UPS on MSNBC last night?
- Thread starter StevenB
- Start date
tieguy
Banned
Agreed. commodities are due for a collapse.
The sad thing with oil in my own twisted view is I don't see actual supply and demand driving the price upwards. No one is running out of oil as we experienced in the seventies. Instead we have issues popping up that could potentially cause a shortage driving the price up. Every little negative blurb in the world drives it up more.
who would have ever thought a committment to converting from oil to ethanol would not only drive the price up for oil but also for grain products.
The good news here is the higher prices will force us to become more energy efficent which in turn will lessen our need for oil in the future.
But the american greed in me is not totally squashed. Make me a nice roomy SUV that gets 50 miles to the gallon and I'm all over it.
tieguy
Banned
LOL. Wish you had registered so I coud give you some positive rep points.
I'm not a big fan of Bush. I do believe he scores well on leadership. He set a course and dang sure did not waver.
The sad thing is I don't see anyone running for president that I can say is a whole lot better.
McCain is okay at best. I'm worried about his age and will look at his VP choice harder then him.
Obama talks change. When I picture someone who speaks of change I look for someone that will stand up and be a leader. He has not been a leader in congress and he was not a leader with his reverend. He sat there and took it for twenty years and never objected until it became politically expedient to do so.
Hillary has her baggage from before. She seems more polished now but I don't get a warm and fuzzy feeling that she has really changed.
None of the above is my best choice right now.
LOL. Wish you had registered so I coud give you some positive rep points.
I am registered, I made that "guest" post to show why people should register. We have had that same problem before with anonymous posters using someone else's guest name.
I have to agree with your assessment on the current candidates. I'm not happy with any of them. I used to be liberal and vote democrat, but Jimmy Carter cured me of that. All three are too liberal for me, I will hold my nose and probably vote for McCain because he is more experienced and I respect his military service. His VP choice will be very important due to his age.
av8torntn
Well-Known Member
First off,
"you are a wigger"....thats kind of rascist UKGuy, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, maybe you meant Whig-ger....An American favoring independence from Great Britain..
Anyhow, AV8 wants to take away money from our retiree's (veterans and non-veterans) who paid into the SS fund for years and instead give it to a un-neccessary war and occupation(majority opinion) we started under false pretenses? So you want to support the citizens and infrastructure of another country before our own citizens. I know your a veteran and love your country but this statement doesn't strenghten your case. Our founding fathers would not have started this war or thought it was needed and certainly would have followed the constitution to the tee. And BTW SS is for retiree's so they don't have to work, or maybe your confusing it with welfare.
really?
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=1485
Are you trying to say our founding fathers would have a social security system? You are not paying into a fund that you draw out of when you retire. I say making me pay you to not work is welfare.
diesel96
Well-Known Member
You must be getting tired,
know where did I say our founding fathers would support social security."Our founding fathers would not have started this war or thought it was needed and certainly would have followed the constitution to the tee."
av8torntn
Well-Known Member
You must be getting tired,
"Our founding fathers would not have started this war or thought it was needed and certainly would have followed the constitution to the tee."
Interesting you went on a rant about how our founders would not support a war and then you try and slam me for not supporting this oppressive social security system. You cry about the costs of war but you ignore the largest cost in the room. At least the constitution gives the Government the authority to wage war. You love to cry about double standards but you seem to be the one with all the double standards. That is all.
