“Believe me, the next step is a currency crisis because there will be a rejection of the dollar, the rejection of the dollar is a big, big event, and then your personal liberties are going to be severely threatened.” Ron Paul

As usual the MSM did its usual superficial dog and pony show for the American public on Saturday and Sunday. The overall tone on every show (not journalism) was to calm the audience. Every station had a “downgrade special” to explain why you shouldn’t panic over the downgrade of the United States. As we can see, it didn’t work. Worldwide markets went berserk. The reactions of the various players in this saga have been very enlightening to say the least.

As I watched, listened and read the views of hundreds of people over the last few days, I recalled a statement by David Walker in the documentary I.O.U.S.A. This documentary was made in late 2007 before the financial crisis hit. The documentary follows Walker, the former head of the GAO, and Bob Bixby, head of the Concord Coalition, on their Fiscal Wake Up tour.

In the film, Walker tells the audience: “We suffer from a fiscal cancer. If we don’t treat it there will be catastrophic consequences.” He argued the greatest threat to America was not a terrorist squatting in a cave in Afghanistan, but the US debt mountain. He was nervous about the increasing dependence on countries such as China, which are the biggest holders of US Treasury bonds. Bixby explained: “If you knew a levee was unsound and people were moving into that area, would you do nothing? Of course not.” These men were sounding the alarm when our National Debt was $9 trillion. Evidently, no one in Washington DC went to see the movie. They’ve added $5.5 trillion of debt to our Mount Everest of obligations.

After listening to the shills, shysters, propagandists, and paid representatives of the vested interests over the last few days, Mr. Walker’s response to someone pointing out Europe and other countries were in worse shape than the U.S. came to mind:

“What good does it do to be the best-looking horse in the glue factory?”

At the end of the documentary there was a prestigious panel of thought leaders discussing ideas to alter the country from its unsustainable fiscal path. I was shocked when Warren Buffett basically stated there was nothing to worry about: 

“I’m going to be the token Pollyanna here. There is no question that our children will live better than we did. But it’s just like my investments. I try to buy shares in companies that are so wonderful, an idiot could run them, and sooner or later one will. Our country is a bit like that.”

Buffett has since turned into a Wall Street/Washington apologist, talking his book. He declared this weekend the US deserves a quadruple A rating. He has tried to protect his investments in GE, Goldman Sachs, Moodys and Wells Fargo by declaring their businesses as sound and their balance sheets clean. He is now just a standard issue sellout spewing whatever will protect his vast fortune. Truth is now optional in Buffett World.  

The Oracle of Omaha has continuously bad mouthed gold and pumped up the economic prospects for the U.S. He trashed gold in his March 2011 report to shareholders:

“Gold is a way of going long on fear, and it has been a pretty good way of going long on fear from time to time. But you really have to hope people become more afraid in a year or two years than they are now. And if they become more afraid you make money, if they become less afraid you lose money, but the gold itself doesn’t produce anything.”

I guess the leadership of this country has created a bit of fear in the market, as gold has risen from $1,400 to $1,750 and Warren’s beloved financial holdings have tanked, along with the stock price of Berkshire Hathaway (down 23% since March). There seems to be an inverse relationship between the barbarous relic and lying old men shilling for the vested interests.

Vested Interests

When you watch the corporate mainstream media, or read a corporate run newspaper, or go to a corporate owned internet site you are going to get a view that is skewed to the perspective of the corporate owners. What all Americans must understand is everyone they see on TV or read in the mainstream press are part of the status quo. These people have all gotten rich under the current social and economic structure. Buffett, Kudlow, Cramer, Bartiromo, Senators, investment managers, Bill Gross, Lloyd Blankfein, Jamie Dimon, Jeff Immelt, and every person paraded on TV have a vested interest in propping up the existing structure. They are talking their book and their own best interests. Even though history has proven time and again the existing social order gets swept away like debris in a tsunami wave, the vested interests try to cling to their power, influence and wealth. Those benefitting from the existing economic structure will lie, obfuscate, misdirect, and use propaganda and misinformation to retain their positions.

The establishment will seek to blame others, fear monger and avoid responsibility for their actions. Ron Paul plainly explains why the US was downgraded:

“We were downgraded because of years of reckless spending, not because concerned Americans demanded we get our finances in order. The Washington establishment has spent us into near default and now a downgrade, and here they are again trying to escape responsibility for their negligence in handling the economy.”

The standard talking points you have heard or will hear from the vested interests include:

  • Stocks are undervalued based on forward PE ratios.
  • Ignore the volatility in the market because stocks always go up in the long run.
  • Buy the f$%ing dip.
  • America is not going into recession.
  • The market is dropping because the Tea Party held the country hostage.
  • The S&P downgrade is meaningless because they rated toxic subprime mortgages AAA in 2005 – 2007.
  • The market is dropping because the debt ceiling deal will crush the economy with the horrific austerity measures.
  • The S&P downgrade is meaningless because Treasury rates declined after the downgrade.
  • Foreigners will continue to buy our debt because they have no other options.
  • Foreigners will continue to invest in the U.S. because Europe, Japan and China are in worse shape than the U.S.
  • America is still the greatest economy on the planet and the safest place to invest.

Each of these storylines is being used on a daily basis by the vested interests as they try to pull the wool over the eyes of average Americans. A smattering of truth is interspersed with lies to convince the non-thinking public their existing delusional beliefs are still valid. The storylines are false.

Here are some basic truths the vested interests don’t want you to understand:

  • As of two weeks ago the stock market was 40% overvalued based upon normalized S&P earnings and was priced to deliver 3% annual returns over the next decade. The S&P 500 has lost 17%, meaning it is only 23% overvalued. Truthful analysts John Hussman, Jeremy Grantham and Robert Shiller were all in agreement about the market being 40% overvalued. This decline is not a buying opportunity.
  • The S&P 500 was trading at 1,119 on April 2, 1998. The S&P 500 closed at 1,119 yesterday. In March 2000 the S&P 500 traded at 1,527. By my calculation, the stock market is 27% below its peak eleven years ago. As you can see, stocks always go up in the long run. It is just depends on your definition of long.
  • The talking heads on CNBC told you to buy the dip from October 2007 through until March 2009. The result was a 50% loss of your wealth.
  • The government will report the onset of recession six months after it has already begun. People who live in the real world (not NYC or Washington DC) know the country has been in recession for the last seven months. The CNBC pundits don’t want to admit we are in a recession because they know the stock market drops 40% during recessions on average and don’t want you to sell before they do.
  • The stock market held up remarkably well during the debt ceiling fight. It did not begin to plunge until Obama signed the toothless joke of a bill that doesn’t “cut” one dime of spending. The markets realized  the politicians in Washington DC will never cut spending. The National Debt will rise from $14.5 trillion to $20 trillion by 2015 and to $25 trillion by 2021, even with the supposed austere spending “cuts”.


  • The left wing media and the frothing at the mouth leaders of the Democratic Party have conducted focus groups and concluded that blaming the extreme, terrorist Tea Party for the stock market crash and the S&P downgrade plays well to their hate mongering ignorant base. They have rolled out their rabid dogs, Joe “gaffe machine” Biden, Howard “AYAHHHHHH!!!” Dean and John “ketchup” Kerry, to eviscerate the Tea Party terrorists.

  • The mainstream liberal media would like you to believe the Tea Party is an actual cohesive group that wants to throw grandmothers and the poverty stricken under the bus. The neo-cons in the Republican Party and their mouthpieces on Fox News have tried to co-opt the Tea Party movement for their purposes. There is no one Tea Party. It is a movement born of frustration with an out of control government. Ron Paul represented the Tea Party before it even existed and is the intellectual leader of the movement. His is the only honest truthful voice in this debate:

“As many frustrated Americans who have joined the Tea Party realize, we cannot stand against big government at home while supporting it abroad. We cannot talk about fiscal responsibility while spending trillions on occupying and bullying the rest of the world. We cannot talk about the budget deficit and spiraling domestic spending without looking at the costs of maintaining an American empire of more than 700 military bases in more than 120 foreign countries. We cannot pat ourselves on the back for cutting a few thousand dollars from a nature preserve or an inner-city swimming pool at home while turning a blind eye to a Pentagon budget that nearly equals those of the rest of the world combined.”

