American Politics

[Duke87 1,070]

Anyway, how do the members feel about the new Kansas welfare rules?

 

For one, it's penny wise and pound foolish. Maybe you can kick a few people off welfare if you find them breaking the rules, but surely the cost of enforcement is going to outstrip any savings, so in the end it doesn't actually save taxpayers any money. Remember that debacle where Florida decided they needed to drug test all welfare recipients saying it would save money by getting drug addicts off the dole, and then it ended up costing them more money to drug test everyone in the program than they actually saved by kicking a few people out of it? Yeah. That's a shining example of why this nonsense is ridiculous.

 

It's also exceptionally judgmental for no good reason. Someone receiving food stamps spent $10 on a ticket to a local concert. Okay, so what? It's their money, they can do what they want with it. And for all we know that person has skills as a roadie or stage crew member and might walk away from that concert with a new job. If so, such a rule helps prevent them from getting off of welfare.

 

Furthermore, everyone at all income levels receives various forms of government subsidy, but others are not subject to the same scrutiny. Offering a tax deduction for mortgage interest costs the government lots of money too, but no one is proposing regulations that anyone taking advantage of it be drug tested or jump through any other silly hoops in order to do so. It's a blatant double standard. Why is it acceptable to put a magnifying lens to poor people who receive subsidies, but not to everyone else?

[LexusInfernus 908]

Inflation is out of control because things are getting more expensive, a single unit of currency is buying less and to get the things they want people are becoming more indebted. It is not hyperinflation but the squeeze is there and the noose is tightening. An economy that relies on always increasing house prices, stock prices, consumption and more credit is not stable. In the past periods of deflation were normal. Deflation is not this doomsday thing, just look at Japan.

First, deflation is exactly why the Japanese economy is in shambles. Its not doing well at all, its been in a slump since the 90's. While deflation might sound great because it means your money is worth more, it also means no one is spending money. Prices are reduced in order to get people to buy. Great for the consumer right? Well no because it also eats into profits of businesses to the point that you simply make no more profit at all, because you can only break even due to the low prices. Deflation is generally terrible for a consumer economy. 

 

Inflation, while it means that technically your money is worth less, is not such a problem as long as wages are increased in order to compensate for this. In the past this happened all the time. Inflation was 2%? Well that meant you got a 2% raise. Stuff costs more but you also had more money, so it didnt matter. Inflation becomes a problem when for various reasons, wages don't increase and therefor do not offset the increase in price. But aiming for deflation is not a solution to that problem. Inflation also means that your economy is expanding. It means there is more money in your economy. It means economic growth. 

 

And for the record, inflation is generally the way to go, as long as it doesn't exceed a certain percentage (I think that economist start to worry if it starts to go above 3%). Thats what central banks are for though, their primary function is to keep inflation under control. 

 

 

A government should be like a central bank in that it can't go bankrupt and it controls the entire monetary supply via a government-controlled central bank. Also commercial banks do print money pretty willy-nilly, it's called subprime and the housing bubble. Banks are far more volatile than governments and now, the big ones, use governments to write off losses. The 2008/2009 financial crisis shows that banks are highly reckless and even more so now because they have been bailed out.

 

Central banks are now above the law, they run the country because they are owned by the large private banks. Right now banks are in the process of hoarding all the world's assets. Depositors are punished, saving is looked down upon while risky behaviour is approved of. In Europe things are getting truly weird. A few banks are now charging a negative interest rate for loans, the negative interest rate pays off the principal amount meaning that you will make money after paying off a loan! Even Japan, financially messed up Japan, is not as messed up as that!

 

Commercial banks do not print money. They can't, its illegal. The subprime housing bubble was not the result of banks printing money, it was that they gave loans to people who couldnt afford those loans (and the banks knew that, bundled those loans in financial packages, insured them, sold them and then bet against them, collecting the insurance money. Basically it was the financial equivalent of insuring your house and then burning it down so you get insurance money). Are banks more volatile than governments? Well, banks are reckless. But if you think back the last time a government had direct control over the money printers, that didn't work out that well either. Weimar Germany who found that an easy way to get out of the war debts to France and the UK was to just turn on the money presses, resulting in hyperinflation back in the 20's. Or before that, under Catherine the Great in Russia, who also thought that they invented free money by turning on the money presses, resulting again in hyperinflation. 

 

Central banks are not above the law. They have a very strict mandate and a very strict range of financial instruments that they can use to fulfill that mandate. They can't just do whatever they like. 

 

The negative interest in Europe is the result of the extremely low interest the European Central Bank is offering in an effort to get banks to loan more money and get the Eurozone economy to fire up again. I think its a dumb idea, but this is what Europe wants, more economic growth, and for that they need people to spend. 

 

Governments would not be in so much debt if they had never promised so much. Pensions that beat inflation? Well where is that money going to come from? There is not enough money to go around, that's why pension programs are being scaled back in an effort to reduce unfunded liabilities mounting to the tens of trillions of dollars in the USA. Meanwhile more government debt is added, taxes are increased, more money is created and more inflation arises. I'm 23 but I don't expect to collect a substantial pension when I retire, or even there being no pension to collect at all the way things are going. Entitlements are exacerbating the trend towards bankruptcy. 

Pension funds beat inflation normally by investing the money they have and aim to have the interest they get on those investment to be higher than the rate of inflation itself. Say you invest in some company by investing in their stock, and that company does well and the stock price goes up by 4%, while inflation is 2% you beat inflation. The reason why certain pension funds are scaling back is because of the ridiculously low interest rate of banks. Pension funds can't spend all their money on investment, they need to keep a certain amount on the banks, where they basically get the interest rate the banks charge. That interest rate is ridiculously low at the moment, well below the inflation rate, hence they lose money. The money they have to keep on the bank becomes worth less every year. 

 

Now, if a frugal government creates all the money the system needs without imposing interest, it can use the central bank to build capital reserves to be issued to private banks, who will use that capital to issue credit. Currency devaluation is inevitable since debts have to be repaid and the international standing of a currency will be knocked. Eventually though the value, in other currencies/commodities, will stabilise as the value of this currency is based on the productivity of the people, the countries resources and the government's frugality. Failure in any one of the three will result in runaway inflation.

 

Abraham Lincoln and his government imposed this system to both fund the Union Government and pay back debts. Without this the Union Government would have wound up bankrupt as the banks at the time were willing to loan money at extortionate rates: 30 to 40%. For two years (1862-1864) the USN (United States Note) plummeted in their nominal value in gold. Then when it become very obvious that the Unionists were going to win, the USN rapidly gained in value, in gold, despite more units of currency in circulation. I don't know the full technical details, but what I do know is that the Union Government created currency for use in the economy and for paying debts.