Last edited:
wkmac
Well-Known Member
You guys raise a good point concerning war and social security. Going back to the late 1930's, I wonder how aggressive FDR would have been with the Japanese and our oil blockade of them which was the catalyst for the Pearl Harbor attack had there been no social security? Seems an odd question I know but look at what our gov't does today with SS tax dollars as they spend it out leaving at best an IOU for future generations. In the 1935' Supreme Court case of Helvering vs. Davis the gov't argued and the court agreed that SS was an income tax on employee and an excise tax on employer and money collected was placed not in some so-called trust but rather into the general revenue fund where all taxes are placed. Concurrent to Helvering was another challenge to the August 1935' SS Act but SCOTUS ruled in Charles C. Seward Machine Co. vs. Davis that:
From there as general revenue, the gov't on a yearly basis allocates the monies to fund SS as a line item in the budget. An earlier SS model based on the lie we think SS is was attempted by the gov't involving railroad workers under regualtion of interstate commerce. The US in 1933' entered an international treaty and became a member of the International Labor Organization. In 1934', Congress passed the first federal social security act which was tied to the federal power over interstate commerce; in essence, those subject to the act were those who engaged in interstate transportation. Immediately the law was challenged and in May of 1935' SCOTUS ruled this act unconstitutional in Railroad Retirement Board vs. Alton R. Co. in which it said:
The ink wasn't even dry on Alton when Congress in August of 1935' went back in with our current SS law and this time there was no purpose of social welfare but rather an income tax on the employee already empowered by the 16th amendment and an excise tax on employers already empowered under Art. 1 authority after established abuse of the Commerce Clause. In Helvering, the court concurred and thus we have in effect a secondary source of revenue for the gov't to play with.
Now this comes to my point of war itself. With this new found source of revenue to the gov't, they have money in hand to spend and as such, also the means to create a whole new industry known now as the Military/Industrial complex. Going back to WW2 and our actions on Japan, I again ask the question how aggressive would we have been to Japan had their been no secondary source of income? How quick to empire would we have been had their been no 16th amendment allowing the so-called Victory Tax Act that we know of today as the Income Tax Withholding via direct taxation of salaries and wages?
Would there have been a Korea? Vietnam? Gulf War 1 or the current situation? How aggressive would our foreign policy over the last 75 years have been without this power of taxation and thus the means to fund the war machine we have become? Would there have even been a Cold War in which tons of monies and technology flowed from America to the USSR creating the very enemy we spent lives and fortunes to overcome?
The so-called republican conservative if you will screams all day about over reaching gov't via the power of taxation but then he/she clamors for a war machine under the belief that freedom and liberty are only achieved by brute force. The virtues of liberty they proclaim but liberty is only given when the person makes the choices that they, the american conservative see fit and that choice in one that benefits the American and not always one to benefit the liberated. Ask those Mideast folks about US Corp. domination of their property which we call oil over the last 100 years?
We talk a good game about the high position of property rights but then go across the globe violating those very principles at will when it comes to others. You think the Trail of Tears was a one time event in North Georgia just so the white man could grab the gold that lay on Indian lands and we never violated that again? Did you ever consider that some mideast gov't may have nationalized their oil industry after years of having the Anglo-Americans only give them about 10% at best of the profits? Remember some idiot running for President talking about blowback? What the hell does he know, right?
The liberal democrat on the other hand has the same level of disrepect for property rights as he never recognizes the fruits of one's labor as being my property but rather the property of the community at large and thus under the false guise of democracy, public policy tells me that I must labor twice as hard and long, once for myself and my family and then for the other guy we call the less fortunate. They never tell you that they've created a gov't bureauacy to oversee such noble causes that extracts a large % of revenue from you labor in adminstrative costs used to further empower gov't and the less fortunate are only given enough just to keep them able to come back to gov't for more. It has become it's own growth industry and this more than any other is why those numbers swell. Why solve a problem when you can make it gorw and thus your own power and position grow with it.
War and Welfare are the 2 hand in hand powers of the Super State and you can not have one and not have the other. Both compell the individual to do what they on their own might otherwise choose not to do so where is there liberty and individual freedom. Did you ever consider the mideast sees us for the hypocrites that we really are?
History is fat with this fact of life concerning authoraterian gov't such as we have today. GW, contary to the myth of the left has grown both the warfare and welfare state. The so-called democrat left howls only because it is not they in power. The democrat objects to the warfare State! Really? Then why in the end do they vote to approve every funding GW comes to Congress with? Don't feel to bad democrats because if the roles were reversed, it'd be the republicans howling. Even Clinton talked of privatizing SS but the republicans blocked the conversation until their guy got into office. Real principled fellas aren;t they!
