well as idealistic !

Let me know if I can get a day ticket to your world sometime... just make sure it’s a return... ;)
 
TomU said:
Yes, need to cut social security and medicare and subsidies to farmers and...
Click to expand...
No, I didn't say that. (although SOME of those programs are ABSURDLY mis-handled, raped, and mangled, in whole or in part)

Certainly I have NO issue with SS. I paid in for ALMOST 40 years, and am FINALLY getting a SMALL PORTION of it back. It could NEVER return what I paid in, never mind INTEREST, even if I live to be 120.

Of the three general areas you mentioned, SS is the only LEGITIMATE, Constitutionally-supported one of the three...
 
grandpaul said:
No, I didn't say that. (although SOME of those programs are ABSURDLY mis-handled, raped, and mangled, in whole or in part)

Certainly I have NO issue with SS. I paid in for ALMOST 40 years, and am FINALLY getting a SMALL PORTION of it back. It could NEVER return what I paid in, never mind INTEREST, even if I live to be 120.

Of the three general areas you mentioned, SS is the only LEGITIMATE, Constitutionally-supported one of the three...
Click to expand...

Ok, so you've eliminated roughly 10% of discretionary spending by cutting funding for those programs that directly benefit American citizens.

Do we then add that 10 to the 60% we spend on our constitutionally-supported right to bomb the shit out of the middle east or what? You know it's not staying in the hand of the tax payer.

This is just a general question, not aimed as a rebuttal.
 
grandpaul said:
No, I didn't say that. (although SOME of those programs are ABSURDLY mis-handled, raped, and mangled, in whole or in part)
Click to expand...

Agree with you there ;)

grandpaul said:
Of the three general areas you mentioned, SS is the only LEGITIMATE, Constitutionally-supported one of the three...
Click to expand...

Not sure SS is a constitutionally supported program. Believe it was one of the new deal initiatives (which really expanded the scope of the Gov)

Don't believe folks truly understand where their taxpayer $s go. Roughly half (in the US) is non-discretionary (i.e. Medicare/SS), which means it's not legislated/appropriated by Congress. Half of the other half is Defense. And the remainder is everything else (FAA/DOT/Ag/HHS/etc).

www.nationalpriorities.org

Federal Spending: Where Does the Money Go

In fiscal year 2014, the federal government will spend around $3.8 trillion. These trillions of dollars make up a considerable chunk - around 22 percent - of the US. economy, as measured by Gross Domestic Product (GDP). That means that federal government spending makes up a sizable share of all...
www.nationalpriorities.org www.nationalpriorities.org

Also, think when people complain about the "Gov", they are aren't complaining about their local elected officials. It's everyone else that's the problem

taxfoundation.org

Which States Rely the Most on Federal Aid?

State taxes aren't the only source of state revenue. How much does your state rely on federal aid? How does state federal aid reliance compare nationally?
taxfoundation.org taxfoundation.org

Don't get me wrong, i'm not defending the government, just trying to put things in perspective
 
TomU said:
Not sure SS is a constitutionally supported program. Believe it was one of the new deal initiatives (which really expanded the scope of the Gov)
Click to expand...
That's true, HOWEVER, the pay-outs to people who PAID IN, are proper ENTITLEMENTS (payees are entitled, by paying in), although lacking in value. Most other nonsense the gov't spends on are not true ENTITLEMENTS, but HANDOUTS, and often to NON-CITIZENS (I should know, I lived on the Mexico border for 61-1/2 years)
 
NPeteN said:
Do we then add that ######### we spend on our constitutionally-supported right to bomb the shit out of the middle east or what? You know it's not staying in the hand of the tax payer.
Click to expand...
Since the day I signed up to join the Navy (1975), I have been dead-set against EVERY war the US has undertaken. Some years later I learned the basic constitutional scope of the military and was floored. Since THAT time, I have been not only against foreign wars, but support of other countries engaged in wars that do NOT threaten the US directly, or have a significant impact on our international interests as TAXPAYERS (I'm not talking about commercial entanglements with enemies, quasi-enemies, proxies, and 3rd world mercenary nations, those have NO business with individual taxpayer funding of military protection).

I say we pull ALL U.S. troops from ALL foreign countries, and place them on our southern border to STOP the intrusions of human traffic, drugs, counterfeit goods, and all manner of Illegal activity. Then, rotate them regularly all round the country's various border points, prepared to take on any threat at any time ON OUR OWN SHORES. Let the other countries realize EXACTLY how much we have been benefiting them, so they'll crawl back with CASH IN HAND to fund selective protection projects, so the taxpayers don't have to.
 
Last edited:
TomU said:
Also, think when people complain about the "Gov", they are aren't complaining about their local elected officials. It's everyone else that's the problem

taxfoundation.org

Which States Rely the Most on Federal Aid?

State taxes aren't the only source of state revenue. How much does your state rely on federal aid? How does state federal aid reliance compare nationally?
taxfoundation.org taxfoundation.org
Click to expand...

Texas shows up OK on that comparo, we only get back what we put in, more or less...
 
grandpaul said:
Since the day I signed up to join the Navy (1975), I have been dead-set against EVERY war the US has undertaken. Some years later I learned the basic constitutional scope of the military and was floored. Since THAT time, I have been not only against foreign wars, but support of other countries engaged in wars that do NOT threaten the US directly, or have a significant impact on our international interests as TAXPAYERS (I'm not talking about commercial entanglements with enemies, quasi-enemies, proxies, and 3rd world mercenary nations, those have NO business with individual taxpayer funding of military protection).

I say we pull ALL U.S. troops from ALL foreign countries, and place them on our southern border to STOP the intrusions of human traffic, drugs, counterfeit goods, and all manner of Illegal activity. Then, rotate them regularly all round the countries various border points, prepared to take on any threat at any time ON OUR OWN SHORES. Let the other countries realize EXACTLY how much we have been benefiting them, so they'll crawl back with CASH IN HAND to fund selective protection projects, so the taxpayers don't have to.
Click to expand...

Interesting take, and I certainly respect your opinion given your proximity to the geography.
 
grandpaul said:
Since the day I signed up to join the Navy (1975), I have been dead-set against EVERY war the US has undertaken. Some years later I learned the basic constitutional scope of the military and was floored. Since THAT time, I have been not only against foreign wars, but support of other countries engaged in wars that do NOT threaten the US directly, or have a significant impact on our international interests as TAXPAYERS (I'm not talking about commercial entanglements with enemies, quasi-enemies, proxies, and 3rd world mercenary nations, those have NO business with individual taxpayer funding of military protection).

I say we pull ALL U.S. troops from ALL foreign countries, and place them on our southern border to STOP the intrusions of human traffic, drugs, counterfeit goods, and all manner of Illegal activity. Then, rotate them regularly all round the countries various border points, prepared to take on any threat at any time ON OUR OWN SHORES. Let the other countries realize EXACTLY how much we have been benefiting them, so they'll crawl back with CASH IN HAND to fund selective protection projects, so the taxpayers don't have to.
Click to expand...

And it does not matter if our representatives in Washington have D's or R's after their names, they all support these foreign adventures because they are money pies they can get their fingers into... as do our top military staff, for a general is not likely to get another star on his collar unless there is a war.

That is why I supported Ron Paul who said " bring the troops home" . Paul has been the only statesman of my lifetime. Ross Perot could have been, but was denied.

Slick
 
Last edited:
Back
Top