 

A few comments here. First, currency devaluation is inflation. You argue that in order to combat inflation, we first need a system that results in hyperinflation (keep in mind, the debts that need to be paid goes up in the billions if not trillions. If you print all that money, hyperinflation will be instant). Not to mention what this will do to the financial system, when you essentially pay debt with toilet paper. I very much doubt that all your debtors will like that, or even survive it. You might as well say that we should just erase everyones debt and start anew. Second, essentially right now its the central bank that creates money reserves, sends it to banks who will then issue the credit. The only difference with what you suggest is that you put the money creating power in the hands of the people who are wholly incompetent to have that kind of power. 

 

Third, the system of Abraham Lincoln didn't really lead to a stable economy. Yeah, he paid of his debts with it, but the financial system was filled with panics and scares. Which is why they went with a central bank back in the early 20th century. Also mind you that this system, combined with good governance resulted in America's golden age. The system only became unstable when idiots like Reagan (and in the UK Thatcher) started the trend towards deregulation. Thats the real problem, not this inflation monster. 

 

 

 

Uhm, Hillary Clinton is actually, literally, evil. She has lots and lots of skeletons in her closet. Check out Hillary Clinton Exposed. I know it is a partisan documentary and you should take some of the things they say with a grain of salt, but there are kernels of truth in there. Also check out The Mena Connection which exposes how Bill Clinton was involved with Iran Contra. The Clintons are literally more hardcore corrupt than the Underwoods in House of Cards (the Bushes are also, but we're talking about Clinton right now).

 

Also, please show me some of the "tyrannical" things any of the Tea Party presidential candidates have said.

 

Sorry, but those sources are far to unreliable. The first one is just an attack ad from the Republicans, with almost every talking head being associated with Conservative media outlets (Ann Coulter, really?) or Conservative think tanks. Even if they talk about real problems, they have been ripped from their context and twisted and magnified and turned into far bigger 'scandals' than they really are. 

The second video is not much better. The Iran contra scandal was done by Reagan, and this 'documentary' is just doing its hardest to somehow link it to Clinton and pretend it was all his fault. Not to mention the channel it was posted on talks about 'lamestream media' and that they are propaganda for the New World Order. And please, lets not act like the Clintons murdered their way into the White House. 

 

This contains some nice examples of Tea Party members calling for rather tyrannical things. I mean, calling for an armed revolution because the guy you don't like won the elections in a fair and democratic manner is pretty tyrannical if you ask me. So is calling for violence if a democratically elected congress doesn't do what you want them to do. 

[MilitantRadical 2,844]

 

Sorry, but those sources are far to unreliable. The first one is just an attack ad from the Republicans, with almost every talking head being associated with Conservative media outlets (Ann Coulter, really?) or Conservative think tanks. Even if they talk about real problems, they have been ripped from their context and twisted and magnified and turned into far bigger 'scandals' than they really are. 

The second video is not much better. The Iran contra scandal was done by Reagan, and this 'documentary' is just doing its hardest to somehow link it to Clinton and pretend it was all his fault. Not to mention the channel it was posted on talks about 'lamestream media' and that they are propaganda for the New World Order. And please, lets not act like the Clintons murdered their way into the White House. 

 

Classic guilt by association ad-hominem. Have a bit more of an open mind. I agree that it is a Republican attack film, but it doesn't invalidate all the things they are saying. Just because Ann Coulter says something doesn't mean it is not true, but yes, one should be skeptical.

 

The Iran Contra scandal happened during the Reagan administration, it wasn't done only by Reagan. There were lots of people involved. They never claim it was all Clinton's doing, only that he, along with Bush Sr. and Reagan administration officials were involved.

 

So what if the channel it was posted on talks about 'lamestream media' and the New World Order? Is the mainstream media not lame? MSNBC, Fox News, and CNN, are all just different heads of the corporate hydra. Also, "The New World Order" is a political concept you know? A lot of politicians talk openly about "The New World Order" (emphasis on "the" in "The New World Order" because it is different than "a new world order"). Heck it is written on the dollar bill (where's my tinfoil hat right?).

 

Did the Clintons murder anybody or have people murdered? I don't know for sure. Personally I think they did, same as I think Bush Sr. was involved in the JFK assassination, but those are just my personal ruminations so take it as you will.

 

 

 

This contains some nice examples of Tea Party members calling for rather tyrannical things. I mean, calling for an armed revolution because the guy you don't like won the elections in a fair and democratic manner is pretty tyrannical if you ask me. So is calling for violence if a democratically elected congress doesn't do what you want them to do. 

 

This? Really? Come on. Just replace "teabagger" with "poopyfaces" and you'll realize how slanted this article is.

 

Check the definition of tyranny and tyrannical again. The Tea Party members are simply using revolutionary rhetoric. The writer of this article is taking Palin and Bachmann, whom I despise, out of context - or at least they are changing the context. Palin and Bachmann are just using the nomenclature of "patriot culture" as metaphors. Neither Palin, Bachmann, Angle, or McConnel, who are quoted in the article, are calling for armed revolution.

 

They also take Sharon Angle's "second amendment remedies" quote way out of context. They make it seem like she's calling for people to violently overthrow the government. Here is what she actually said: "You know, our Founding Fathers, they put that Second Amendment in there for a good reason and that was for the people to protect themselves against a tyrannical government. In fact Thomas Jefferson said it's good for a country to have a revolution every 20 years. I hope that's not where we're going, but, you know, if this Congress keeps going the way it is, people are really looking toward those Second Amendment remedies." (I can't find the full quote because the source from the wikipedia article is down.)

 

She's not telling people to go out and have an armed revolution, she's just making an observation. She doesn't say that the second amendment should be used as an offensive tool. She says it is defensive.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Ah yes, "The New World Order".  A catch phrase first bandied about by one A. Hitler, I believe.  I don't think this phrase can be used lightly in any political discussion for at least another three or four decades.

[BLANKBLANK 4,414]

Commercial banks do not print money. They can't, its illegal.

 

Then where does all the money come from? How can GDP, in a nominal sense, increase if there is not additional money created in the system? Banks don't have enough capital and deposits to both loan out at the rate they are and hold assets far greater than the capital+deposits combined. Central banks like the Fed and the BOE delegate the vast bulk of money creation to commercial banks- that's called the fractional reserve banking system. Sometimes central banks take a more active role with programs like QE or even just outright money creation. Central banks do create a small fraction of new money created; physical money- notes and coins.

 

Now when banks issue loans they do not use capital or deposits (from the customers), they create the money out of thin air. Whenever one deposits money at a bank, that money is immediately invested by the bank. Banks do not keep deposit money "safe", they use it as leverage as part of the fractional reserve banking system to invest in other assets: bonds, stocks, derivatives and so forth. When one withdraws a deposit the banks sell off assets to raise capital to meet the deposit value.

 

People can't create print money, but central banks and commercial banks can. Whenever banks issue a loan or a mortgage, they offset the money they created with a liability- it is a kind of negative money if you will, or negative value. All liabilities must be paid off with capital eventually. That's why the money supply shrinks in a recession. People and businesses stump up capital, from collateral, to pay down debt- liabilities. If the liabilities are paid off at a greater rate than the money being created, then the money supply shrinks. If everyone somehow paid off all of their debts there would be barely any money left- except for the fiat notes and coinage which central banks create. It is unbelievable but coins, or change, are the only type of money not created at interest. Lastly only a small fraction of money held by commercial banks was originally loaned by central banks. The whole process of money multiplication is a rather complicated series of exchanges, deposits held and money loaned out.