Social Security, Income Tax Withholding via the Victory Tax Act of 1942', Income Tax Act of 1954' and the 1986' Tax Act all push the Warfare/Welfare State forward with nothing in sight to stop it. Hilter and Mussolini also had their versions of the Warfare/Welfare State and this has led many including myself to conclude like the facist states before that we've also been taken down that road. You guys argue and argue about removing just one side of the pie and IMO that will not work in the longrun. In order to make America the great country it was meant to be and still can become, both the warfare and welfare side will have to be drastically cut and then let individuals in local communities step up and fill the gap. To many believe that won't happen but I believe they will and those needed true help will not be some constant drain but rather people will help them SOLVE the problem once and for all and everyone benefit from a better life. But if we all had better lives, what would we then need gov't to do?
AH-HA!
Ring a bell did it?
Did you ever consider the fact that the gov't creates the problems too?
JMO.
From there as general revenue, the gov't on a yearly basis allocates the monies to fund SS as a line item in the budget. An earlier SS model based on the lie we think SS is was attempted by the gov't involving railroad workers under regualtion of interstate commerce. The US in 1933' entered an international treaty and became a member of the International Labor Organization. In 1934', Congress passed the first federal social security act which was tied to the federal power over interstate commerce; in essence, those subject to the act were those who engaged in interstate transportation. Immediately the law was challenged and in May of 1935' SCOTUS ruled this act unconstitutional in Railroad Retirement Board vs. Alton R. Co. in which it said:
The ink wasn't even dry on Alton when Congress in August of 1935' went back in with our current SS law and this time there was no purpose of social welfare but rather an income tax on the employee already empowered by the 16th amendment and an excise tax on employers already empowered under Art. 1 authority after established abuse of the Commerce Clause. In Helvering, the court concurred and thus we have in effect a secondary source of revenue for the gov't to play with.
Now this comes to my point of war itself. With this new found source of revenue to the gov't, they have money in hand to spend and as such, also the means to create a whole new industry known now as the Military/Industrial complex. Going back to WW2 and our actions on Japan, I again ask the question how aggressive would we have been to Japan had their been no secondary source of income? How quick to empire would we have been had their been no 16th amendment allowing the so-called Victory Tax Act that we know of today as the Income Tax Withholding via direct taxation of salaries and wages?
Would there have been a Korea? Vietnam? Gulf War 1 or the current situation? How aggressive would our foreign policy over the last 75 years have been without this power of taxation and thus the means to fund the war machine we have become? Would there have even been a Cold War in which tons of monies and technology flowed from America to the USSR creating the very enemy we spent lives and fortunes to overcome?
The so-called republican conservative if you will screams all day about over reaching gov't via the power of taxation but then he/she clamors for a war machine under the belief that freedom and liberty are only achieved by brute force. The virtues of liberty they proclaim but liberty is only given when the person makes the choices that they, the american conservative see fit and that choice in one that benefits the American and not always one to benefit the liberated. Ask those Mideast folks about US Corp. domination of their property which we call oil over the last 100 years?
We talk a good game about the high position of property rights but then go across the globe violating those very principles at will when it comes to others. You think the Trail of Tears was a one time event in North Georgia just so the white man could grab the gold that lay on Indian lands and we never violated that again? Did you ever consider that some mideast gov't may have nationalized their oil industry after years of having the Anglo-Americans only give them about 10% at best of the profits? Remember some idiot running for President talking about blowback? What the hell does he know, right?