  • S&P’s opinion about any debt should be taken with a grain of salt. They, along with Warren Buffet’s friends at Moodys, were bought and sold by the Wall Street criminal element. Anyone with a smattering of math skill and an ounce of critical thinking would have concluded the U.S. was a bad credit three years ago. A Goldman Sachs trader had this opinion of the brain dead analysts at Moodys: “Guys who can’t get a job on Wall Street get a job at Moody’s.” Michael Lewis, in his book The Big Short, summarized the view of the rating agencies:

“Wall Street bond trading desks, staffed by people making seven figures a year, set out to coax from the brain-dead guys making high five figures the highest possible ratings for the worst possible loans. They performed the task with Ivy League thoroughness and efficiency.”

  • The most laughable storyline spouted by the Democrats and their lapdogs on MSNBC is the extreme austerity measures forced on the country by the Tea Party has caused the stock market to collapse. The plan “cuts” $22 billion in 2012 and $42 billion in 2013. Over this time frame, the Federal government will spend $7.4 TRILLION. The horrific spending “cuts” amount to .86% of spending over the next two years. Meanwhile, we will add at least $3 trillion to the National Debt over this same time frame. Of course, we could listen to Paulie “Spend More” Krugman and add $6 trillion to the national debt with another stimulus package. When a Keynesian solution fails miserably, just declare it would have worked if it was twice the size.
  • Barack Obama, the James Buchanan of our times, gave one of the worst Presidential speeches in the history of our country yesterday. In full hubristic fury he declared the United States of America would ALWAYS be a AAA country. The American Exceptionalism dogma is so very amusing. We are chosen by God to lead the world. Barack should have paid closer attention in history class. The Roman, Dutch, Spanish and British Empires all fell due to their hubris, fiscal mismanagement and overseas military exploits. The American Empire has fallen and can’t get up.  

And now we come to the $100 trillion question. The establishment/vested interests/status quo declares the United States as the safest place in the world for investors. They frantically point out that people are pouring money into our Treasuries and interest rates are declining. They hysterically blurt out that Europe has much bigger problems than the U.S. and China’s real estate bubble will implode in the near future. These are the same people who told you the internet had created a new paradigm and NASDAQ PE ratios of 150 in 2000 were reasonable. The NASDAQ soared to 5,000 in early 2000. Today it trades at 2,358, down 53% eleven years later. These are the same people who told you they aren’t making more land and home prices in 2005 were reasonable. They told you home prices had never fallen nationally in our history, so don’t worry. Prices are down 35% and still falling today.

Medicare and Medicaid spending rose 10% in the second quarter of 2011 from a year earlier to a combined annual rate of almost $992 billion, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA). The two programs are likely to crack $1 trillion before the end of the year. Medicare’s unfunded liability alone amounts to $353,350 per U.S. household. The National Debt will reach 100% of GDP in the next four months as we relentlessly add $4 billion per day to our Mount Everest of debt. Federal spending in 2007 was $2.7 trillion. Today, they are spending $3.8 trillion of your money. The country does not have a revenue problem. We have a spending addiction and the addict needs treatment. Doctor Ron Paul has our prognosis:

“When the federal government spends more each year than it collects in tax revenues, it has three choices: It can raise taxes, print money, or borrow money. While these actions may benefit politicians, all three options are bad for average Americans.”

The politicians and bankers who control the developed world have made the choice to print money and create more debt as their solution to an un-payable debt problem. Europe, Japan, the U.S., and virtually every country in the world want to devalue their way out of a debt problem created over the last forty years. It has become a race to the bottom, with no winners. Every country can’t devalue their currency simultaneously without blowing up the entire worldwide monetary system. But, it appears they are going to try. The United States will never actually default on its debts. Ben Bernanke will attempt to default slowly by paying back the interest and principal to foreigners in ever more worthless fiat dollars. This will work until the foreigners decide to pull the plug. For now interest rates are low and the U.S. is the best looking horse in the glue factory. But we all know what happens to all the horses in the glue factory – even Mr. Ed.


 “It is true that liberty is not free, nor is it easy. But tyranny – even varying degrees of it – is much more difficult, and much more expensive. The time has come to rein in the federal government, put it on a crash diet, and let the people keep their money and their liberty.” – Ron Paul


  1. I find myself thinking, more and more, if there will ever be a day that I feel that knowing what is coming was worth the heartache, stress and marginalization.

    This slow descent into hell is trying.

    Sometimes I really wish I would have been blessed with beauty instead of brains. Ignorance is bliss and there are days (like these) where I wish I was much more ignorant.

    Ah well.

  2. Blaming ‘government’ for printing, taxing and spending too much, while technically correct, ignores how and why they have to do this. And the fault lies not in the stars but with us. The mechanics are dismally familiar. Legislators get elected and pad their salaries and perks until holding and keeping office is their central concern. The public purse is used to further their careers. Legislation is passed that sounds noble, compassionate, reasonable etc but the devil is in the details and the efficacy and sustainability of the legislation cannot be known at the time it becomes law. Bureacratic creep takes over as programs are implemented and they acquire constituents and vested interests that are closer to Congress than the public who must pay for the program. Thus we get monstrosities like Head Start. Seemed reasonable. Pre school for poor children to help them catch up with middle class kids. Started in the 1960’s it is still automatically funded with $5-6 billion annually but does it work. NO! It has become nothing but a ‘jobs’ program for underclass mothers, some otherwise unemployable social ‘scientists’ and is rife with corruption. Try and eliminate its funding or even just demand ‘results’ and you are branded as racist, anti-children or a skinflint.

  3. The statists, neocons, and progressives are running out of fingers to put into the dike. The end result is going to be awful, but I have to admit being entertained by the desperation of these people to keep things together.

    It reminds me of the guy played by Kevin Bacon in the movie Animal House imploring everyone to remain calm while chaos is all around him.


  4. Same old libertarian song. I’m a progressive and in truth the libertarians and progressives are not that far apart anymore. But you need a new line to be credible. If you are going to advocate only spending cuts, without tax increases, you just can’t be taken seriously by any one else until you start talking seriously about cutting the military.

    Talk about an entitlement program. Since WWII the military has been entitled to have perpetual war. it has been entitled to amass 1,000 bases (give or take) over seas. It has been entitled to maintain clandestine missions in about 60 to 70 countries and to undermine governments. It has been entitled for some time now, since the fall of the Soviet Empire, to have a budget the size of the rest of the world combined. If we don’t drop military spending to about 5% of what it is now, we will stay in debt forever.

    The entitlements like Social Security and Medicare have actually been paid for directly out of the checks of the American people. That money was supposed to go into a trust fund. It was supposed to be in a locked box. But the fund was raided by the criminals in Washington and NYC who had the key and opened it every time they felt the desire.

    I think the criminals should be forced to refund SS and Medicare, which is why I want to heavily tax the criminals. We don’t seem to be willing to punish them any other way.

    One other thing that is old and tired and just illogical. The term the liberal media. After saying how corporate (conservative) they are, you still can’t resist calling them liberal.

  5. David G.,

    Have to disagree. I think $2.2 trillion ought to be enough to finance the government’s operations with plenty to spare. If we had politicians who understood constitutional restraints, there would be no deficit, because they wouldn’t be running Medicare and SS Ponzi schemes, then raiding the “lock box” to buy votes, or maintaining an absurd military empire protecting us against non-existent enemies.