 

Still, how else can the money supply shrink? Even money held in assets is still in the system despite it contributing to a lower. Now GDP will decrease if the money velocity drops- it implies less transactions, but not the money supply. Decreasing GDP and a decreasing money supply are two different things. Ultimately to increase GDP there needs to be more debt.

 

If you don't believe me read it on wiki instead.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money_creation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional-reserve_banking#Money_creation_process

 

The creation of money, and what money is, truly is a weird and counter-intuitive process! If politicians do not understand this system, or even fully know about its features, then how will the issue of ever increasing government debt be resolved?

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Money is not that paper stuff you carry around in your wallet.  Money is one hundred percent fiction and it is created, in Canada at least, by the Schedule A banks who are constrained not to create more than a certain maximum percentage of their paid-in capital.

 

This is how money is created.

 

When a loan is approved for a client, the client can ask for a draw on the credit in whole or in part.  The bank responds by making a simple double-entry on its books:

 

Debit loan account (an asset)

Credit the customer's account (a liability).

 

Simple isn't it?

 

Do not confuse the idea of "printing money" because that is fiction.  Printing bank notes is another story.  Bank notes are usually printed by a mint under government control, and a paper currency note these days is simply a bond on the treasury of the issuing government.  The government gets the money to cover the printed notes by selling bonds (debts) or raising taxes.  Before everyone went off the gold standard a currency note could be redeemed at any bank in specie.  Specie is gold, silver, platinum, other metals or jewels (usually diamonds) which have a fixed value.

 

People who blither on about governments printing money have no idea how the monetary system works.  The world has agreed to have faith in "money", which is simply a means for making payments.  If a government prints more currency notes than it can redeem, it causes the currency to be devalued.  This is the usual effect of "printing money".  If we didn't have "money" payments would be made in specie.

 

If you are still in school, you might check to see if your institution offers a course that might be titled "Money and Banking".  You'd find it enlightening.

 

This all started in the 14th century when banking houses such as Rothschild which had offices in many cities, gave paper letters of payment which would be honoured at any of their establishments by conversion into gold.  It saved shipping gold all over the continent and also helped to prevent highway robbery because people no longer carried specie, only redeemable pieces of paper.  If things got out of balance, there would be gold shipments between the individual offices which was done in great secrecy with very high security.

[LexusInfernus 908]

Classic guilt by association ad-hominem. Have a bit more of an open mind. I agree that it is a Republican attack film, but it doesn't invalidate all the things they are saying. Just because Ann Coulter says something doesn't mean it is not true, but yes, one should be skeptical.

 

The Iran Contra scandal happened during the Reagan administration, it wasn't done only by Reagan. There were lots of people involved. They never claim it was all Clinton's doing, only that he, along with Bush Sr. and Reagan administration officials were involved.

 

So what if the channel it was posted on talks about 'lamestream media' and the New World Order? Is the mainstream media not lame? MSNBC, Fox News, and CNN, are all just different heads of the corporate hydra. Also, "The New World Order" is a political concept you know? A lot of politicians talk openly about "The New World Order" (emphasis on "the" in "The New World Order" because it is different than "a new world order"). Heck it is written on the dollar bill (where's my tinfoil hat right?).

 

Did the Clintons murder anybody or have people murdered? I don't know for sure. Personally I think they did, same as I think Bush Sr. was involved in the JFK assassination, but those are just my personal ruminations so take it as you will.

I'm sorry, but given the things Ann Coulter has claimed over the years, there is just no way for me to take anything she says seriously. I mean, we are talking about a women who argued that America should just invade the Middle East and convert everyone to Christianity. And who said that not every Muslim is a terrorist but every terrorist is a Muslim. If they (conservatives) want me to take their complaints about Clinton seriously, they should have come up with people who aren't so obviously biased against Clinton from the get go. Its very clear that this video was not meant for my consumption, but rather to reinforce the views of conservatives that they should never trust Clinton. 

 

And no, the New World Order is not really a concept in politics. Certainly not in the way its used by people who also refer to the media as lamestream media. 

 

House of Cards is an overly cynical fictional portrayal of the system. In reality, politicians wont get away with murdering journalists and congressmen. I mean, they can't even get away with sending dickpics or playing poker on their phone when attending congress.  

 

This? Really? Come on. Just replace "teabagger" with "poopyfaces" and you'll realize how slanted this article is.

 

Check the definition of tyranny and tyrannical again. The Tea Party members are simply using revolutionary rhetoric. The writer of this article is taking Palin and Bachmann, whom I despise, out of context - or at least they are changing the context. Palin and Bachmann are just using the nomenclature of "patriot culture" as metaphors. Neither Palin, Bachmann, Angle, or McConnel, who are quoted in the article, are calling for armed revolution.

 

They also take Sharon Angle's "second amendment remedies" quote way out of context. They make it seem like she's calling for people to violently overthrow the government. Here is what she actually said: "You know, our Founding Fathers, they put that Second Amendment in there for a good reason and that was for the people to protect themselves against a tyrannical government. In fact Thomas Jefferson said it's good for a country to have a revolution every 20 years. I hope that's not where we're going, but, you know, if this Congress keeps going the way it is, people are really looking toward those Second Amendment remedies." (I can't find the full quote because the source from the wikipedia article is down.)

 

She's not telling people to go out and have an armed revolution, she's just making an observation. She doesn't say that the second amendment should be used as an offensive tool. She says it is defensive.

 

You would have a point if Teabagger wasn't a name Tea Party members used to describe themselves. On top of that, its irrelevant, because it doesn't make those quotes any less real. 

 

And sure, its 'revolutionary rhetoric'. But they are using it against a democratically elected government. A government elected by the majority of the people. If you plan to start a revolution against that, you are planning a revolution against the will of the majority, with the express aim of imposing your view, which is only shared by a minority. And that is tyranny. 

 

In context that quote still isn't any better. Congress is still a democratically elected body of government, calling for a violent overthrow of Congress is still calling for a violent overthrow of a democratically elected government in favor of a group that clearly doesn't have the majority behind it. And the way she put it, her style of 'defensive' is still to have a violent offense. She claims the government is tyrannical and therefor it should be overthrown by force. Its tyrannical in her eyes because the majority of people didn't vote for her side and therefor she can't get what she wants. So declare your democratically elected opponents tyrants (which by itself is a tactic used by tyrants, pretend that the country is under attack by tyrants or would be tyrants, create the idea that opponents are enemies instead of fellow countrymen with different political views) and use force against them. 

 

And patriot culture? Really, its patriotic in the eyes of the Tea Party to pretend that differing political views are 'unpatriotic'. That only suggests that people like Palin or Bachmann fundamentally do not understand the concept of freedom. 

