|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 2,198
Dawg Talker
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 2,198 |
Quote:
Quote:
Cut OFF the cash flow. There is no other way.
Who is John Galt?  This ought to send folks like Rockdogg, Mantis and PDR into a hissy fit. 
I'm sorry did you say something?
I thought I was on your "ignore" list!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,300
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,300 |
Quote:
Quote:
You failed the math test.
The only part I won't agree with arch on is the wars - they certainly had an impact. Saying we have a spending problem and not and income problem is 100% true IMO. Revenues have been pretty consistent:
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200
But lets just tax some more, that'll fix it. 
Make some meaningful cuts, show the population they are serious about righting this ship. If I knew for certain that my money was not being frivolously spent I wouldn't have a problem with paying a bit more in taxes.
Washington has absolutely zero intention of reducing the rate at which we spend. It is for once very simplistic reason - GDP.
Their spending is a part of GDP. The more they spend, the higher the nation's GDP. If they spend enough, they can claim an increase of x% in GDP and because of this and things like the technical definition of "recession", they firmly believe that they CAN spend their way clear of a recession. They can also claim to have grown the economy. Likewise, by constantly increasing the size of the government, they can put more people on the payroll, and thus claim that they helped reduce unemployment... which also increases spending, increasing GDP.
There IS math that supports this approach as actually being sustainable, but it makes certain assumptions on interest rates that no longer apply and worked best back in the 80's and 90's when interest rates were irrationally high..
Don't get me wrong, individual Senators and Congressmen will be in favor of reducing spending, but as a group, they won't do it. Just as a Person is smart, but People are stupid (never underestimate the stupidity of humans in large groups). They all want/need to protect their own special interests and Federal funding for their districts, and to ensure that they get theirs, they have to sign onto backing the projects of others in a big ole circle jerk of vote getting. Thus, everybody gets their pork and nobody accomplishes anything with spending.
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,925
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,925 |
In regards to your last paragraph - actually, last sentence.......that is just wrong, and that is a major problem. (not that your sentence was wrong........the FACT of your sentence ticks me off)
One need look no further than the M1A1 tanks. The pentagon says "we don't need them".....congress says "tough, we're going to pay for them, and you're going to use them and like it." (and in a hush hush voice they say "jobs depend on it. Not the tank builders jobs......OUR jobs. If we keep spending money on tanks in Ohio, it helps our esteemed colleagues from Ohio. It helps them keep their job, and since we voted for it, it will help us get their vote on stuff we need to keep our jobs. Good for the country? Who the hell cares.....it's good for our jobs and pet projects."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,391
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,391 |
Quote:
The lack of independence and freedom we actually have is striking.
Whenever I hear someone complaining about the lack of "freedom" and "independence" we have, think of this to put it into perspective:
Just imagine if someone could travel back in time and tell a father in 1780, “No, you cannot marry off your daughter to that much older man, that’s illegal. Oh, and so is owning slaves.” That father would have scoffed at your attempt to “infringe upon his rights as an American” and you would be deemed unconstitutional by many.
I think maybe it just emphasizes the point that some sort of reasonable gov't regulation and rules isn't such a bad idea. This doesn't mean you lose freedom. You just lose freedom to do stupid things.
------------------------------
*In Baker we trust*
-------------------------------
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,170
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,170 |
"too many notes, not enough music-"
#GMStong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,230
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,230 |
Quote:
This doesn't mean you lose freedom. You just lose freedom to do stupid things.
You mean stupid things like own a semiautomatic weapon, choose my own healthcare, board an airplane without getting strip searched, email a friend without worrying about how some federal investigator might take my message, praying in public, support a voter ID requirement without being called a bigot, let my kid carry a pocket knife.... and that's just off the top of my head.
And into the forest I go, to lose my mind and find my soul.
- John Muir
#GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,235
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,235 |
I think the government feels there will by the large amounts of ammo they are stocking.
To give a over under....over two, under 6.
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn. GM Strong ![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/small-gator-chomp.gif)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370
Hall of Famer
|
|
OP
Hall of Famer
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370 |
Quote:
I think the government feels there will by the large amounts of ammo they are stocking.
To give a over under....over two, under 6.
You're probably right but I suggest to you that it won't matter what the federal government does. They're only wasting your money and mine by purchasing more ammo than they could ever use.