    Your willingness to trust government thugs to do the right thing is really touching. Stupid, but touching. Now open your eyes, admit that Uncle Sam is nothing but a gang of lying, murderous thieves, and then act accordingly.

  6. davidgmills

    You’re a standard issue ideologue. Can you even read or does your ideology blind you?

    Read the fucking quote from Ron Paul? Does it address the military?

    Don’t drop in on this site and presume to tell me I support military spending. You people disgust me.

  7. davidgmills

    You aren’t the brightest bulb in the liberal factory, are you?

    I didn’t say the media was conservative. I said they seek to retain their power and position. The hate filled leftwing fear mongering liberal press is on display every day on MSNBC.

    Don’t you get a tingle up your leg watching Chris Matthews and that hottie Rachel Madow spew lies and propaganda?

    Do you look in the mirror without vomiting? You actually have the balls to say that Medicare is paid for? Liberal douchebags like yourself think unfunded liabilites are just a nuisance that can be paid for by going another $50 trillion in debt.

    I suggest you go back to Paul Krugman’s blog and tell him he’s brilliant for suggesting another $3 trillion porkulus plan.

  8. In the film, Walker tells the audience: “We suffer from a fiscal cancer. If we don’t treat it there will be catastrophic consequences.”

    That cancer is DC. The Kabuki dancers come and go but the consensus [think tanks, foundations and lobbyists] remains.

  9. davidgmills

    Your a progressive? Look how we have progressed, with people like you, Obama, Reid, Pelosi, and all the other democrat/progressives. A tally of progressive progress:

    1. Destroyed the family unit. Welfare has resulted in the total and complete destruction of the family: children born out of wedlock, parents never actually having to work. The family unit is the lynch pin of this country. Now it’s a joke, a progressive nihilism, a farce.

    2. Destroyed the middle class. Your progressive attitude and greed allowed lobbyists to run our government; lobbyists beholden to Wall Street, corporations, unions, anyone with a buck. Lobbyist bought off politicians and allowed outright stealing from the middle class.

    3. Destroyed the work ethic: When 45 million people don’t work and collect money from the government, the people that do work and pay taxes feel ripped off, cheated, and otherwise foolish just for working every day. Why work when you can collect welfare or disability?

    4. Destroyed human dignity and humanity: The same 45 million people, those on disability and unemployment have had their human instincts to work, feel good about themselves, and contribute to society taken away from them. They have progressively been turned into penned-up pigs feeding at the trough, not human beings. The psycho-pathology of removing a person’s humanity will show up when, their lives having no value, they progressively destroy everything around them, believing it also has no value.

    5. Destroyed personal responsibility: Look at the speech given yesterday by our progressive president. He took no responsibility for what has happened. The people that support him take no responsibility for what has happened, and they progressively blame everyone else. Taking the lead from their leaders, the population no longer feels responsible for what they are doing, and chaos ensues. Blame somebody else why you can’t work, then collect free everything. When progressives take a job, like president, it comes with certain responsibilities, to evade, deny, or ignore those responsibilities is criminal. The American people, the markets, and the world at large don’t buy the progressive bullshit and lies, that much is abundantly obvious.

    6. Destroyed our Spiritual Base: This is the grand-daddy of them all, the thermo-nuclear slow detonation that progressives have perpetuated on our country. Not religion, but the destruction of spiritual values: hard work, saving, helping others (not giving them a free hand-out). After they wiped out our our spiritual core in the ’60’s, our people become empty vessels, trying to fill the void with food, gambling, drugs, booze, greed, pride, vanity, lust. The destruction of our spiritual core by progressives result in consumerism, as marketers conned people into believing they could fill the spiritual void with products, stuff, and more and more crap. Once the spiritual center (not religious) is taken out, given up, or removed by progressive ideals, a person is prey to anything that comes along promising to replace it.

    The progressives are progressing us into oblivion, a slow decent into hell. There will need to be a wholesale destruction of the current progressive structure to once again set things back to the way they were; back when our country was good and meant something special. Back when we were exceptional. Now, we are filled with propaganda that we are exceptional, by progressives, when we know inside we are no longer special in any way. Nobody believes it anymore, it’s all been wiped away with “progress.”

    Admin: great article, again.

  10. I never liked Warren Buffet. His quotes in this article just prove he is another elitist progressive destroying America.

  11. Found this photo of DG Mills:


    Online, he’s known as Glue Factory Bob. Also, Dog Food Dale — either a sidekick or an alter ego.

    Note the high forehead. Progressives think this standard-progressive-issue forehead makes them smarter than other people. (See photos of John “ketchup” Kerry).

    Note the bad skin. Progressives hate people with nice skin. Having good skin is akin to being a Republican, a church-goer, religious fanatic, Tea Party member or WASP; all hated entities for progressives.

    Note the close-together eyes: Once thought to be a criminal attribute, progressive believe having their eyes close together helps them see past human suffering and the ability to steal, tax, and rob other people of hard earned money.

    Note the smug look: Progressives are always right, never wrong, and sociopathically blame others for mistakes and things they should be responsible for.

    Thanks for stopping by TBP Mills. You even got two separate responses from Admin. Good job.

  12. Jim, excellent words once again! Yes, it’s a Cancer which has gone viral and beyond.. Dumb and Dumber Episodes with constant unwanted re-runs presented by those in power without a Screen Actors Gild Card<as I call it.

    Jesse had a few nice words yesterday this direction on site:

    "the President may be many good things, and have many good qualities, but he is most surely not a leader, and does not possess an overweening moral principle or vision which he can communicate and achieve. What does he stand for, and who or what does he really support? The best way to be thrown under the bus is to be one of his supporters and constituents."

    Gold Daily and Silver Weekly Charts – A Vote of 'No Confidence'

    1. “I do daily perceive that while everything around me is ever changing, ever dying, there is underlying all that change a living power that is changeless, that holds all together, that creates, dissolves, and re-creates. That informing power or spirit is God. I see it as purely benevolent, for I can see in the midst of death, life persists. In the midst of untruth, truth persists. In the midst of darkness, light persists.”

      Mohandas K. Gandhi

      1. “The deterioration of every government begins with the decay of the principles on which it was founded.”

        -Charles-Louis De Secondat (1689-1755)

  13. The only action that I feel that I can really take is to teach my 11 year old daughter about the principles of liberty. That she has an inalienable right to the PURSUIT of happiness, not a right to be happy. She must work for what she gets. That she should build wealth, not attempt to display affluence.
    The government involvement in every aspect of our lives, from education, health care, business “regulation,” etc. has replaced community, charity, and familial responsibility. It has replaced it with a hopeless majority of our nation that looks to the government to solve every problem, even putting food on the table, while never questioning why it is so much harder now to put food on the table than it was 60 years ago with only one member of the household working. This constant “turning to the government” has fed the beast by expanding the beauracracies that “support” this. Elected officials no longer run this nation from the federal level all the way down to county and city level. That is the real truth. Our nation’s currency is controlled by unelected central bankers. All of our daily lives are affected more by unelected bureaucrats than elected officials. US Dept of Education, HUD, State Community Departments, Local Planning Commissions, etc. A regulatory democracy will continue to feed itself non-stop as it has the power to create its own “revenues” in the form of taxes or fees. It saddens me to say that the only thing that will stop this monster of growth is a crisis period. The best thing that I and all who read this board can do is to educate our children OURSELVES in the principles of individuality and liberty.

  14. Enjoying CNBC while at lunch. Easily one of the most volatile days I’ve ever seen. Funny thing though, the gold chart seems to be creeping up steadily.

    These idiots are hoping the Bernank will not ease monetary policy because that would repeat the mistakes of 1937 & 1938. Hilarious. Guess I’m overqualified to work there.

    All is well.

  15. Noticed that you did not mention defense spending. Let’s not forget that defense just got a raise. Yep a raise. Unfortunately we can’t possibly spend trillions on peace.