The liberal democrat on the other hand has the same level of disrepect for property rights as he never recognizes the fruits of one's labor as being my property but rather the property of the community at large and thus under the false guise of democracy, public policy tells me that I must labor twice as hard and long, once for myself and my family and then for the other guy we call the less fortunate. They never tell you that they've created a gov't bureauacy to oversee such noble causes that extracts a large % of revenue from you labor in adminstrative costs used to further empower gov't and the less fortunate are only given enough just to keep them able to come back to gov't for more. It has become it's own growth industry and this more than any other is why those numbers swell. Why solve a problem when you can make it gorw and thus your own power and position grow with it.
War and Welfare are the 2 hand in hand powers of the Super State and you can not have one and not have the other. Both compell the individual to do what they on their own might otherwise choose not to do so where is there liberty and individual freedom. Did you ever consider the mideast sees us for the hypocrites that we really are?
History is fat with this fact of life concerning authoraterian gov't such as we have today. GW, contary to the myth of the left has grown both the warfare and welfare state. The so-called democrat left howls only because it is not they in power. The democrat objects to the warfare State! Really? Then why in the end do they vote to approve every funding GW comes to Congress with? Don't feel to bad democrats because if the roles were reversed, it'd be the republicans howling. Even Clinton talked of privatizing SS but the republicans blocked the conversation until their guy got into office. Real principled fellas aren;t they!
Social Security, Income Tax Withholding via the Victory Tax Act of 1942', Income Tax Act of 1954' and the 1986' Tax Act all push the Warfare/Welfare State forward with nothing in sight to stop it. Hilter and Mussolini also had their versions of the Warfare/Welfare State and this has led many including myself to conclude like the facist states before that we've also been taken down that road. You guys argue and argue about removing just one side of the pie and IMO that will not work in the longrun. In order to make America the great country it was meant to be and still can become, both the warfare and welfare side will have to be drastically cut and then let individuals in local communities step up and fill the gap. To many believe that won't happen but I believe they will and those needed true help will not be some constant drain but rather people will help them SOLVE the problem once and for all and everyone benefit from a better life. But if we all had better lives, what would we then need gov't to do?
AH-HA!
Ring a bell did it?
Did you ever consider the fact that the gov't creates the problems too?
JMO.
av8torntn
Well-Known Member
Negative. I have never argued for the removal of just one side. You may just assume that because I think that staying in Iraq for the short term is in our best national interest means that we should stay in Bosnia, Africa, Italy, Germany, Poland, and wherever else forever.
I do however say if you want to argue against the war in Iraq based on the cost then why ignore other costs that I believe are outside the intended role of our Federal Government. Right now Congress wants to push through a farm bill that will cost as much as 800 billion or as little as 300 billion depending on who you listen to. Not a peep from Diesel about this cost but I have read regular complaints about the costs of the Iraq war from him.
Wkmac I believe in freedom and liberty which means in no small part that I want to be free from an oppressive Federal tax in any form. I want the freedom to choose how I spend my money. I want a free market for goods and services. To maintain that freedom we may need this military. I do not think it should be used as the worlds police force. We may not need this social security tax to fund it. If you do not think that I would like to cut the size and costs of our Federal government you would be shocked at how far I would like to see it go. If I were in charge I would shift the debate from how much we should expand government to how much we should cut the size and power of our central federal government.
wkmac
Well-Known Member
AV,
Maybe I should have clarified better but I wasn't pointing at you specifically. The discussion that D and yourself were having IMO is a larger mirror of a general picture between so-called republican conservatives and so-called democrat liberals. I use the term so-called because in reality these perfect divisions are not so perfect in real life. I mean what truly is a perfect conservative and what is a perfect liberal? I'm not sure there is such a thing.
But since you have raised the issue with this:
let me throw something out that I see that makes me wonder or maybe it's best said, confuses me with a mixed signal.
There's no arguement you've spoken of cutting gov't and outside of foreign policy we probably share a lot of common ground. Domestically, D and I would differ in a lot of areas but he does IMO have one good valid point in that we are so quick to jump up and save the world but domestically the gov't has dropped the ball. Let me caveat before I go forward, neither domestically or internationally so I believe it's the federal govt's job to extract money from me by force to do what I would not do if left to my own choices. I do not believe in compulsary gov't but if you want to argue we should be on the international scene with gov't cheese, then by all rights D has every right and just as valid and maybe moreso to argue his point. As such IMO he has more standing as you take care of family first before you feed and cloth the neighbors. Is that how you operate in your own family?