Stockpiles can fall into the hands of those that the government tyrants don't want it to. Don't believe me? Look at the body count of dead Arab/Muslim dictators.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370
Hall of Famer
|
|
OP
Hall of Famer
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370 |
I get a chuckle every time I see this pop up next to rockdogg's or PDR's posts. *** You are ignoring this user ***Mantis asked to be put on it but his posts don't bother me anymore. I just chuckle at hers.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,093
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,093 |
Give it time. I'll get on your ignore list eventually. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,235
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,235 |
Quote:
Quote:
I think the government feels there will by the large amounts of ammo they are stocking.
To give a over under....over two, under 6.
You're probably right but I suggest to you that it won't matter what the federal government does. They're only wasting your money and mine by purchasing more ammo than they could ever use.
Stockpiles can fall into the hands of those that the government tyrants don't want it to. Don't believe me? Look at the body count of dead Arab/Muslim dictators.
I don't disagree.
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn. GM Strong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370
Hall of Famer
|
|
OP
Hall of Famer
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370 |
Quote:
Give it time. I'll get on your ignore list eventually.
Nah. I don't think you're as brain dead as PDR or Rockdogg. Close... but not quite. It takes a really special poster to make that list. You're not special.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,792
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,792 |
Just a general comment:
I really don't see any large scale armed revolt at this point, because the US military could crush any such revolt in seconds. Hell, they could just launch drones to take out leadership of any such paramilitary units. They could shut down and literally starve out anyone who took such actions.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 4,458
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 4,458 |
j/c
I tend to think that the only way any serious change will take place in this country, is through violent means. I think that the voting system we have, which is dominated by two party's who really are one in the same, is completely ineffective and a farce.
I also believe that at some point, this country is going to split into two groups. One who is living comfortably enough to want to maintain the status quo, and another groups who are arriving at a point where they are willing to sacrifice their lives for a vision that they believe is better.
I believe that we are rapidly seeing this splintering today. And as people become more disillusioned and desperate, then the possibilities for large-scale violence will grow wildly.
I think that the prevalence of school-shooters and spree-killers today is really a first step towards the unrest that is going to de-stabilize this country within the next 20 years. These people pulling this stuff now are the first wave of desperate and disillusioned, striking out at society. Once this desperation starts to hit the working poor, and they start losing faith in the government, then we will be in some serious trouble.
I wish to wash my Irish wristwatch......
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 240
Practice Squad
|
|
Practice Squad
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 240 |
Re-read the Declaration of Independence.
It's the greatest document in human history, dwarfed only by the Holy Bible.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,786
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,786 |
Quote:
YOU have failed the reality test.
Have you not been paying attention? You want to give these clowns in Washington MORE money? Do you enjoy watching your hard-earned wages being wasted and spent stupidly?
Will they pay down the debt, or borrow less, if they have more money? If you think so, please cite an example from the last 40 years or so.
Give them more to spend, and they will spend that, and still borrow more.
Cut OFF the cash flow. There is no other way.
My reality is just fine.
We send those "clowns" to Washington, and ultimately must accept their actions, so we are a contributing factor. There are things functions of government that are better done at that level, Roads, water, wastewater, military, national parks. education etc. etc.
We can choose to disagree about the safety net and other functions.
If you expect anyone to actually pay down the debt, that probably isn't happening, but I hold out for a balanced budget, even if it means raising taxes in some areas. Look at revenues from corporate taxes, and tariffs if you want to figure out who we are now supporting with our tax dollars. And don't try the tax rate argument, it is lame, I am talking effective tax rate. Like the fact that GE and Exxon pay nothing.
Yeah the system is a mess, but it is a mess that we created, and you can't exactly start over from scratch.
By all accounts the Clinton budgets were as near as we can tell to being neutral from a revenue/expense viewpoint. People choose to fight over the decimal points, but they certainly were better than the mess we have now. And it is not even 20 years old.
The discussion about the percentage GDP has some merit, because of the time value of money, but the kicker with carrying a high debt, is that if inflation goes up, interest payments go up, and there is more money allocated to debt service. That is a risk that I don't like.
There are too many people in Washington trying to invent plausible economic scenarios that have no basis in reality. So if you believe that cutting taxes raises revenue, or that it is just a spending problem, you have drank the kool-aid.