  16. Dixie

    You don’t read so well do you? Here I’ll help you out:

    “As many frustrated Americans who have joined the Tea Party realize, we cannot stand against big government at home while supporting it abroad. We cannot talk about fiscal responsibility while spending trillions on occupying and bullying the rest of the world. We cannot talk about the budget deficit and spiraling domestic spending without looking at the costs of maintaining an American empire of more than 700 military bases in more than 120 foreign countries. We cannot pat ourselves on the back for cutting a few thousand dollars from a nature preserve or an inner-city swimming pool at home while turning a blind eye to a Pentagon budget that nearly equals those of the rest of the world combined.”

  17. Titanic

    Can you keep your sexual preferences to yourself? This is a family friendly site. Go to Barney Frank’s blog if you want to get your jollies.

  18. In a sense it always been simple, be it family, city, state or nation; live with in our means. that really has to be the basis of our fiscal and monetary policy. That boat has sailed out of port a long time ago. we have had politicians, dictators, advertisers, philosophers and journalist promise us if we only agree with them gave the power and money all would be an earthly paradise. But were slow learners time and time again, nothing but woe and misery has resulted.

  19. @ administrator and a few others.

    Actually, we should have no debt. Zero.

    For you who think I am an idiot…. I have been a lawyer for 33 years and I would put my knowledge of the Constitution and its laws up against any of you who are not. You guys may not be as educated as you think. And Ron Paul, for all his claims about constitutional knowledge, misses a few major pieces of the puzzle as well, as most non-lawyers do.

    Here’s some Constitutional pointers about debt and the issuance of money, you ought to consider.

    1913 was a year in infamy. In that year we amended the Constitution twice: to allow income tax and to allow direct voting of senators by the people when before that senators had been chosen by their legislators. (Did you know about the second one? I would doubt it.) We also passed in 1913 a statute that enacted the Federal Reserve. The combination of those three laws put us on a road map to vast amounts of federal and monertary power concentrated in Washington and NYC.

    I said we don’t need debt at all. Why? Because the government can print money. Except it doesn’t. After the enactment of the Federal Reserve Act, the printing of money was put in the hands of banks, and most of the printing was taken out of the hands of the US government. From that day forward, with few exceptions, the government borrowed the money it needed from banks, instead of printing money and paying whatever bills it had.

    Prior to 1913, things were different although it was a constant battle between bankers and the government as to which one would print the currency. Lincoln financed the civil war by printing government money he called greenbacks when the bankers wanted 30% to loan the government money. Printing greenbacks worked. It worked so well, the bankers hated it and vowed to get rid of it. So today we no longer have “greenbacks” we have Federal Reserve Notes. Federal Reserve Notes are banker’s money not government money.

    Simple thought experiment. Suppose you needed a car and needed money to buy it. If you had a choice and you could go to your computer and print the cash you needed to buy the car or your other option was to go to a bank and borrow the money, what would you do? If you could print it and the dealer would take the money you printed, you would not need to borrow the money for the car. So my guess is you would print it rather than borrow it.

    You and I can’t print the money we need, but the government is supposed to be able to do this very thing. Say it needs a battleship. It should be able to print the money it needs for the battleship and give it to the naval contractors to build the ship; and if it did, it would not have created debt for the government. Instead, because of the Federal Reserve, it borrows the money even when it does not have to. That is why comparing a family household budget with a government budget is nonsense. The government is supposed to be able to print money and private citizens are not supposed to be able to do it. (But of course we began to permanently let private banks print the money in 1913 though most of us are clueless that is what happens).

    Even after the Federal Reserve Act, the government still has the power to “coin money ” according to the Constitution. In the vernacular of the day, coining money meant printing paper money as well as making money by coin. There were a number of Supreme Court cases in the late 1800’s that stated the government could issue paper money as well as coin money as part of the government’s war powers, even if the term to “coin money” did not mean paper money, which they said it did anyway. But if the government had to, it could coin a trillion dollar coin, as was recently suggested by a number of economists. (They know it although they don’t like to admit it often).

    Speaking of Krugman, I am no Krugman fan. Why? Because I have never heard him suggest anything about giving the power of issuing currency back to the government. Only a few do. So that ought to tell you nearly all are on the side of the banks.

    Maybe you libertarians think that the government would be too irresponsible if it was allowed to coin its own money again. That coining money should be done by the private sector. Well, how well has letting the private sector coin money worked? The Euro is also banking money not sovereign money. What a great deal for the few in the private sector who have a monopoly on printing money.

    Back to 1913. When the government began borrowing money from banks as it s modus operandi, instead of printing it, the government needed a way to pay its debts to the banks without printing money. Well what do you know, we just happen to have an amendment to fix that problem: the income tax amendment. Presto. Problem solved. So since that time we all get taxed to pay for the government’s debt to the banks.

    But 1913 was also the year we changed how we voted for senators. The senators were originally the state’s representatives in Congress. They were elected by the state legislators. Talk about a loss of state’s rights. After 1913, the states had no official representatives any more. What we have instead is governors trying to lobby Congress on behalf of their states, but no true state representation in Congress. And it is very easy for big money to buy off one man/woman who runs for senator. Much harder to buy off an entire legislature. There is a reason why the senate is the most dysfunctional branch of government in the world.

    I strongly suggest all of you to see Bill Still’s video “The Money Masters” on youttube. Great history lesson on how the government lost the right to print its own money. About three hours long. Predicted the mess we are in now when it was released in 1996. It also explains why Ron Paul’s gold standard is a bad idea. (Bad idea to make money out of something that is rare — not enough to go around to have a healthy economy).

    Hope you guys catch on.


  20. So what happens when the government prints money to pay its bills? Can you spell inflation? Weimar Republic ring a bell?

    And your comment in the first post you made shows you for what you are – you said you cannot be taken seriously if …… Nice way to make friends on this sight.

    I know a few lawyers. You are in over your head on this sight when you start quoting your credentials to back up how knowledgeable and smart you are. Lots of smart folks with great creds around here. We tend to look at the substance and ignore the purported creds. So far you look like you got your degree through the mail. If at all.

    Hell, maybe I am a Supreme Court Justice. As a matter of fact, I am. So anything I say trumps anything you say.

    Stupid dickhead.

  21. You have to love it when a lawyer shows up, claims everyone here knows nothing — compared to him — and then goes on to repeat just about every post that’s been made here for four years.

  22. Holy batfuck, a purely fiat currency? God that won’t be abused or anything (hyperinflation). At least we have some sort of interest rate at the moment. Currently, the Congress abuses the Fed to make it monetize debt, and you want take it to take that to the extreme davidgmills? Where is the objective value in that system fucktard? Typical lawyer, always wanting to be in someone else’s pocket. Why don’t you join the rest of your ilk in DC.

    And Ron Paul doesn’t advocate a gold standard. He advocates competing currencies with the Fed, i.e. decentralized, independent money like gold and silver. You were conned by Bill Still. You’re out of your league, punk bitch.

  23. Thinker – I just love being talked down to. That people come here and assume we do not know various things is hilarious. I give Mr Lawyer of 33 years about one more post before he disappears into the ether. He won’t be able to stand the heat.

  24. Our country is run by lawyers, Mr. Mills. If I’m not mistaken, the last three presidents all shared your profession. Most of Congress have legal backgrounds.

    I ask you: How are they doing? Care to defend their record?

  25. @ Petey and IIPOH

    Good shit! You caught that condescending tone too? I was the first to give him a thumbs down…not for his content but for his attitude. If he would take the time and review the site before bumbling shit that has been discussed ad nauseam here then he might have a friend or two in life. He definitely isn’t going to be making any friends on this site talking down to people from his ivory tower somewhere in D.C.

    Let the feces throwing begin!

  26. Steve. Your hero George Bush was not a lawyer. Apparently he tried to get into UT at Austin and was REJECTED. Even Bush Sr. couldn’t get him in.