Returning to point, now I know most would immediately assume the tired and true of thinking he's (D or rather folks from his POV) only worried about Katrina and other so-called do gooder ideas but I'd also lump the total failure of a fair and balanced immigration policy that is followed up by real enforcement in on the domestic side. I mean, why should al qaeda go to Iraq when they can go to Mexico and literally walk across the border for all kinds of fun and games! D also has a valid point about concerns for infastructure with the bridge collaspe in Minn. a very good example. After watching that bridge, one has to step back just a moment and ask about those levies in New Orleans.
IMO, much of the problem has been federal mandates by Washington upon the States and local communities that are enforced by law but are unfunded at the federal level. Whose fault is that? I think the Presidents (that's plural) and the Congress (think plural again) and both political parties who have been more interested in obtaining power and using the US treasury as an open checkbook. Problem is, we've given away tons of money abroad and for what?
There's the picture so to speak but what leaves me scratching my head concerning you are statements like this for example:
First off, you are right in that military cost don't equal some of the domestic cost but IMO that shouldn't be apart of the arguement anyway. And how much foreign aid via the State department gets blown to the 4 winds and some of that indirectly benefits the military but is not a direct military cost.
Then you make another statement which is true but in the context comes across to me to say when it comes to the military, there is no limit. That statement concerns Constitutional authority to wage war. You are correct the Constitution does authorize this but the fact is there is no true Constitutional declaration of War being/having been passed by the Congress authorizing President Bush to do anything so IMO that arguement is mute. Congress screams about executive overreach by Bush but then they don't have the balls to stand up and perform their duty under the Constitution and they pass what amounts to a funding legislation that gives the President the authority to spend it as he sees fit. The Congress doesn't have the kahunas the stand up and vote and be on record because some wonk with thumb in air checked the political winds and came up with an idea that allowed the wiggle room to be able to run to both sides of the issue. Love or Hate Bush, at least he did put his arse on the line and didn't seem to bat an eye doing it! Congress is packed full of cowards except for the few who had balls to go on record and vote against the mass hysteria.
Maybe you didn't mean it the way you said it and based on your last response that I'm responding to, I have to concede that point but when I look back at you defending private contracting firms in other threads where it's shown that waste and fraud are occuring, again I hope you see how a mixed signal is sent.
Obviously I don't agree with the foreign policy of our gov't and right now my beliefs are mostly in the minority. Even average people who oppose the war in Iraq that I talk with don't believe we can just pull out and leave a void and in the shorterm they may be right about the insuing chaos that would come from a civil war between Sunni and Shi'a. I happen to think it's medicine we'll have to take at some point but again I'm in the minority.
The democrats want to point the accusatory finger at Bush over his adventures but they won't look at the very precedence their President in the 1990's set with his own adventures. And all the while the republicans did just as the democrats are doing today with opposing lipservice to the point that Bush himself decried Nationbuilding in 2000', those same republicans voted time and time again to fund those very "nationbuilding" operations of the 1990's.
I don't pretend that cutting gov't will be some pie-n-the-sky venture and that immediate perfection will be achieved. There will be some pain and some risk, maybe a lot of both but what are some saying we are going through right now?
But over the longhaul, for our children and grandchildren, it's a tough pill we need to swallow or we risk their being nothing for those kids of ours. The founding fathers were by no means perfect and the opinions of their day were across the board as to what the vision for America should be just as we have today. But that said, they also understood what happens when a nation turns towards nation-state which then leads to empire and in time it's laid it's mark for failure and demise. I mean we'd just fought a war as the world's superpower at that time and won so is there a lesson there for us today?
Every nation-state who through it's own conceit believes itself as the world's Superpower has nailed it's own coffin shut in doing so.