But I don't believe for one second that insurrection is a plausible action when it can be done with a ballot.
Welcome back, Joe, we missed you!…. That did not age well.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,300
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,300 |
Quote:
Re-read the Declaration of Independence.
It's the greatest document in human history, dwarfed only by the Holy Bible.
The Bill of Rights is pretty darn good, too.
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,480
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,480 |
Quote:
And don't try the tax rate argument, it is lame, I am talking effective tax rate
Why not? Effective tax rates have not changed much over the course of time, especially since 1990. Are you saying that they should have increased? If so, what is your reasoning?
I think we all agree that something needs to be done with the tax system - but sending Washington more money is very low on my list until they prove they are serious about spending cuts.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,786
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,786 |
Before 1980 the ratio was much higher, Reagan changed that. anyway... data http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3e/US_Effective_Corporate_Tax_Rate_1947-2011_v2.jpgCorporate tax revenue is about 20 percent of individual revenue, as a total amount of revenue. In a good year it can be above 20 percent, in a bad as low as 15. Before then it was in the 30 to 50 percent range. I generally http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/background/numbers/revenue.cfmThe site is actually pretty good, more numbers than most care to digest. Reasoning... like most people, I can't understand why mega corporations can pay less than an single individual when they are profitable. I have paid AMT, so what is good for the goose....
Welcome back, Joe, we missed you!…. That did not age well.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,235
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,235 |
Quote:
Just a general comment:
I really don't see any large scale armed revolt at this point, because the US military could crush any such revolt in seconds. Hell, they could just launch drones to take out leadership of any such paramilitary units. They could shut down and literally starve out anyone who took such actions.
I think something like that would make it even larger scale. You are also assuming the militray would be on board with crushing it's own citizens.
I am not talking about a group here or there. I am talking about when a state, or a group of states decide enough is enough. States are already drafting nullification bills. Holder has vowed to bring the full weight of the US government on Kansas for their recent gun legislation.
Exactly what does he mean by that? A lot of people will be watching. I'd expect a lot of other states to stick with Kansas on this issue.
He and this administration doesn't seem very worried about nullification bills when it comes to illegal drugs since those bills are in states friendly to this regime.
The government started this picking and choosing which federal law they would choose to enforce, so it seem logical to me states are now at liberty to pick and choose which federal laws they choose to follow.
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn. GM Strong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370
Hall of Famer
|
|
OP
Hall of Famer
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370 |
Quote:
j/c
I tend to think that the only way any serious change will take place in this country, is through violent means. I think that the voting system we have, which is dominated by two party's who really are one in the same, is completely ineffective and a farce.
I also believe that at some point, this country is going to split into two groups. One who is living comfortably enough to want to maintain the status quo, and another groups who are arriving at a point where they are willing to sacrifice their lives for a vision that they believe is better.
I believe that we are rapidly seeing this splintering today. And as people become more disillusioned and desperate, then the possibilities for large-scale violence will grow wildly.
I think that the prevalence of school-shooters and spree-killers today is really a first step towards the unrest that is going to de-stabilize this country within the next 20 years. These people pulling this stuff now are the first wave of desperate and disillusioned, striking out at society. Once this desperation starts to hit the working poor, and they start losing faith in the government, then we will be in some serious trouble.
I think you're right about most of it except for the amount of time. You say 'within the next 20 years'. While I think that's correct, I think you could compress it much more. It could be within the next 10 years and probably within the next 5.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370
Hall of Famer
|
|
OP
Hall of Famer
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370 |
Quote:
Re-read the Declaration of Independence.
It's the greatest document in human history, dwarfed only by the Holy Bible.
I've read it recently. Everyone should read it and they would see so very many similarities in the reasons given for the Declaration then and the same grievances expressed today.
For those that are unfamiliar with it:
IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370
Hall of Famer
|
|
OP
Hall of Famer
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370 |
Quote:
Quote:
Re-read the Declaration of Independence.
It's the greatest document in human history, dwarfed only by the Holy Bible.
The Bill of Rights is pretty darn good, too.
But they are part of the Constitution, and are therefore only a part of a document.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370
Hall of Famer
|
|
OP
Hall of Famer
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370 |
Quote:
Quote:
Just a general comment:
I really don't see any large scale armed revolt at this point, because the US military could crush any such revolt in seconds. Hell, they could just launch drones to take out leadership of any such paramilitary units. They could shut down and literally starve out anyone who took such actions.