 

Then where does all the money come from? How can GDP, in a nominal sense, increase if there is not additional money created in the system? Banks don't have enough capital and deposits to both loan out at the rate they are and hold assets far greater than the capital+deposits combined. Central banks like the Fed and the BOE delegate the vast bulk of money creation to commercial banks- that's called the fractional reserve banking system. Sometimes central banks take a more active role with programs like QE or even just outright money creation. Central banks do create a small fraction of new money created; physical money- notes and coins.

 

Now when banks issue loans they do not use capital or deposits (from the customers), they create the money out of thin air. Whenever one deposits money at a bank, that money is immediately invested by the bank. Banks do not keep deposit money "safe", they use it as leverage as part of the fractional reserve banking system to invest in other assets: bonds, stocks, derivatives and so forth. When one withdraws a deposit the banks sell off assets to raise capital to meet the deposit value.

So how do we create money. Well yeah, youre right, its called Fractional Reserve Banking, but I think you don't fully understand what it is. No, under fractional reserve banking banks do not create money out of thin air, they do actually use money from customers. The name 'Fractional Reserve Banking' kinda gives a hint of how it works. The trick is that banks don't need to have the same amount of physical money as what they are spending. So what happens is that customer A gets a loan of say a 100 dollars from a bank. Customer A gets that amount of money placed on his bank account. That bank however, only needs to have about 20 dollar in its safe. Which means that from the 100 dollar it gets, it can spend 80 dollars on another loan for customer B. Mind you, its not that customer A loses 80 dollars, he still has 100 dollars on his bank account. But now customer B has 80 dollars on his bank account. There is now 180 dollar floating around in the system. Now the bank can do the same with customer B as it did with customer A, because it only needs to have a fraction (hence the name fractional reserve banking) of what it owes its customers in reserve. This is why bank runs are a problem. In a system where a bank needs to have every dollar that a customer has in his bank account also in its reserve, a bankrun is no problem because by the time the bank has run out of money every customer has their money. The money of the customer is safe. In a fractional reserve banking system, every customer can at best get a certain percentage of their bank account transformed in physical money before the bank runs out of money. Or only the fist this many customers can withdraw all their money before the bank runs empty. 

 

In any case, bank runs are relatively rare, so its relatively safe for a bank to only have a fraction of the money it owes to customers in reserve. The chance that everyone wants all their money all at once is very rare. 

 

In any case, banks dont create actual money out of thin air, what they do is recycle money over and over and give it to a lot of different customers who under normal circumstances won't even notice it. 

 

 

People can't create print money, but central banks and commercial banks can. Whenever banks issue a loan or a mortgage, they offset the money they created with a liability- it is a kind of negative money if you will, or negative value. All liabilities must be paid off with capital eventually. That's why the money supply shrinks in a recession. People and businesses stump up capital, from collateral, to pay down debt- liabilities. If the liabilities are paid off at a greater rate than the money being created, then the money supply shrinks. If everyone somehow paid off all of their debts there would be barely any money left- except for the fiat notes and coinage which central banks create. It is unbelievable but coins, or change, are the only type of money not created at interest. Lastly only a small fraction of money held by commercial banks was originally loaned by central banks. The whole process of money multiplication is a rather complicated series of exchanges, deposits held and money loaned out.

 

Still, how else can the money supply shrink? Even money held in assets is still in the system despite it contributing to a lower. Now GDP will decrease if the money velocity drops- it implies less transactions, but not the money supply. Decreasing GDP and a decreasing money supply are two different things. Ultimately to increase GDP there needs to be more debt.

 

If you don't believe me read it on wiki instead.

 

No, only central banks can create print money, normal commercial banks cannot. Its illegal for them to do so. The money they create only exists in accounting books. But in practical term, its an illusion we all believe in, and therefor doesn't collapse. We trust the system, thats why we don't all run to the bank to get our money. But should we do that, then we would find that we aren't as rich as we pretended to be. There isn't enough print money to back the money we supposedly have on the books. 

 

And while you might rightly say that this is a delusion and therefor we shouldn't be perpetrating it, do keep in mind that fractional reserve banking does allow the economy to expand significantly. If all money is backed by print money, then getting more money means inflation and it would be impossible to earn more money than the rate of inflation. If the money supply is fixed, and therefor finite, the economy becomes a zero sum game. If you earn more, it means someone somewhere else has to earn less. If one company earns more profits, it means other companies have to earn less profits. Economic growth would be impossible. Worse even would be the fact that global trade would also become impossible. We would fall back to the good old days of the 16th and 17th century where the prevailing idea was that international trade was indeed a zero sum game, because money was directly fixed to gold. If you imported more than you exported, it meant you had less gold at the end of it. If money is finite, exporting more is good because it means there is more money in your economy while importing more is bad because it means you are losing money. At some point this means you run out of money. No money means no economy, means everyone is poor, which is a prime vector for international conflicts.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

That may or may not be true depending on the structure of the banking system.  See my earlier article in this thread on how money is created by the major banks in Canada.

 

It doesn't take an act of the Bank of Canada to make money appear out of thin air.  All you need is a good set of laws, for example: The Bank of Canada Act and the Currency, Mint and Exchange Fund Act.

[Ocram's Razr 964]

Instead of taking away welfare from those who try to use it for luxuries, why not make it so that only necessities can be purchased with such money? Food stamps could easily become like electronic coupons that can be used to purchase food but nothing else and have "no cash value," therefore making it impossible to abuse (unless food is used to barter for luxuries but the inconvenience would stop that). If people complain about that, add subsidized housing into the mix, and anyone who wants more versatile money should no longer have the right to complain (and maybe if they receive welfare in several forms, they should be scrutinized more).

 

Also, banks do create money. They create it through loans because of fractional reserve banking.

 

--Ocram

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Actually, Marco's suggestion is quite correct.  It would be simple to set up a system of welfare credits that had restricted use.  The cost would be giving a smart phone to the welfare client, which could also be restricted as to use.  Subsidized rents need never be seen by the client except as a line on their monthly statement, and the smart phone could only be used to purchase necessaries.

 

If other things are wanted, then it is traditional to get a job.  Having a part-time, low-paying job should not be a disqualifier for a welfare client unless the income were above a stepped limit.

[LexusInfernus 908]

Why? What makes you think people who need welfare use it on anything other than stuff they really need? 

 

And we should stop saying that people should 'just get a job'. If it was that easy almost no one would be on welfare to begin with. And as we are moving towards a more automated economy, we better get used to the fact that 'getting a job' will be harder and harder for a lot of people and as response we MUST move away from the traditional system of paid work. Its getting unsustainable. 

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Handing untraceable cash to welfare clients generally results in it being spent on booze and smokes.  They then resort to food banks.  If you think this is untrue, you haven't been around much.

[LexusInfernus 908]

Handing untraceable cash to welfare clients generally results in it being spent on booze and smokes.  They then resort to food banks.  If you think this is untrue, you haven't been around much.