    As for Clinton and Obama. Neither were trial lawyers. Obama is the great appeaser. The Neville Chamberlain of Democrats. Clinton was the best Republican President since Ike.

    There really is no difference between the Democrats and Republicans anymore. They are the soft (as in jelly — the Democratic) and hard (the spine — Republican) parts of the corporate/military party.

  27. David – I do not have time to pack your shit right at the moment. These other good folks will do an admirable job, tho. You are talking tough. But you seem like a slimy shyster who will run with tail between his legs when the going gets tough. Enjoy the experience.

  28. LOL!!! “There really is no difference between the Democrats and Republicans anymore.”

    DGM, due diligence is your friend… read some of the posts here before you embarrass yourself further.

  29. Petey: You really know the Constitution don’t you. You guys. Damn. This is my first time here and have no interest in going back through ages of blogs. Don’t care if this blog was started last week or ten years ago. makes no difference to me.

    Hyperinflation — Got to be kidding. Tell me one time a true sovereign currency was hyperinflated by the government. I am talking about a true sovereign currency now. One devoid of the significant influence of bankers. Give me one example from history and I will check it out. If you win. Fair is fair.

  30. PS — unless you know full well what this site is about and you’re just trolling. In which case we really don’t have time for you. Social Darwinism will take care of it.

  31. @ Davidgmills

    Do we currently have in circulation a true “sovereign currency?” No. Could we easly enact such legislation and get back to the Constitution…YES…Will we under the current system? NO. Can hyperinflation occur in a fiat currency? YES…Has it happened before? YES….Will it happen in the U.S.? Possibly…if the Bernanke continues his corporate masters’ biddings.

    It seems you are preaching to the choir and your arrogance has blinded your ability to see this and crippled your chances of surviving this site. But I could be wrong…you might man up and bite the prideful bullet and hang in there.

  32. “I am talking about a true sovereign currency now. One devoid of the significant influence of bankers.”

    Not only would your solution have influence of bankers, but every other special interest would have direct influence on the creation of money (I am assuming you are implying that congress should decide the money supply). Ever heard of lobbyists? Or maybe you want a government agency created by congress to determine the fiat money supply? Isn’t that what we nearly have (We have still some semblance of a federal funds rate which forces some discipline. Under your system the money would be easy sleazy)? Did you not hear Greenspan recently? He said we can print money to meet any obligation? Is that not exactly what you are describing as a system?

    As a side note our current “forever expanding debt and fiat for all of our problems” is also collapsing from dwindling cheap energy inputs. Infinite money doesn’t go along to well in a finite world.

  33. Not only would your solution have influence of bankers, but every other special interest would have direct influence on the creation of money (I am assuming you are implying that congress should decide the money supply). Ever heard of lobbyists? Or maybe you want a government agency created by congress to determine the fiat money supply? Isn’t that what we nearly have (We have still some semblance of a federal funds rate which forces some discipline. Under your system the money would be easy sleazy)? Did you not hear Greenspan recently? He said we can print money to meet any obligation? Is that not exactly what you are describing as a system?

    As a side note our current “forever expanding debt and fiat for all of our problems” is also collapsing from dwindling cheap energy inputs. Infinite money doesn’t go along to well in a finite world.

  34. So, “Ben Bernanke will attempt to default slowly by paying back the interest and principal to foreigners in ever more worthless fiat dollars” – and that policy betrays a complete lack of integrity! Cheat the ones who loaned you money in good faith! Steal from them.

    The national debt stood at 5.95 trillion when Bush took office – it now stands at 14.2 trillion. Fiscal insanity! Foolish, unwise, and incompetent leaders! They had every warning as it was unfolding, but were cowards and are without excuse. The hearts sickens and mind grows faint to see what is happening to our once greatest of nations.

  35. davidgmills: Weimar, Zimbabwe, Angola, Belarus, Bolivia, Bosnia, Brazil, China, Georgia, Mexico, Peru, Soviet Union/Russia, Yugoslavia all within the last 100 years in their own currency.

    If you want to go ancient, Andalucia under the rule of Alamanzor. Currency debasement plus military over expansion ruined Andalucia. Sound familar?

  36. David – Just this once I will try to be nice. If you stop talking down to folks, people here will listen, and will only occassionally roast your ass. But when you come on the sight and act like the rest of the folks here are morons, you ae going to get fucked left right and center.

    The regular posters here include lots of doctors, financial analysts, small business owners, pilots, professional aircraft mechanics, ex-CIA agents, law enforcement personnel, etc. Many are extremely well credentialled – advanced degrees, Ivy league educated, etc etc., but almost never bring it up. Virtually all of the members here are aspirational and are extremely well read and up to date on events. I really cannot think of a dullard.

    If you think you can make a mark simply by defending your comments by quoting your credentials you are sadly mistaken, and you will be eaten alive. This bunch is serious, and there are some serious wolves among the membership who will take you down on any front – intellectually, credentially, and with vicious no-holds-barred aggression. You will not survive and will give up if you keep going down the path you have so far chosen. You talk tough now, but a face full of crap every time you rear your head will prove unwelcome. We have seen off hundreds of folks that do not learn – nary a one has survived. Trust me on this.

    So, cool your jets a bit. Select your battles. Present your positions in a measured way. You can have great fun here. But not if you are going to be a jackass.

    I cannot be any nicer to you than this. Heed, or don’t heed.

  37. boy, this guy is a real maroon.

    being a lawyer makes you a credible intellect? like all the lawyers in congress, and in state legislatures who are clearly geniuses?


    although that stuff about 1913 sure was enlightening. i’d never heard of the federal reserve act or the 16th and 17th amendments before. thank goodness dgm dropped that knowledge on me. if i hadn’t slept through that part of eighth grade, i never would have had a chance to learn about it. not having attended law school and all.

  38. Damn Howar – didn’t realize you were so ignorant. Oops, sorry – I just noticed the flashing sarcasm light on my computer. My bad.

    This wouldn’t be you, would it, David?


    David with his latest client:


    David’s law firm:


    Future home of David’s next 100 clients:


  39. David G Mills….

    Read “Money, Bank Credit, and Economic Cycles” By Jesus Huerta De Soto… pure fiat can be maintained IF AND ONLY IF there is NO fractional reserves… 100% deposits. Anything else distorts the logic of contract law… to think that a 100% reserve wouldn’t be done away with by politicians asap is pure blindness.

    Look at the SCOTUS rulings for evidence. Bust out some LEXIS.

    I know that you may not have remembered, but what happened to all of those Mega Firms at the turn of the century?

    Oh yeah! They went broke! All of that genius and not a lick of business sense, now wasn’t it? Go figure. Lawyer doesn’t = knowledge of finance or the wherewithal to recognize when the facts are distorted… the distortion of facts was the cornerstone of Progressivism. Look at the SCOTUS rulings for further evidence.

    Not to mention your ommision of dissenting opinion. What were they? What were they based upon? Were they unanimous rulings? Do you believe in sterilizing the poor and “non-whites”? Tell us more.
    LLPOH: You forgot about me. I am a dullard…

  40. @Petey

    You beat me to that listing 🙂


    I do agree with your post that there is sweet FA difference between both the US Democratic and US Republican parties. At least the ‘mainstream’ wings of those parties.

    The ‘fringe’ elements though are indeed different from each other (and the mainstream wings). What do I consider ‘fringe’? oh, those ‘nutters’ one one side that talk ‘crazy talk’ like balancing the budget and not fighting wars with goat-herders for fun and profit. Not to mention those ‘silly people’ on the otherside that talk through their arse about such craziness like ‘lets not let the poor starve in the streets’ and ‘the rich should be taxed at *at least* the same rate as ordinary people’. Add to that the total loonies that spout such bollocks like ‘When not absolutely needed the government should just get the hell out of the way’ and ‘you should not try and legislate against idiocy’ as well as ‘people should take responsibility for their own actions’

    such crazies!