I think something like that would make it even larger scale. You are also assuming the militray would be on board with crushing it's own citizens.
I am not talking about a group here or there. I am talking about when a state, or a group of states decide enough is enough. States are already drafting nullification bills. Holder has vowed to bring the full weight of the US government on Kansas for their recent gun legislation.
Exactly what does he mean by that? A lot of people will be watching. I'd expect a lot of other states to stick with Kansas on this issue.
He and this administration doesn't seem very worried about nullification bills when it comes to illegal drugs since those bills are in states friendly to this regime.
The government started this picking and choosing which federal law they would choose to enforce, so it seem logical to me states are now at liberty to pick and choose which federal laws they choose to follow.
And I am at liberty to choose which state and federal laws I choose to follow.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,230
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,230 |
Quote:
We send those "clowns" to Washington, and ultimately must accept their actions, so we are a contributing factor.
It's not quite that simple. People see the candidates on the ballot and try to choose the lesser of the evils....which usually means voting along party lines. Without term limits, we're stuck with the same lifer politicians without a viable alternative. The way the system is set up, an independent or 3rd party candidate has no chance of succeeding, because people don't want to "waste" their vote. You wouldn't believe the crap I took here and elsewhere because I refused to vote for Romney.....not because Mitt was a good presidential candidate, but because it would help Obama. People should vote their beliefs and not whore out their vote, as the politicians expect you to.
And into the forest I go, to lose my mind and find my soul.
- John Muir
#GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 2,198
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 2,198 |
Campaign finance reform and no money or assets gained from lobbyists. No life-time pension or health-care. Pay raises voted by constituents. Staff must be paid from your own pocket.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,093
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,093 |
j/c
Is there a difference between 29 percent of people telling a pollster from the comfort of wherever that a revolution might be necessary, and a person(s) actually prepared to start a revolution? Most of the comments seem to assume the two are synonomous. Why? How easy is it to answer an abstract question about revolution from the comfort of your home? This will go down in history as the Armchair Revolution of 2013, quickly put down by the comforts of living in the most prosperous nation on Earth. Everybody's so angry at the government, but I think that anger is superficial. Do you really have what it takes to pick up a gun and start shooting your countrymen?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 |
Quote:
j/c
Is there a difference between 29 percent of people telling a pollster from the comfort of wherever that a revolution might be necessary, and a person(s) actually prepared to start a revolution? Most of the comments seem to assume the two are synonomous. Why? How easy is it to answer an abstract question about revolution from the comfort of your home? This will go down in history as the Armchair Revolution of 2013, quickly put down by the comforts of living in the most prosperous nation on Earth. Everybody's so angry at the government, but I think that anger is superficial. Do you really have what it takes to pick up a gun and start shooting your countrymen?
Why do people keep insinuating it will be innocent citizen vs innocent citizen (ie: countrymen)?
If it happens, it has been stated that it will most likely start out as a crime wave, which then people will fight back. And yes, if you come to my home and try to take what I have, expect to be met with deadly force.
If a "organized revolution" happens, it will more than likely be a march on Washington, and while there will be some violence as there often is in angry mob protests, it will be rather subdued unless Washington fires on it's people, similar to Libya, Egypt.
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
Quote:
This doesn't mean you lose freedom. You just lose freedom to do stupid things.
You mean stupid things like own a semiautomatic weapon, choose my own healthcare, board an airplane without getting strip searched, email a friend without worrying about how some federal investigator might take my message, praying in public, support a voter ID requirement without being called a bigot, let my kid carry a pocket knife.... and that's just off the top of my head.
Or buy a large soda, or not wear a seatbelt, or cut down a tree in your yard, or spank your child, or eat a ho-ho without a hefty tax...
I don't think anybody has a problem with the government intervening on owning slaves, it's when they start defining "stupid things" that most people start to get really nervous...
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,431
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,431 |
Quote:
Do you really have what it takes to pick up a gun and start shooting your countrymen?
The answer is a big screaming NO ! "what I would do is ..." changes real damn quick when you are faced with the sure and certain knowledge that your actions will get you killed . I am of the opinion that the vast, vast majority of these people flat out don't have the stones to shoot a dog much less another person who is going to shoot back . Armchair revolution is a good name for it .