Let me also say this, I used you and D as examples but I also know you 2 aren't perfect examples of oppsoing sides. I mean IMO D although a loyal democrat is not waht I'd consider a true left liberal. That said, I used you 2 as more examples of what the greater majority of people are like on both sides. You 2 are more what normal America is so in that respect you made great pictures of what Americans and where Americans are at these days. Meant no disrespect and hope you don't mind that I think you 2 are normal!
av8torntn
Well-Known Member
AV,
First off, you are right in that military cost don't equal some of the domestic cost but IMO that shouldn't be apart of the arguement anyway. And how much foreign aid via the State department gets blown to the 4 winds and some of that indirectly benefits the military but is not a direct military cost.
Then you make another statement which is true but in the context comes across to me to say when it comes to the military, there is no limit. That statement concerns Constitutional authority to wage war. You are correct the Constitution does authorize this but the fact is there is no true Constitutional declaration of War being/having been passed by the Congress authorizing President Bush to do anything so IMO that arguement is mute.
I do not have enough time to respond to everything but I thought that I would try and explain my line of thought on these two issues.
You are right some money makes its way to the military indirectly from other areas in the budget but some money in the military bills is directly allocated to non military things. I personally think every item of spending in Congress should stand on its own for an up or down vote.
My point was that Diesel said our founders would not want to fight this war. I say you could at least make a case that the founders gave the central government the power to wage war. I did not say that I agree with how Congress uses this power today or that they even had an actual declaration of war. I do not however think that founders ever had the intention of a federal government providing retirement or health care. In your other post you avoided that and just posted how it passed the courts.
Oh and I do not of course think that the US being in Iraq is being a police force to the world I of course as I have said before believe there was a direct threat to our citizens. That may be only a small difference to you but it makes a big difference from my point of view.
You guys have a great day.
av8torntn
Well-Known Member
.
I don't pretend that cutting gov't will be some pie-n-the-sky venture and that immediate perfection will be achieved. There will be some pain and some risk, maybe a lot of both but what are some saying we are going through right now?
First again my opinion on subcontracting some of the military service has remained steady. I think they do an overall good job. I think it saves lots of money versus keeping a standing Army large enough to do what they are doing. I would guess using the force rotation that we have now we would have to maintain our military at 3-5 times its current size. I know some people argue it would be a much smaller number but there are also some that think it would be much larger. I think there is fraud and waste in all parts of the Federal Government. I also think that even if we maintained our military at this size there would still be plenty of room for fraud and waste which is what most studies want to leave out. I think there is congressional oversight for these contracts. I am against the Blackwater type of subcontracting for other reasons that have nothing to do with cost. I do think the constitution allows for "subcontracting" with letters of marque and reprisal. I am guessing that we have not signed some treaty that keeps us from doing this. I keep coming back to the constitution because I think if we followed its intent closer we would be much better off. Also because Diesel brought up what would our founders support.
If you are saying that because there is fraud and waste we should end this practice OK. Let's just use this same method for things like Medicare. I will be on board everywhere I find fraud or waste we just end the entire program.
Now to the part I quoted. I firmly believe that these social programs are started by people with the best of intentions. Like we should help the children or we should take care of the elderly or homeless. I also believe these social programs always end up harming those that they were intended to help. Just rip the bandaid off quickly. So if we ended them not only could it be painless it could end up helping everyone.
For some reason you brought up immigration. I think our nation has a right to secure and defend its borders. Ok now if you want a welfare state like we have now we do need workers from somewhere. I say you with a chuckle what I really mean is all of us. If you want to end the welfare state then see how many guest workers we need I will be on your side. Until then everything is just all talk. If there is work here people will come and if not people will leave.