  41. Colma – that is all you got? I slap the crap out of you and you just sit there and take it? Damn, man, you have gone soft.

  42. David said that the question he is asked most often by a client during a divorce proceeding is, “When we’re divorced is my ex-wife still my sister ? “

  43. TheresaE: “I find myself thinking, more and more, if there will ever be a day that I feel that knowing what is coming was worth the heartache, stress and marginalization.

    This slow descent into hell is trying.

    Sometimes I really wish I would have been blessed with beauty instead of brains. Ignorance is bliss and there are days (like these) where I wish I was much more ignorant.”

    Eowyn: “I dreamed I saw a great wave, , climbing over green lands and above the hills. I stood upon the brink. It was uppterly dark in the abyss before my feet.”

    TheresaE, this is just the dark before the first spring rain.

  44. “Sometimes I really wish I would have been blessed with beauty instead of brains.”

    Why not wish for both? Works for me!

  45. Thread Recap: There were a few trolls on here that claimed the wise sages of TBP did not care about military spending. Little did they know that all they had to do was scroll down the page and look at the “Cost of US Wars” widget reminding us of our money going down the drain in the ultimate broken window fallacy that is war.

    For the trolls: “War prosperity is the prosperity earthquakes and plagues bring.” -von Mises, admired by many wise sages of TBP.

    Admin: It dawns on me that gmills being a lawyer of 33 years must put him in the range of being a (gasp) BOOMER.

  46. This is interesting. I stumbled on to this site. Don’t have the slightest clue how I got here frankly.

    All I did was post something about the vast amount of money we spend on the military and I am slammed before anyone knows who I even am. I really don’t bring up the fact that I am a lawyer much except when the topic turns to law, (it is my field) of which the Constitution still is, I think, but wonder sometimes.

    Really hard to tell where you guys are coming from. You mostly seem to hate the government so much that I presume you must mostly be anarchistic. I am not saying that is good or bad. But what always gets me is that “people want to make a law” no matter how anarchistic they are.

    And if you are not going to be anarchistic and you want some kind of government, then you are going to have to pay for it and the question is how.

    So first principals. Do you believe in sovereign states or not? How much government do you want? How much are you willing to pay for it? Do you believe we should trash the US Constitution, if so, what would you replace it with?

    I am just an inquiring mind. I just want to know.

  47. David – a lot better. You said “Do you believe in sovereign states or not? How much government do you want? How much are you willing to pay for it? Do you believe we should trash the US Constitution, if so, what would you replace it with?”

    I can only answer for myself.

    Sovereign states: Absolutely.

    How much government: very damn little. Keep the peace. Standing army. Police the borders. Protect life/liberty/pursuit of happiness. Etc., but the less government the better. Welfare state? No fucking way. That has taken the whole western world down the shitter.

    Willing to pay for: very damn little. Let the free market rule, and let charitable work become the norm. Mandatory redistribution of wealth because the govt knows better – not a chance.

    Trash the constitution? Get serious. I just want it enforced, and not re-interpretted based on which president nominated which Supreme Court Justice. Again, I do not want it replaced – just adhered to.

  48. Mr Mills, you were just taking a friendly internet blog stroll when suddenly you decided to post
    “Same old libertarian song. I’m a progressive and in truth the libertarians and progressives are not that far apart anymore. But you need a new line to be credible. If you are going to advocate only spending cuts, without tax increases, you just can’t be taken seriously by any one else until you start talking seriously about cutting the military.”

    Damn dude, that’s provocative and an in-accurate assessment of the article.

    Then you go on to say
    “This is interesting. I stumbled on to this site. Don’t have the slightest clue how I got here frankly.”

    Your funny!! Please stop responding, I’m laughing so hard I’m going to pee my pants. Oh wait, I think I already did. You know us boomers, can’t even trust a fart.

  49. What kind of site is this? Mostly what I see above are ad hominem attacks on me personally. The pictures of me…. Well all I can say is that I have posted on hundreds of websites over the years and never had those kinds of personal attacks. You could at least be civil if you want to engage a discussion with me. I will stay and argue with anyone if the discussion is civil and about ideas not about personal attacks.

    What people ascribe to me as a liberal or progressive is laughable. I don’t consider myself to be a liberal because liberal to me means main stream democrat. I do consider myself to be a progressive but a progressive is certainly not what people here seem to think a progressive is. I feel like Alice in wonderland. Somebody called Buffet a progressive. Take it from me, Buffet doesn’t have a progressive bone in his body.

    I am genuinely interested about the topic of money and our abysmal economy. I am also genuinely interested about legal matters of most kinds. Glad to discuss both civilly.

    Now back to the topic of hyperinflation. The countries named above did not have true sovereign currency exclusively issued by the government, at least as far as I can tell. But I think more importantly none of those countries conditions at the time of their hyperinflation would be anywhere near similar to the US in today’s circumstances. I don’t think any would serve as a reliable predictor of what would happen if the US issued sovereign currency again.

  50. llpoh. You want the free market to rule? What are the free market rules that you want? The free market almost always ends in monopoly if it is unregulated.

    Do you want anti-monopoly laws?

    What is the welfare state that you don’t want? Whose welfare are you talking about?

    If you believe in life (as in life liberty and pursuit of happiness — from the Declaration of Independence not the Constitution) does protecting this life include protecting a person’s health? Life doesn’t seem to be worth living if your health is shitty.

  51. fuck civility. it is way overrated. as a response to arrogant, stereotyping idiocy.

    you blew in here and acted like a douchebag. and got your sorry ass slapped down. that is how we roll. sorry we don’t fit your predesigned labels, such as libertarian.

    you come back, nice, open, polite. for exactly one post. then start lecturing us in civility. as a follow up on your wonderful eighth-grade history class level lecture on 1913.

    take your 33 years experience as a litigator, your law degree that you believe trumps actual listening and thinking, and shove it up you civil ass.

    engaging in a discussion with you would be a waste of fucking time. go charge someone $400 an hour for the pleasure.

    what a maroon.

  52. David – this is the wild west. Do not take it personally. That was just a bit of fun – really.

    You got off to a bad start by jumping in with an attitude that no one knows what is going on around here. So you became a target. It is reasonably good natured so far – trust me on that. It can get positively ugly and this ain’t it.

    If you want, hang in there and people will be more than happy to debate you. There will be some firefights, tho, so you will need a thick skin.

    But if you are serious about learning things and discussing things, you have come to the right place. You will quickly get the hang of it. But lighten up, go with the flow, fell free to blast away if someone pisses you off, and most importantly, add something to the site.

    But you need to be a bit careful talking down to folks. You probably didn’t mean to do it. But folks will latch onto that and will come huntin’. That is the way it is. This is the most politically incorrect site imaginable, anything goes, but you can learn lots here – anything from financial info, airplanes, CIA stuff, weaponry and survival info, and even bat guano has come up.

    Do yourself two favors – 1) hang around, and 2) keep calm for the moment until you learn the ropes.

  53. Damn, Howard – and here I am welcoming him. I had the same thoughts, but it takes these newbies time. Good flame.

    David – the free markets largely prevent monopolies, in my opinion. The ability of big business to buy/curry favor in current circumstances leads to oligopolies if not monoploies. If business were actually left alone, it would generally make monopolies more difficult to achieve, in my opinion. And if monopolies did form yes, I suppose anti-monopoly laws would be beneficial. But right now big business is a protected species given their enormous influence over our politicians.