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
How easy is it to answer an abstract question about revolution from the comfort of your home?
Which is why I said earlier that I firmly believe that armed revolution will someday happen but we aren't anywhere close to it yet because the vast majority of people are still far too comfortable.
Quote:
Do you really have what it takes to pick up a gun and start shooting your countrymen?
That depends entirely on what I'm defending or fighting for. Do I have any intention of trying to start a revolution? Absolutely not.. but if it comes to my door, then I will do what I have to do to defend myself and my family.
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 2,198
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 2,198 |
Quote:
If it happens, it has been stated that it will most likely start out as a crime wave, which then people will fight back. And yes, if you come to my home and try to take what I have, expect to be met with deadly force.
If a "organized revolution" happens, it will more than likely be a march on Washington, and while there will be some violence as there often is in angry mob protests, it will be rather subdued unless Washington fires on it's people, similar to Libya, Egypt.
Just as long as we're not planning for a night that "American Idol" is on.
Oh, and can stop at an Outback on the way!?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,480
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,480 |
Quote:
Before 1980 the ratio was much higher, Reagan changed that.
anyway... data
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3e/US_Effective_Corporate_Tax_Rate_1947-2011_v2.jpg
Corporate tax revenue is about 20 percent of individual revenue, as a total amount of revenue. In a good year it can be above 20 percent, in a bad as low as 15. Before then it was in the 30 to 50 percent range. I generally
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/background/numbers/revenue.cfm
The site is actually pretty good, more numbers than most care to digest.
Reasoning... like most people, I can't understand why mega corporations can pay less than an single individual when they are profitable. I have paid AMT, so what is good for the goose....
There are many companies that take advantage of the current tax code, however it is a certainty that operating a company in the US has higher tax rates than the global average. We can thank our elected officials for giving "tax incentives" to lure companies to do business in certain areas as a starting point of the problem. You can cherry pick a handful of companies that are getting lower effective tax rates, however there are many sites that can be referenced to show the overall effective tax rate of doing business in America is much higher than other countries. That being said, you've always come across, at least to me, as individuals should be paying more. I have paid AMT for as long as I can remember; I own my own business, but of course do not get the tax breaks that the mega-corps do. The tax system as a whole is a just a mess that needs to be fixed - the problem with taxing corporations more, IMO, will lead to more unemployment.
What needs to be done is a simple tax structure - the problem is, a few exceptionally large companies get great tax deals where the medium to small ones get nothing. That makes it difficult to compete; the US, overall, has a very high corporate tax rate and that needs to be fixed.
IMO, if we can simplify the tax code for both individuals and corporations we will be headed in the right direction. I'm a huge proponent of the fair tax movement, but any sort of flat taxation structure is likely good with me. Everyone needs to pay something, regardless of income, however the "rich" need not be vilified and taxed to the extent that it makes no sense to become successful.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,786
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,786 |
No, I don't think that it would be accurate to state that my position is that individuals should be paying more, although it is pretty clear that the Bush tax cuts were too severe and probably more unbalanced than they should have been. That is part of the reason why we have the deficit now. In the scheme, I am one that favors revenue equals spending.
The issue needs to include the total tax burden. The overall structure of the tax code has a bit of a peak where those with good but not great earnings have the highest effective tax rate. (Buffet's secretary concept) Those at the upper end can take revenue in capital gains form and avoid social security, and the marginal rates are lower at the bottom end. Using the individual tax rates is misleading overall, because it does not consider the total tax burden (e.g. impact of sales, fica, ss, capital gains taxes). Romney found that out with his 47 percent comment.
There are some merits to a "flatter" tax structure, but as long as the other taxes are not included, well, that means those at the bottom would be impacted more by a truly flat tax. In this case a flatter structure may be more equitable given the other taxes.
With regard to corporations, it is swiss cheese and has the same challenges. I am one that believe that corporate AMT is a short term fix to the bigger challenge.
It is a mess, but I don't fall into the gloom and doom of changing corporate taxes, I tend to agree with Buffet's concept, that business or personal decisions on investments should not be guided by a their tax implications, any investment should stand on its own merits...