Sources please. Because all I found was that they use that 'untraceable cash' (aka, dollar bills) to pay for things like rent, bus fare and laundry machines. Because you know, that stuff costs real money. Only a fraction of the money is actually spend on alcohol or smokes. And you know why? Because people who are poor are not automatically lazy alcoholic smokers. The assumption that being poor is the result of being lazy or an alcoholic is a grossly unfair, inaccurate over generalization and it needs to stop. 

 

So far, all these programs that enforce mandatory drug testing for people on welfare or restricting what people can do with their welfare turn out to be massive wastes of money, because they are all tackling nearly non existent problems. Its just part of the Republican war on the poor. 

 

I suggest you watch this

[Ocram's Razr 964]

Why? What makes you think people who need welfare use it on anything other than stuff they really need?

And we should stop saying that people should 'just get a job'. If it was that easy almost no one would be on welfare to begin with. And as we are moving towards a more automated economy, we better get used to the fact that 'getting a job' will be harder and harder for a lot of people and as response we MUST move away from the traditional system of paid work. It's getting unsustainable.

What is unsustainable is growth-based consumerist capitalism. Also, I fixed "its" to "it's" for you, I give you the benefit of the doubt because you are a foreigner. Giving untraceable money capable of being spent on anything is more likely to be spent on luxuries and drugs. I talked with someone who said he would rather spend his welfare money on junk food and suppress his appetite with cigarettes. If every citizen in the country is given Nutrition Credits (that can only be used to purchase nutrition) and Housing Credits (which can be used to help pay for mortgages and rent) and the government ensures that every populated area in the country has at least one place where actual nutrition is distributed and every population center has spartan subsidized housing (that can be rented with only housing credits), then it would be far more fair. Proving you are worthy to receive aid hurts your dignity. Giving away aid with limitations is empowering. If the USA implements a "guaranteed minimum income" where everyone, regardless of any other conditions is given nutrition credits and housing credits, while other subsidies are lowered and certain taxes are raised (or new taxes, such as luxury taxes and pollution taxes), the outcome will be far better.

--Ocram

[LexusInfernus 908]

Giving untraceable money capable of being spent on anything is more likely to be spent on luxuries and drugs. I talked with someone who said he would rather spend his welfare money on junk food and suppress his appetite with junk food. 

I wasn't aware that McDonalds counted as luxury food or drugs. On top of that, the facts very clearly show that people on welfare do not use drugs. Which is why those mandatory drug testing programs are such a $%&^! waste of taxpayer money. 

 

And I very much doubt someone spends welfare on 'luxuries' when most of their money goes straight to rent and paying for food. There isn't a lot of money left after paying for necessities to spend on luxuries. So unless you got actual proof that says otherwise, we should go with what the actual economists are telling us, namely that people on welfare don't waste money on alcohol or drugs, or luxury items, and that politicians that claim otherwise are either ignorant or liars. 

 

If every citizen in the country is given Nutrition Credits (that can only be used to purchase nutrition) and Housing Credits (which can be used to help pay for mortgages and rent) and the government ensures that every populated area in the country has at least one place where actual nutrition is distributed and every population center has spartan subsidized housing (that can be rented with only housing credits), then it would be far more fair. Proving you are worthy to receive aid hurts your dignity. Giving away aid with limitations is empowering. If the USA implements a "guaranteed minimum income" where everyone, regardless of any other conditions is given nutrition credits and housing credits, while other subsidies are lowered and certain taxes are raised (or new taxes, such as luxury taxes and pollution taxes), the outcome will be far better.

 

You seem to assume that in order to live you only need food and a roof over your head. But what about money for public transport? I mean, you gotta go to work somehow right? And unless you live in walking distance from your job (and yes, most people on welfare have jobs) its gonna cost you money. Want to set up a separate 'public transport card' as well? What about laundry? Unless you got a washing machine in your apartment, you need to go to a laundromat, which again, costs money. Government sanctioned laundromat credits then? What about getting a haircut? You need to cut your hair once in a while and haircuts cost money. So again, government sanctioned barbershop credits? What about clothes? At some point, people need new clothes, and generally, clothes cost money. Or do you suggest people should rely entirely on donations for clothes? Well thats hardly empowering, nor fair, so we better give them government issued clothing credits. How about a basic laptop? People need laptops, so they can access the internet, where they might find job offerings, or if they got the skills, can use to earn some money. So, should the government then give everyone a government issued laptop? 

 

By the time you are done, people on welfare have a ton of special, separate credits that they can only use for specific goods or services, and the government provides everyone on welfare with a bunch of basic necessities. Each program which deals with a specific type of credit or necessity requires their own administration as well as the bureaucrats that actually hand out these things to people. That is of course, extremely inefficient and expensive. So why bother with such a bureaucratic nightmare where you try to micromanage everyone on welfare? Because 0.08% of them use it for alcohol or something? Its much easier, and much cheaper to just give people a certain amount of cash every month and trust that people know best for themselves how to spend that money most effectively. Thats how every other government support program operates. 

[Ocram's Razr 964]

 

Giving untraceable money capable of being spent on anything is more likely to be spent on luxuries and drugs. I talked with someone who said he would rather spend his welfare money on junk food and suppress his appetite with junk food. 

I wasn't aware that McDonalds counted as luxury food or drugs. On top of that, the facts very clearly show that people on welfare do not use drugs. Which is why those mandatory drug testing programs are such a $%&^! waste of taxpayer money. 

 

And I very much doubt someone spends welfare on 'luxuries' when most of their money goes straight to rent and paying for food. There isn't a lot of money left after paying for necessities to spend on luxuries. So unless you got actual proof that says otherwise, we should go with what the actual economists are telling us, namely that people on welfare don't waste money on alcohol or drugs, or luxury items, and that politicians that claim otherwise are either ignorant or liars. 

 

If every citizen in the country is given Nutrition Credits (that can only be used to purchase nutrition) and Housing Credits (which can be used to help pay for mortgages and rent) and the government ensures that every populated area in the country has at least one place where actual nutrition is distributed and every population center has spartan subsidized housing (that can be rented with only housing credits), then it would be far more fair. Proving you are worthy to receive aid hurts your dignity. Giving away aid with limitations is empowering. If the USA implements a "guaranteed minimum income" where everyone, regardless of any other conditions is given nutrition credits and housing credits, while other subsidies are lowered and certain taxes are raised (or new taxes, such as luxury taxes and pollution taxes), the outcome will be far better.

 

1.You seem to assume that in order to live you only need food and a roof over your head. 2. But what about money for public transport? I mean, you gotta go to work somehow right? And unless you live in walking distance from your job (and yes, most people on welfare have jobs) its gonna cost you money. Want to set up a separate 'public transport card' as well? 3. What about laundry? Unless you got a washing machine in your apartment, you need to go to a laundromat, which again, costs money. Government sanctioned laundromat credits then? 4. What about getting a haircut? You need to cut your hair once in a while and haircuts cost money. So again, government sanctioned barbershop credits? 5. What about clothes? At some point, people need new clothes, and generally, clothes cost money. Or do you suggest people should rely entirely on donations for clothes? Well thats hardly empowering, nor fair, so we better give them government issued clothing credits. 6. How about a basic laptop? People need laptops, so they can access the internet, where they might find job offerings, or if they got the skills, can use to earn some money. So, should the government then give everyone a government issued laptop? 