    I do not want any welfare state, preferably. No SS, no medicare, no medicaid. Personal responsibility needs to be the name of the game. Governments cannot help themselves – they continually roll out more and more welfare programs, and it is never ending. People need to take care of themselves, and failing that, families need to help, and failing that, charities need to help. But to force charitable contributions – which is what is really happening – is destroying the moral fabric of the nation. Further, it is proving to be absolutely unsustainable. Further it provides disincentive to work (* million Americans on disability today – give me a break). Western societies are collapsing under the debt burden. Further, the welfare state is dramatically eroding the ability of nations to grow their economies. And growing economies would tend to make redundant the need to provide social welfare.

    To draw the conclusion that the life portion of “life, liberty….” should include provision for healthcare is drawing an enormously long bow. It obviously meant that people had the right to their life and for it not to be arbitrarily taken away, and not to the government involvement in extending it via healthcare. In my humble opinion. The founding fathers didn’t rush out and implement universal healthcare, now did they? Insureing one’s health and family is a personal responsibility, not one for the government, in my opinion.

  54. David – Also – you said “Life doesn’t seem to be worth living if your health is shitty.” That is a personal decision for the individual to make. It has nothing to do with me.

    For me it all comes back to personal responsibility, to family, and then to the natural charity of the communities. Natural charity would be much greater if the tax burden were less, as the government has taken on the role of charity giver.

    We oft refer to “the free shit army” around here. It specifically refers to the mass of people that live off of social welfare and tend to give nothing back to society. I for one do not believe we should be supporting the free shit army, but should make them support themselves. Giving them free shit is self-perpetuating and never ending.

  55. David..are monopolies bad ? Why were so many companies in favor of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act ?

    Seems to me the act was used to protect incompetent businesses It’s probably the same reason that many corporations today support interventionist and anticapitalist policies: They wanted to use the power of government to hurt their competitors.

  56. Good analogy for where the dollar sits today:

    The Price Of A Big Mac Is Now $17.19 In Zurich
    Submitted by Tyler Durden on 08/09/2011 18:24 -0400
    Submitted by Simon Black of Sovereign Man

    The price of a Big Mac is now $17.19 in Zurich

    Just a quick thought on a ridiculously volatile day:

    One of the things that people pick up on very quickly as they travel are how different price levels are around the world. I’ve been to roughly 100 countries, and I still find it amazing how much variance there is among things like food, property, and entertainment prices.

    There are certain places– Cambodia, Ecuador, Tanzania– that are so jaw-droppingly cheap that it almost seems unreal. And you wonder how these people could possibly ever survive if they came to your country.

    Well, the United States has just joined this proud cadre banana republics… at least if you’re from Switzerland.

    You see, the Swiss franc is one of the few currencies that have given investors some sense of comfort recently; Switzerland inspires confidence and stability, and the worse things get in the United States and Europe, the more investors pull their money out of the dollar and euro, and park it in the Swiss franc.

    It’s all about supply and demand. Increased demand for the Swiss franc coupled with expanded supply of dollars and euros has caused the franc to surge over the last weeks and months. It wasn’t too long ago that it would take 1.20 francs to buy a US dollar. Now it takes $1.40 to buy a single franc.

    I can think of a lot of words to describe the performance of the US dollar. Farce. Joke. Lunacy. Embarrassment. Disgusting. But it’s more clearly summed up like this: the price of a Big Mac is in Zurich is now so high (at $17.19) that a minimum wage employee in Minneapolis, Minnesota, would have to work for nearly 4-hours in order to afford it.

    This is what stability looks like to Ben Bernanke.

  57. Buckhed – that is my point. Today’s system allows big corporations power by stealth – they buy politicians and favors. A true open market would prevent the bulk of this crap.

  58. LLPOH..I use this line of yours all the time .

    “Natural charity would be much greater if the tax burden were less, as the government has taken on the role of charity giver. ”

    When you had to go a charity for support it came with strings attached and that was good for many folks. In addition there was a bit of public shame in having to get support from a charity. Now there is no shame or strings attached.

  59. David asked: “What kind of site is this?”

    Whew! After laughing so hard I cried, I had to respond. David, I would imagine this is one of the last vestiges of free speech (minus the fubard political correctness police) remaining on the internet.

    Like IIPOH said, “Do yourself two favors – 1) hang around, and 2) keep calm for the moment until you learn the ropes.”

  60. LLPOH said:

    “A true open market would prevent the bulk of this crap.”

    True but most companies couldn’t handle a “True Open Market”. Then again neither could employees .

  61. Buckhed – attaching strings would offend the sensibility of the FSA. That cannot be allowed – mutual responsibility simply cannot be allowed.

  62. @Davidgmills

    “Do you believe in sovereign states or not? How much government do you want? How much are you willing to pay for it? Do you believe we should trash the US Constitution, if so, what would you replace it with?”

    Here’s my 2c from the other side of the political spectrum from Ilpoh (and other side of the planet)

    “Do you believe in sovereign states or not?”

    – interesting question. Personally I think it’s up there with ‘do you believe in rocks’. Rocks are, whether you believe in them or not. To misquote the Pythons, Sovereign states are in the same sense that Mt Everest is. What I think you mean by this question though is “How do you define Sovereignity and how does this effect governments?” In that sense I follow Hobbes in his philosophical belief that that the ruler’s sovereignty is contracted to him by the people in return for his maintaining their safety, and that the ruler fails to do this, the people are released from their obligation to obey him.

    I use “him” and “ruler” as notional heads of government. Replace “him” with “her”, “parliament”, “church leaders” or “committee” as you see fit.

    “How much government do you want? ”

    – As little as possible to ensure the smooth running of society and the production of essential services.

    As I come from the “decentralised left” of the political matrix, I favour having many small councils that pass suggestions up to a central body, that makes proposals and passes them back down to the small councils to be approved/rejected. I also favour having fixed maxiumum terms of office of less than 10 years at any one level of government, or 3 terms, which ever is shorter with wages/benefits fixed at whatever the national average wage is. This is because I believe that all problems are local problems, and local problems are best dealt with at the local level. This also reduces the probability of politicians being remote from the people they allegedly represent. It also limits the effectiveness of major political parties.

    Admittedly the cost of this system is much slower activity and much more talking. It also means that bills are more likely to be blocked or stalled. I think that’s a good thing as it means there will be less laws besides those that are blindingly obvious.

    “How much are you willing to pay for it?”

    – How long is a piece of string? A poor and highly biased question.

    I think most people want everything for nothing – or better. At the same time they want to control what stuff everyone else gets. This is MY stuff, not YOUR stuff. Go get your own stuff! Don’t take any of mine!

    I believe that the purpose of government is to protect the people. The people ARE the state, NOT the government, and NOT the businesses that the people make. I find it abhorent that businesses can have more rights that humans. A business can be considered a ‘person’ in law, with rights but with no responsibilities. Yes, I have been a successful small business owner (like many here) and yes I’ve used and abused the system like every small business owner has to (again, like many here).

    As such I believe in a welfare state. As Mohindas Ghandi said, “You can judge a society by how they treat their weakest members.” To those that say that a country with a welfare state cannot do well, consider German, the Nederlands, Sweden, Iceland, Australia, New Zealand to name a few.

    Yes, a welfare state can encourage those that are lazy to stay lazy. It also means that there aren’t beggars on the street, or people starving to death and raiding the rubbish bins of restaurants.

    It is social security, not welfare. It means that the cost/benefit comparison between between committing a crime and not committing a crime changes. If you don’t have a job, how do you eat? You can either receive social security and survive that way, or you can rob those that have a job so that you can eat. Social security and its beaurocracy is cheaper than the costs of crime and the costs of enforcing the prosecution and punishment of crime.

  63. llpoh: Since you are being civil ( let’s be frank being uncivil doesn’t get people anywhere very often) and seem willing to debate, let’s start with the Constitution, since you said you don’t want it dismantled.

    In the Preamble it says the government is being created among other things “to provide for the general welfare.” What does that mean? It doesn’t mean to me that we are all supposed to rely on charities for help. Personally, I think charities seldom do much for people that need help.