The greatest challenge with tax policy is that the first questions asked are "how does it affect me", then "who is getting the break" versus the more difficult "what is the right thing to do."
People will complain about taxes a hundred years from now, and they complained about them a hundred years ago. But, from a historical perspective individual rates are low right now.
Welcome back, Joe, we missed you!…. That did not age well.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
The greatest challenge with tax policy is that the first questions asked are "how does it affect me", then "who is getting the break" versus the more difficult "what is the right thing to do."
There are 3, and only 3, real questions that need asked when it comes to tax policy..
1. What is the role of government?
2. What is the minimum amount of money we need to fill that role?
3. How should we divide up who pays it?
If they could get the answers to the first two questions right, I dare say that most people wouldn't have that big of a problem with the answer to the 3rd as long as it was remotely equitable.
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,964
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,964 |
IMO there are only two questions, and the ones you are asking don't really matter.
#1. What is the maximum amount you are willing to pay for the services you get from your government?
#2. What are you willing to do when they demand more than that amount?
You don't even have to answer #1, that answer doesn't really matter, either.
It's the answer to the second question that will eventually be faced. Many won't know their answer until the moment when it dawns on them that the question is being asked.
Quite a few truly believe that the question is somehow to be aimed at somebody else, and not them. Unless there is major change, everyone with a job will face it.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,792
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,792 |
Hell, the US government and military could easily infiltrate any such group(s), and start taking them apart from inside ..... knock out communications, then take out the leadership ..... and then level the headquarters of any such groups. Further, the government/military can pressure the media into molding the story as they desire.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
IMO there are only two questions, and the ones you are asking don't really matter.
#1. What is the maximum amount you are willing to pay for the services you get from your government?
The services I get? You mean I get to pick which services I want from the government and pay for those? If that were the case then your question would be perfectly valid, unfortunately I don't get to pick and choose, I get to pay my share of every dollar our government chooses to spend whether I agree with what it is being spent on or not.... and it is my belief that the government has no obligation, nor right to even spend most of it. If there was a way to figure out my share of the standing army, my share of some intelligence agencies, roads and bridges, a police and fire department, public schools, etc then I would be more than happy to pay my share of that...
but then I also get to pay for health insurance for other people, cell phones for poor people, bail outs for rich people, bribes for countries around the world, unemployment for years, food stamps for generations, defense systems that the DoD doesn't need or want, museums I don't go to, research that yields nothing, education rules that are stupid... Here is a list of some of the things I pay for...
I pay for:
The USDA to have a Smokey Bear hot air balloon that goes to festivals.
NSF funds go to a study on how golfers can putt better if they imagine the hole is bigger
Health and Human Services pays millions annually in maintenance fees on grant accounts that are empty because they forgot to close them.
HUD money goes to a company to buy machinery to make pet shampoo and pet toothpaste.
A Dept. of Transportation grant went to pay for bus service during the Super Bowl.
Dept. of Transportation money is being used in Michigan to buy talking urinal cakes to help stop drunk driving.
USDA spends money to help vineyards.
The Dept. of Energy funded a contest to develop an energy usage app, even though one already exists.
State Dept. pays for an Indian-American comedy act to travel through India doing shows.
NIH funded a study to see if male fruit flies are attracted to younger female fruit flies.
NSF funding went to a study to determine if the elderly could play World of Warcraft to improve cognitive function.
A West Virginia town is using federal transportation funds to build a Lego exhibit on Main Street.
GSA spends millions maintaining contracts on products that are obsolete and nobody buys any more.
NSF money was used to create a robot squirrel to see how squirrels and rattlesnakes interact.
So how much am I willing to pay for the services the government provides ME? My share... now back to my question, what is the role of government?
Quote:
#2. What are you willing to do when they demand more than that amount?
The same thing I'm doing now.. I'm going to try to make them accountable for the money that I sent them to provide the services that they wasted on useless crap.
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 66
Rookie
|
|
Rookie
Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 66 |
Quote:
Quote:
Re-read the Declaration of Independence.
It's the greatest document in human history, dwarfed only by the Holy Bible.
I've read it recently. Everyone should read it and they would see so very many similarities in the reasons given for the Declaration then and the same grievances expressed today.
Funny how you mentioned the Constitution and the Bible. The sad thing is that we as children growing were never taught the Constitution in depth in schools...that being said, teaching the Constitution in our schools is almost as appalling as teaching the Bible to those libtard Democrats.