 

By the time you are done, people on welfare have a ton of special, separate credits that they can only use for specific goods or services, and the government provides everyone on welfare with a bunch of basic necessities. Each program which deals with a specific type of credit or necessity requires their own administration as well as the bureaucrats that actually hand out these things to people. That is of course, extremely inefficient and expensive. So why bother with such a bureaucratic nightmare where you try to micromanage everyone on welfare? Because 0.08% of them use it for alcohol or something? Its much easier, and much cheaper to just give people a certain amount of cash every month and trust that people know best for themselves how to spend that money most effectively. Thats how every other government support program operates. 

 

1. Yes, for survival, all a human requires (besides exercise and oxygen) is sustenance (nutrition and clean water) and shelter.

2. Cards for public transport could have lowered costs to purchase for those with low-income but should not be handed out free. If someone works, they get at least a minimum wage of normal money plus the guaranteed minimum income of nutrition credits and housing credits.

3-5: if one has a job, they should be able to afford the luxuries you describe. If they are capable of working but do not want to pursue education or contribute to society, society should not provide them with anything more than the bare necessities.

6. Technology is NOT a necessity nor is it truly a requirement to succeed. Everyone I know of who thinks it is and complain on the Internet about this subject often do not go out into the real world to improve the conditions of others. Those that spend more than 20 hours a week on social media and spend at least 5x as much time complaining about things on the internet than doing things in the real world to help others fit my definition of "Slactivists," which I have no respect for but still try to treat them with the dignity and kindness all humans deserve (and if they tick me off, not a shred more).

 

Nutrition Credits and Housing Credits would be given to all citizens of the country and all legally recognized refugees in the country, not just the destitute. Other subsidies to the wealthy would be lowered. If the budget still does not become balanced, then an increase in tax on the highest earners combined with luxury taxes, fossil fuel taxes and pollution taxes could be implemented. Social Security for the retired and disabled would still be given out but "cost of living expense increases" would go up far slower because it would not include food prices.

 

This could be combined with other changes to implement utilitarianism. If the mandatory age for education (those younger than the age who don't go to school being considered truants) is lowered to 16 (but public school is still provided until 12th grade) and failing grades can be given out again, then you will get another determiner of who deserves resources. If mandatory health insurance is replaced with single-payer near-universal health-care plus optional supplemental private insurance, and the universal health care is distributed so that it improves the prospects of the most citizens and gives a net benefit on average, then the health of the populace will skyrocket and prices will plunge. The only people who would not benefit from this change would have expensive medical needs and no means of paying for supplemental insurance. However, the prospects of most of them would most likely be no worse than they are currently.

 

--Ocram

[hamsterTK 93]

Food stamps could easily become like electronic coupons 

 

 

Yes...It's called an EBT card.

 

They haven't been giving out paper stamps in a very long time. Those did not even serve their intended purpose of restricting purchases anyways, since people sold them.

 

SNAP; aka supplemental nutrition assistance program, is "food stamps" as people once knew them(they were actually stamps decades ago). It only buys actual food and a retailer has to be set up to accept it. TANF; aka temporary assistance for needy families, is a cash allowance aka "welfare".

 

The Kansas law restricts where EBT cards containing TANF credits could be swiped, and limits cash withdrawals to $25 a day. The latter is IMO a cynical ploy by credit card companies, which already make money off this system. The more times you have to withdraw the more fees they get to charge, and show me an ATM that lets you take out exactly $25. Also if you needed to pay something like rent in cash because like most truly poor people you have no bank account, well tough luck.

 

As for the restrictions on where cards can be used, the only real thing in the list that I firmly disagree with is the line that says "pools and spas" and maybe "movie theaters". So a poor family could not visit a YMCA or city recreation center? This bothers me a lot, that is the kind of healthy activity that I see a family using welfare money for beyond the basics of rent, etc. IMO the entire damn reason for welfare is to take care of children and indigent adults, and part of "taking care" especially involving kids is providing both a sense of normalcy and being able to provide for them typical childhood experiences. I am not Scrooge and this is America not a third world country with no money. I would not mind if some microscopic fraction of my tax money went to pay for Tyrone's trip to camp or if their family "splurged" on a movie.

 

. If mandatory health insurance is replaced with single-payer near-universal health-care plus optional supplemental private insurance, and the universal health care is distributed so that it improves the prospects of the most citizens and gives a net benefit on average, then the health of the populace will skyrocket and prices will plunge. The only people who would not benefit from this change would have expensive medical needs and no means of paying for supplemental insurance. However, the prospects of most of them would most likely be no worse than they are currently.

 

 

I had an idea where really only "catastrophic" care needs to be universal.

 

My theory on why health care is a failure of the free market is a result of consumers being unable to truly make choices, even those with private insurance. Healthcare is just too much of a "black box". While someone is incapacitated in a hospital bed and doctors are considering what treatment to pursue there are a million variables and little things that middle men can find ways to charge for, and things hidden in the fine print of your policy.  You have one set of middle men whose job is to find a way to charge $300 for an aspirin and another set of middle men whose job is to negotiate the costs back down. This is a Kafka level of absurdity and rip-off-edness. Given the mantra of "greed is good" that exists in American corporate culture and its incestuous relationship with government now I don't see real efforts to fix this. The ACA makes it harder for them to be greedy but I agree a truly single payer system is the real, final fix.

 

But boring outpatient stuff could be a cash business with an expanded Medicaid to help out poor people. Dental and optometry don't have the flaws of the health care system as a whole because they are outpatient and simple enough that people can shop around and pay out of pocket.

[Duke87 1,070]

Instead of taking away welfare from those who try to use it for luxuries, why not make it so that only necessities can be purchased with such money? Food stamps could easily become like electronic coupons that can be used to purchase food but nothing else and have "no cash value"

 

Um... that's already how food stamps work. They can only be used to buy food. People with food stamps who buy things like tickets to concerts are doing so with their own money - which they can have since people on welfare don't necessarily have zero income, they often just have quite low income.

 

The reason Kansas is coming up with this list of banned luxuries is because they think that if someone collects welfare that should mean they can't afford anything that isn't a basic necessity. In other words, if you can afford to spend $10 on a concert ticket but are collecting food stamps, then maybe you should get $10 less in food stamps, spend that $10 on food instead, and not buy the concert ticket.

 

There is a certain (so it would seem) harsh logic to this but the problem is that it is a ridiculously oversimplistic analysis of the situation - for reasons I pointed out before.

 

Meanwhile while I can understand a certain incensement over "why should I have to pay to support these people", this reaction is emotional and totally irrational. Welfare of the sort at hand is a fairly small overall percentage of what tax dollars get spent on, eliminating it wouldn't really save enough money for any taxpayers to notice the difference. And the whole "lazy slob get a job and support yourself" trope is ridiculous because not everyone on welfare is unemployed - that is a horrible myth.