Also if we want to have a minimum wage and price some of our workers out of the job market while there are plenty of people willing to work at this wage I say bring them on. Why do I care if they are here legally or not? We have already priced our own citizens out of this job market with things like minimum wage, health care, and workers compensation. I am not well versed on the immigration issue but to me all of these things tie into it but not as a lure for immigrants but more as a method to keep our citizens out of the labor market. I know it is more complicated than that but oh well I really don't care much about this issue because right now I see much much larger problems.
When you say that I am an example of what people on a side think I can only hope you are right but I am afraid you are not.
wkmac
Well-Known Member
I do not have enough time to respond to everything but I thought that I would try and explain my line of thought on these two issues.
You are right some money makes its way to the military indirectly from other areas in the budget but some money in the military bills is directly allocated to non military things. I personally think every item of spending in Congress should stand on its own for an up or down vote.
Absolutely! Agree on both those points! Nice job pointing out both.
My point was that Diesel said our founders would not want to fight this war. I say you could at least make a case that the founders gave the central government the power to wage war.
You both are correct IMO and based on the limited powers originally placed including no standing army, militias were maintained and controlled in the States, and the many statements of avoiding entangling alliances, etc. The war powers if you will were meant purely as a means of self defense and never as a means of exerting power. That was the intent but old world empirical habits are hard to break and it wasn't long before old habits started creeping in and by the late 19th century had boiled to the surface after Lincoln's War began to consolidate federal powers.
I believe D in his point is correct as well. And yes, the founders gave the federal gov't the power to wage war but that power was also very specifically definded in how it would progress and since WW2, our Congress has surrendered that right to the executive branch IMO only for political cover. Why go on record when you can hang the rock around a dumb President so to speak. Had Iraq been an unqualified success, I honestly believe you'd have had Congresspeople knocking each other down to get in front of the camera to claim credit for the success. I have to admit I loved to see that just for the laugh. They play and have played both sides of the street except for a principled few.
You also come across trying to justify the current situation by saying the gov't was given the powers to wage war by the founders. OK, the gov't was given the power by the founders for welfare programs by the general welfare clause. Be very careful how you argue a point. And no I don't believe that type of power was intended either.
I did not say that I agree with how Congress uses this power today or that they even had an actual declaration of war.
If you believe in limited gov't and strict restraint of the Constitution, no war can be justified outside a valid declaration as prescribe by the Constitution. However, that's JMO.
I do not however think that founders ever had the intention of a federal government providing retirement or health care.
Absolutely!
In your other post you avoided that and just posted how it passed the courts.
LMAO!!! OK, I'll just let that one stand. I think my position on federal powers over the past has been pretty clear so I'll just leave it there.
Oh and I do not of course think that the US being in Iraq is being a police force to the world I of course as I have said before believe there was a direct threat to our citizens. That may be only a small difference to you but it makes a big difference from my point of view.
I understand that. When the immediate after effects of 9/11 I also was inclined to think the same but I began to step back and look at the entire history of the region, our actions along with the European powers and a whole other picture began to emerge. I also looked at actions within gov't and the actions of specific persons back in the mid 90's. An MO that was in the interest of some American and some non American principles clearly emerged and then many of these same persons came to dominate important and strategic positions within the Bush adminstration. As justification after justification came to be disproved and justification changed I could only conclude at that point there we other facts at play. And no it ain't Halliburton!
You guys have a great day.
wkmac
Well-Known Member
Across the whole strata of gov't is waste and fraud and no function IMO is void of it!
Immigration! Let me just say this. If you remove both legal and illegal immigration from the US picture, the core US population over the last 30 years will have declined. Now we think Central States was in serious trouble but in an era where we the people demanded more from our gov't but at the same time demanded the cost of gov't (taxes) should go down, what was the gov't to do? That's the reason nothing is being done about illegal immigration. The myth that illegals don't pay taxes is just that, myth. All money that circulates in the economy at some point gets taxed and at some point gets absorbed back to the gov't to be circulated out again via gov't spending. That is the whole premise behind planned economics.