In the oath of enlistment into the Armed Forces it states... "I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and DOMESTIC"....We as citizens should defend the Constitution against domestic enemies as well, if a revolution is required so be it.
Our Founding Fathers welcomed revolution..they said it may be required at times.
Who are the domestic enemies? Obviously Islamic terrorists and sympathizers living amongst us. Notice the oath says "to defend the Constitution" not defend the government... Although a cowardly act, terrorist Timothy McVeigh hated the government, not the Constitution. I share the opinion with many that radical liberals and their socialistic policies, not terrorists, are our greatest threat...
Starting at the top with your president.
Obama quotes...
"The Constitution says what the government cant do TO you, but it doesn't say what it must do on your behalf".:..like hand outs and entitlements? Got it Barry.
Obama at the recent OSU commencement ceremony:
"Unfortunately, you've grown up hearing voices that incessantly warn of government as nothing more than some separate, sinister entity that's at the root of all our problems. Some of these same voices also do their best to gum up the works. They'll warn that tyranny always lurking just around the corner. You should reject these voices...."
"When you spread the wealth it's good for everybody"
"You didn't build that"....Thats right Barry, the govt. did.
"We are 5 days away from FUNDAMENTALLY changing America"
"Do we go forward to a new vision for America in which PROSPERITY IS SHARED..."
Facts about Obamas past...
1. Obama's Father Wrote About Socialism - His father wrote a paper called "Problems With Our Socialism" that advocates 100% taxation of the rich
2. Obama's Mother Was a "Communist Sympathizer" - Source: Tim Jones, Chicago Tribune
3. Obama's Parents Met in a Russian Class (Back then it was the Communist USSR) - "His mother, Stanley Ann Dunham (her father always wanted a son), was white and just 18 when they met in a Russian class" Source: Sharon Cohen, St Louis Times
4. Obama's teen mentor was communist Frank Marshall Davis (a known CPUSA member) - "... mentioned as only "Frank" 22 times in his book Dreams From My Father.
5. Obama's Brother Roy and Cousin Odinga are Marxists -" Source: Invenstor's Business Daily
6. Obama Attended Socialist Conferences at Cooper Union - Source: H Kennedy, NY Daily News
7. Obama Was Hand Picked by Alice Palmer to Succeed Her in the Illinois State Senate - Source: Jim Corsi, WorldNetDaily based on Communism in Chicago and the Obama Connection (Cliff Kincaid and Herbert Romerstein)
8. Obama's Run for the Illinois State Senate was Launched by a Fundraiser Organized at Bill Ayers' and Bernardine Dorhn's Chicago Home - Ayers and Dorhn are former terrorists from the Weather Underground
9. Obama Had a Close Relationship with the "Anti-Capitalist" Group ACORN -” Source: Stanley Kurtz, National Review
10. Obama Attended Several Meetings with the Democratic Socialists in Chicago and Was even Endorsed by Them - Source: Wikipedia
11. Obama Endorsed Openly Socialist Senator Bernie Sanders
12. Obama attends a Church in Chicago, listening to a preacher named rev. Wright, spew anti- American hatred.
13. Anybody remember when during Obamas first run for the presidency, the stink that was made when he decided to no longer wear the American flag on his lapel? It all makes sense now.
Anybody that dismisses this hard evidence as just a "vast right wing conspiracy" is seriously in denial. Liberalism is socialism.
This coupled with the recent liberal tactics of vilifying our Founding Fathers and rendering the Constitution out of date.
You see folks, Obama has no desire to make America great again. He is anti-American exceptionalism, his goal is to put America on an "even playing field" with the rest of the world, just as he wants to put all of its citizens on an "even playing field" with each other. His nonchalant attitude toward our ever increasing deficit is only one example of that...think about it.
The really sad part is that half of America voted for this piece of crap.
Many of those Americans had grandparents and great-grandparents that left tyrannical socialist countries to come to America to start a new life. It is a slap in the face to those hard working industrious people that their descendents are voting in socialistic politicians and regimes that they themselves have escaped...and you know who you are.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 9,433
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 9,433 |
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... Poll: 29% of Registered Voters
Believe Armed Revolution Might Be
Necessary
|
|