[LexusInfernus 908]

1. Yes, for survival, all a human requires (besides exercise and oxygen) is sustenance (nutrition and clean water) and shelter.

2. Cards for public transport could have lowered costs to purchase for those with low-income but should not be handed out free. If someone works, they get at least a minimum wage of normal money plus the guaranteed minimum income of nutrition credits and housing credits.

3-5: if one has a job, they should be able to afford the luxuries you describe. If they are capable of working but do not want to pursue education or contribute to society, society should not provide them with anything more than the bare necessities.

6. Technology is NOT a necessity nor is it truly a requirement to succeed. Everyone I know of who thinks it is and complain on the Internet about this subject often do not go out into the real world to improve the conditions of others. Those that spend more than 20 hours a week on social media and spend at least 5x as much time complaining about things on the internet than doing things in the real world to help others fit my definition of "Slactivists," which I have no respect for but still try to treat them with the dignity and kindness all humans deserve (and if they tick me off, not a shred more).

1. Whats the point of helping people 'survive'? Shouldn't we be able to provide the people that need assistance with a bit more than just the bare minimum that prevents them from starving in the gutter? 

2. And such cards require money. Money people might not have because you know, they are poor. 

3. I'm sorry, but clothes and basic hygiene are luxuries? I would argue that those things are the bare minimum requirement of being able to function in a society. I mean, who wants a worker who can't afford to wash his clothes or who can't get a haircut. 

6. Riiiight, so the argument here is that because some people on the internet complain about poor people not having a basic laptop so they can use the internet to find a job or employ some of their skills to earn money aren't spending the time that they are on a website talking about this on actually volunteering at a homeless shelter. I honestly don't see how that means that people on welfare can't have a laptop. Seems like you are denying one group of people something simply because you dislike what a completely different group of people does with their time. 

 

 

If the mandatory age for education (those younger than the age who don't go to school being considered truants) is lowered to 16 (but public school is still provided until 12th grade) and failing grades can be given out again, then you will get another determiner of who deserves resources. 

That's evil. I mean, you are essentially telling children from poor families to drop out of school to get a job and earn some extra money, but at the same time you would use that choice against them by denying them state aid afterwards because they didn't finish school. I think that is called a catch 22.

[Ocram's Razr 964]

1. I apologize for making a typo. I did not mean to use the term 'junk food' twice in one sentence. I know a couple people who suppress their appetites by smoking cigarettes.

2. The United States has a high quality of life but in some ways we are worse off than many other countries, including developing ones. The government of the USA holds the most debt out of all countries and its debt as a percentage of GDP is higher than some developing countries. Private debt is also very high. Is the family on the block with the fanciest house and belongings still the wealthiest when they declare bankruptcy and their house is forclosed? (paraphrased quotes preceding and succeeding) "There are two ways to enslave. One is by the sword. The other is by debt."

3. I think everyone should have access to at least secondary education and be encouraged to pursue a high school diploma. However, the punishment for dropping out at age 16 should be financial, not force. There should also be no punishment (other than possibly a fine) for possession of drugs but have drug convictions cause the criminal to lose eligibility for any government aid permanently (except for voluntary rehabilitation). I know of a couple of forms that already have this stipulation (such as student financial aid).

--Ocram

[LexusInfernus 908]

Yeah, but most of the US government debt is owned by the US government itself. Debt is only a problem when the government makes it a problem. Personal debt is irrelevant when discussing whether welfare should provide a bit more than just the bare minimum required to stay alive. 

 

As for financial punishment for failing to finish school, you would only worsen the problem. Education is necessary to gain access to the better paying jobs, so people who don't finish high school are already likely constricted to poverty. But the reason why people drop out of school is often related to poverty, same as why poor school performance is often related to poverty. And you argue that the government should punish already poor people even more by denying them welfare. Thats basically punishing poor people for being poor by making them even poorer. 

[Ocram's Razr 964]

I apologize for being unclear. The financial punishment for dropping out at age 16 should be loss of eligibility for money from the government except for nutrition credits, housing credits, and the help that all working citizens get when they lose their jobs or are injured.

--Ocram

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

<snip>

As for financial punishment for failing to finish school, you would only worsen the problem. Education is necessary to gain access to the better paying jobs, so people who don't finish high school are already likely constricted to poverty. But the reason why people drop out of school is often related to poverty, same as why poor school performance is often related to poverty. And you argue that the government should punish already poor people even more by denying them welfare. Thats basically punishing poor people for being poor by making them even poorer. 

One of the problems with this premise is that it is unnecessary.  Re ipse loquitur. [it speaks for itself.]  A lack of a secondary diploma often denies jobs by its very absence.  This is not punishment but consequence.

 

Teens often drop out of school because they are not properly recognized for their talents and are bored to tears.  The one-size-fits-all school system is a flop.  The larger the class size the less the opportunity for the teacher to have the time to recognize the needs of individual students, and this has been getting worse.

 

For those early (legal) drop outs, there are libraries that they could use to improve themselves, but they still need that magic piece of paper.  GED programs should be freely available to them, and customized programs developed on an individual basis. 

 

Individual studies programs should also be available at post-secondary institutions which should be run something like a graduate school.  A program is set for the individual and a supervisor appointed.  To progress from year to year, the student must get a 'may proceed' from his supervisor.  At one university where I worked in the late 1970s, there was such a program, and the students took courses from any faculty's catalogue provided they could meet the prerequisites for the courses.  I am aware of one such student who eventually got a degree in Thaumaturgy and Witchcraft, which meant many courses in ancient languages and other arcanum.

[LexusInfernus 908]

One of the problems with this premise is that it is unnecessary.  Re ipse loquitur. [it speaks for itself.]  A lack of a secondary diploma often denies jobs by its very absence.  This is not punishment but consequence.

 

Teens often drop out of school because they are not properly recognized for their talents and are bored to tears.  The one-size-fits-all school system is a flop.  The larger the class size the less the opportunity for the teacher to have the time to recognize the needs of individual students, and this has been getting worse.

 

Yes, or they drop out because they are poor and feel that starting to work as early as possible as a way of supplementing their families income is what they need to do. But if you then punish them by removing their access to welfare, well, its not difficult to see how that makes the problem even worse. 

[Ocram's Razr 964]

 

One of the problems with this premise is that it is unnecessary.  Re ipse loquitur. [it speaks for itself.]  A lack of a secondary diploma often denies jobs by its very absence.  This is not punishment but consequence.

 

Teens often drop out of school because they are not properly recognized for their talents and are bored to tears.  The one-size-fits-all school system is a flop.  The larger the class size the less the opportunity for the teacher to have the time to recognize the needs of individual students, and this has been getting worse.

 

Yes, or they drop out because they are poor and feel that starting to work as early as possible as a way of supplementing their families income is what they need to do. But if you then punish them by removing their access to welfare, well, its not difficult to see how that makes the problem even worse. 