Empires of the past conquered new lands, returning with riches and slave labor to build the empire and provide the stock population with wine and circus so to speak. We've advanced from those archaic days so what do we do? AH-HA Globalism. Open borders which allows the slaves so to speak to come to us and it also allows business transfers to other lands opening up new markets for the same merchantilist interests.
Now I'm all about open and free markets but these are not open and free markets. They are negociated treaty created markets made perfect for certain global merchantile interests that restrict complete and open access for all. The moment some local upshot decides to get in the game, the global merchantilist unleash their powers to stop them. Both Iraq and Iran toyed with opening competing oil trading markets with London and New York and out come the dogs of war! If you believe in open free market principles and the belief that the market should decide winners and losers, shouldn't the Iraqis and Iranians be free to do this?
If UPS decides they need airplanes to go to a certain place can they just load em' and fly there? Nope, the federales much approve first and if international, it must be done according to treaty. How is this either way a true open free market? Does in effect the gov't decides who in the winner and who the loser? Could the gov't also be keeping out new upstarts from entering the fray?
That's how they get the business interest to go along. Years ago we had the so-called monopoly busting gov't but today they are in effect about creating monopoies so to speak.Should the Indians of northern Georgia back in the early 1800's who had tons of gold on their lands been free to mine or not to mine that gold or to do with it as they saw fit? Instead, we had the forced march known as the trail of Tears. Kinda flies back in our face about our belief and principles of economic freedom doesn't it. And I didn't even speak of property rights!
If we did that to the Indians, if we enslaved a people of foreign origin for the express purpose of economic gain and building our own society, could we not be doing the same with someone else's oil?
Now we have the immigrate who comes here and then these same global merchantilist use that labor to depress our own labor market. Among those coming are the element who refuse assimulation into the American custom and in many cases violate our laws through criminal enterprise as this was an accepted norm in some cases from which they came. We scream bloody murder about the rising illegal prison population and it is a problem for local communities to burden but then we go to foreign lands ourselves and flip our hands at local custom and tradition which in many cases, even though we and I would agree makes no sense but it is their law.
I enjoy a cold brew from time to time but if I went into someone's house who objected to all forms of alcohol, I'd never in 1000 years insult them by pulling out a longneck and swilling it down even though local law allows me to drink such. Private property rights of others supercede my rights when I'm on their land and I have to conform to their rules as such or leave. Why is visiting a foreign country any different? Or should the quickest way of spreading the American way is by living it's example in everything we do? I wonder in doing that how much force or what size army would be needed to advance our cause globally if other people knew we would respect and treat them right whenever we were around. Instead, we're the lone world superpower so we do as we please!
Your point about controlling immigration I totally agree with even though I hold a utopian principle of all borders being open and people are free to move about as they please. But reality is another matter so there you go. The Empire State is all about the Welfare State as in order to maintain the empire, all manner of society must be controlled and planned. The most logical thing regarding immigration would be to prohibit and use by such of our wellfare system including the public schools. I completely agree with that as cold hearted as it is or seems. However, 2 potential blowbacks from this.
1) They go home! HOORAY! Let's Party! Right? Be careful, the economic fallout maybe a lot bigger than we think.
2) They resort to crime as they refuse to leave. Some estimates suggest US prison population is 25% illegal and how true that is I'll let others debate. But, cut off the welfare and you can bet some will turn to crime and at what cost to the local communties, some already strapped with this cost burden.
A side note. How much of our increased demand in energy over the last several years, the inability for oil production capacity to meet domestic demand, would not be a problem when you remove the millions of illegals? How much less greenhouse gases would we emit as a nation?
Now there's a thought for ya Allie Gore!
Immigration is a monster create by gov't and merchantile interests for their own gain and none of the candidates I saw running except for Ron Paul and I think Duncan Hunter called for doing anything about the problem. Ron Paul wants to bring home the all European, Korean and Japanese based Divisions and put them on our borders. Now IMO that is national defense in the true Constitutional sense!
Oh I forgot, he's an idiot wackjob!
Similar threads