 

Sometimes when you worsen a bad problem enough, it goes away.

 

--Ocram

[LexusInfernus 908]

Sometimes when you worsen a bad problem enough, it goes away.

 

--Ocram

 

If that ever really 'solves' a problem its only because the person who had the problem died because of it. I'm not sure if poverty should be solved by letting all the poor people die :|

[MilitantRadical 2,844]

 

I'm sorry, but given the things Ann Coulter has claimed over the years, there is just no way for me to take anything she says seriously. I mean, we are talking about a women who argued that America should just invade the Middle East and convert everyone to Christianity. And who said that not every Muslim is a terrorist but every terrorist is a Muslim. If they (conservatives) want me to take their complaints about Clinton seriously, they should have come up with people who aren't so obviously biased against Clinton from the get go. Its very clear that this video was not meant for my consumption, but rather to reinforce the views of conservatives that they should never trust Clinton.

 

Yes, Ann Coulter says a lot of crazy things, but that doesn't make her always wrong. I just think it is worth a watch to get another perspective. It doesn't mean you have to believe what they say. It is important for people, me included, to expose themselves to information they might not agree with or else you just end up in an echo chamber.

 

Also, you're not standing on very high ground when you point me to an article that is just as hyperbolic and slanted as something written by Ann Coulter.

 

And no, the New World Order is not really a concept in politics. Certainly not in the way its used by people who also refer to the media as lamestream media. 

 

Yes it is. There are hundreds of clips and quotes out there of major politicians, academics, reporters, and news anchors talking about it.

 

 

 

House of Cards is an overly cynical fictional portrayal of the system. In reality, politicians wont get away with murdering journalists and congressmen. I mean, they can't even get away with sending dickpics or playing poker on their phone when attending congress. 

 

Yes I know House of Cards is fake, but reality can be stranger than fiction. Just because some stupid people get caught doing stupid things doesn't mean that there aren't secrets and cover ups. The crimes we know of are only a fraction of things that are really going on. That is the nature of crime and criminal investigation. You only know about the corruption you know about. Governments and politicians can keep secrets. It is naive to assume they can't. 

 

 

You would have a point if Teabagger wasn't a name Tea Party members used to describe themselves.

 

Tea Partiers don't call themselves teabaggers. That is an insult, or as wikipedia describes it:"a controversial pejorative term for Tea Party movement participants".

 

Do you know what teabagging is?

 

The fact that the article claims this is a term Tea Partiers use to describe themselves shows just how disingenuous the author is. I mean seriously. The article is written in such a juvenile tone. Might as well say things like "liar, liar, pants on fire" and "doo doo brain". The Hilary documentary, although highly partisan and agenda driven, is much more professional than this article.

 

 

On top of that, its irrelevant, because it doesn't make those quotes any less real. 

 

The quotes are real, the context the author puts them in isn't.

 

 

And sure, its 'revolutionary rhetoric'. But they are using it against a democratically elected government. A government elected by the majority of the people. If you plan to start a revolution against that, you are planning a revolution against the will of the majority, with the express aim of imposing your view, which is only shared by a minority. And that is tyranny. 

 

None of the people quoted are calling for a revolution they are only using rhetoric that evokes the American Revolution. There is a difference. Sharron Angle doesn't say a revolution should happen, only that it could happen. It is an observation. No one in this article is advocating an armed offensive revolt against the government.

 

And look, I hate Palin, Bachmann, and McConnell with a passion, I really do. But what the author is saying about them simply isn't true. It is pure political spin.

 

I mean look at this quote from another article by Rmuse:  "Sharon Angle, said in a radio interview that it may come to the point that the public would bring down an out-of-control Congress with “Second Amendment remedies.” Angle repeated her warning when she called for “Second Amendment remedies” to deal with the “ever-growing tyrannical U.S. government,” and to replace her election opponent Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid."

 

This is so incredible dishonest and so demonstrably false when you go look at the original quote sourced from Huffington Post which tries to spin it in the same way, but at least has the decency of showing the whole quote.

 

Angle: "You know, our Founding Fathers, they put that Second Amendment in there for a good reason and that was for the people to protect themselves against a tyrannical government. In fact Thomas Jefferson said it's good for a country to have a revolution every 20 years. I hope that's not where we're going, but, you know, if this Congress keeps going the way it is, people are really looking toward those Second Amendment remedies"

 

Here is another variant of the quote from Huffington post's article:

 

"Angle: [...] This (the Second Amendment) is for us when our government becomes tyrannical...

 

Manders: If we needed it at any time in history, it might be right now.

 

Angle: Well it's to defend ourselves. And you know, I'm hoping that we're not getting to Second Amendment remedies. I hope the vote will be the cure for the Harry Reid problems."

 

Where does Angle advocate for the violent overthrow of the American Government? Where does she call for "second amendment remedies to deal with the ever-growing tyrannical U.S. government"? In fact she doesn't even say "ever-growing tyrannical government" but Rmuse puts in it quotes as if she did.

 

She doesn't say the government is tyrannical and she doesn't say it should be overthrown. She also notes the protective/defensive nature of the second amendment. It isn't there to start a civil war or to allow people to assassinate elected leaders. It is there as a recourse of protection.

 

So declare your democratically elected opponents tyrants (which by itself is a tactic used by tyrants, pretend that the country is under attack by tyrants or would be tyrants, create the idea that opponents are enemies instead of fellow countrymen with different political views) and use force against them. 

 

So all those liberal and Democratic pundits who called GW Bush a tyrant were tyrants themselves? Guess what? Presidents often get labeled as tyrants. Heck even George Washington was accused of being one.

 

Also, very ironic coming from the person who said this: "although....some of those Tea Party idiots? The things they say.....definitely tyrants," and pointed to an article that calls people teabaggers and compares them to the Taliban.

 

Some of those "idiots" like Bachmann, Palin, McConnell, and Angle were democratically elected too ya know.

 

And patriot culture? Really, its patriotic in the eyes of the Tea Party to pretend that differing political views are 'unpatriotic'. That only suggests that people like Palin or Bachmann fundamentally do not understand the concept of freedom. 

 

I said "patriot culture". I'm not saying they're patriotic. I'm just talking about that Second Amendment/Constitutional culture which tends to be right wing.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Oops!  The CIA does it again!

 

The U.S. is one of the few that 'fess up' when they goof.  Their intel said no civilians were present in this drone strike.  As usual, the intel was out to lunch, or at least out of date.

[Larks2242 251]

Handing untraceable cash to welfare clients generally results in it being spent on booze and smokes.  They then resort to food banks.  If you think this is untrue, you haven't been around much.

 

Not to mention tax free, haven't paid any tax on tobacco, saved a bundle like car insurance.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

 

Handing untraceable cash to welfare clients generally results in it being spent on booze and smokes.  They then resort to food banks.  If you think this is untrue, you haven't been around much.

 

Not to mention tax free, haven't paid any tax on tobacco, saved a bundle like car insurance.

 

Do we need to say that all these benefits are paid for by everyone else who pay taxes?