    But, any rate, if you are a Constitutionalist, you can’t just ignore these words. Because the constitution mentions them again. In Article I Section 8 it says that Congress shall provide for the common defense and the general welfare. So Congress, under the Constitution, is charged with providing for the general welfare of the people.

    Say what you want. That is what the Constitution says. It doesn’t say provide for our education (though most of us have at least some of our education from the public school system); it says provide for our general welfare. I am thinking that means it should help us feed, clothe and shelter ourselves and keep us living in reasonable health.

    Just curious. What do you think it means?

  64. Mickey: I think we are probably pretty close to each other in our views then. I would say that there are times when problems are to big tot be solved on the local level. Defense of the country for example. If you are going to trade, then a common currency helps.

  65. Well, David – I suppose that given that general welfare should be interpretted how it was meant when it was written, as opposed to how people want to interpprett it today. Was there income tax to pay for this general welfare? Nope. Was there SS/welfare/medicare/etc.? Nope. So, it seems to me that the intent of “general welfare” has been expanded well beyond what the founding fathers meant it to intend. Otherwise, they would have implemented such programs.

    So today, people scrutinize the Constitution in an effort to find means of interpretting the words in such a way as to support programs they want to implement. I want the words interpretted how they were interpretted when they were written. I cannot imagine the founding fathers would have conceived of the vast reach of the current government. So I want the words interpretted in the very narrowest ways, not the broadest.

    The general welfare clause has been interpretted ever more broadly through out the centuries. I object to this.

  66. David – I would also argue that welfare programs are not in the interest of the general welfare of the nation – quite the contrary, in fact. But again people supporting such programs believe differently, and so we are headed down the gurgler.

    mikey – will see your “German, the Nederlands, Sweden, Iceland, Australia, New Zealand” and raise you the US, France, Italy, Spain, Ireland, UK, Greece, Portugal. Further, I will challlenge you re Germany – which has national debt approaching the US’s by percentage of GDP, as well as Iceland (for fuck sake, Iceland?). You are picking small population countries, by and large.

  67. David it’s late but the General Welfare clause is one of my favorite parts of the Constitution.We’ll discuss it tomorrow.

    I’ll give you a hint on where I stand. The Constitution says to provide for the General Welfare not the Welfare Generally !

    Perhaps we’ll discuss U.S verses Butler or maybe Lysander Spooner’s opinion on the Constitution as a contract ? We’ll see .

  68. A quick quote from Davey Crockett on the floor of the House on Charity which is what the General Welfare clause is used for now .

    “I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has no power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member upon this floor knows it. We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right so to appropriate a dollar of the public money.”

  69. llpoh: I don’t see why you think a truly free market (whatever that is since it probably is only theorectical ) would produce fewer monopolies rather than more. If there is one human condition we all have it is greed. Very few of us can avoid the temptation of greed. And there is also the desire to protect oneself and one’s family from the vagaries of living. In combination, these two things make us natural horders of money and wealth if we ever get it. And once we get it, we devise ways to keep it, and one of the best ways to keep it, as you pointed out is to “bribe” government with it.

    I just can’t invison a scenario where letting the market run unregulated will produce a dispersal of economic power rather than a concentration of it. Maybe I am too Machiavellian but I bet Machiavelli would not have thought that markets, if left alone, would produce a dispersal of economic power.

  70. David – the big companies are paying off the government. They are protected. They are immune in large part to legislation. If the free market existed, these protected companies would have to engage in fair fights. Strong, smaller companies could win, at least on occassion. It is not currently possible, as a general rule. Mostly what we end up with are oligopolies – which suit the big boys to no end. And as said, I wouldn’t be opposed to (some) regulation, for instance anti-monopoly – I just want to see a level playing field, which currently does not exist.

    Nimbler smaller companies can often defeat large, slow-moving competition in a fair fight. And often, large companies consume themselves, if allowed, over time via decisions that seem prudent and expedient at the time, but bring doom in the long run. See auto companies for examples thereof.

  71. @Ilpoh

    I never said the system was perfect, it has to be DAMN carefully monitored and wound back and forth every now and then.

    It also has to be paired with a highly educated population. I am not an economist so I may be wa wrong here, but I think level of general education, when combined with a strong work ethic is what makes a having social security system better than not having one.

    The high education/work ethic is important as I think that will encourage more people to become entrepreneurs and business owners. That’s where the real growth and innovation of a country lives, and that’s one thing that the US did really well with the Patent system, and the ability to have debts forgiven through bankruptcy. It removed many of the barriers to starting a business and reduced the pain of the failure of a new business – which almost always happens.

    Of course these systems can be abused too, and when they’re abused the results is a giant mound of fetid dingoes kidneys.

  72. Re your last post, in general I cannot disagree, except to point out that almost never are things “wound back”. Once a program is in place it expands. Social Security is a prime example – it was never intended as a retirement fund – it was, and still is by law – an insurance fund. There is no legal entitlement to SS whatsoever – none. And the courts have long upheld that position.

  73. Buckhead: Interesting Davy Crockett quote. What is charity? Is Social Security charity? if it is then I have been paying for 40 years to be charitable to my own self. Same with Medicare.

    I don’t think that providing for the general welfare is the same as charity. In most cases the providing the government does is providing a means of helping one’s self. Frankly, I want the choice of having the government providing a means for me to help myself out and I also want the choice of the private sector. Sometimes the government’s provision will be better and sometimes it may be all I can afford. I want the choice though.

    Take education. How many of us would be where we are today if the governments hadn’t provided us with the opportunity of a public education? If the US had never started a public education system 100 plus years ago, and we had to rely on the private school system for our education, where would we be? I doubt most of the US would have a sixth grade education. Our parents would have had no education to pass down to us and their grandparents to them and so on.

    Should the government have stayed out of public education? I think not. If education warrants government involvement of some kind, why doesn’t health care? Nearly all those doctors and nurses and hospital administrators have those very marketable skills because most were the beneficiaries of public education either themselves or from their parents and grandparents.

  74. David – see, we can play relatively nice. And a lot of folks will debate ad nauseum. But ocassionally it will go off the rails and you will catch an onslaught. Part of the grandeur of the site. Show off your chest hair occassionally – you will like it. Just remember that loose comments will draw shit from all sides, even from those who might otherwise support you. Hope you survive and hang in long enough to get the hang of it.

  75. David – of course SS is charity. You have been paying an insurance premium. Surely you knew that – that there was never any agreement that the money would come back to you? It just …. happened. And one day it …. won’t. You have been paying SS for one reason only – to support those that are collecting the charity. And when the Ponzi scheme falls over, it is over.

  76. David – How is any welfare (individual, corporate, healthcare) program “general welfare”? I’m part of the “general” public, and it is hurting my welfare by taking money from me to give someone or some entity a free ride. If the public welfare requires violating my property rights, the public welfare be damned.

  77. David – All of those countries had a sovereign currency. They spent too much money and simply created new money to pay for the debt the programs created. There wasn’t any productivity they could tax because they had ruined it with the handouts. You are advocating essentially the same system without debt right? So in your world there would be no need for taxes because like you said if the navy needed a ship we could just print it. If anybody “needed” anything we could just print it. This would undermine productivity. Only those who were the most politically connected would get the money first and price inflation would come as they spent the money. You think so lowly of the lower classes that you want to inflate so they can’t afford anything on their own and therefore you get to coddle them with welfare. It’s same thinking as “deficits don’t matter.” If deficits don’t matter we don’t need to tax and we can just print. Do you see the absurdity of your claim that all we need is a sovereign currency.

    On another note I think I have happened upon a microcosm of what is wrong with the country. Here I am, an engineer, just starting out contributing to the development of technology and in my free time laying some foundation for my own business, but here is a boomer lawyer of 33 years in a paternalistic manner telling me what I should do with my money. He wants to undermine my productivity by taking my money and spending how he deems fit. I mean obviously he knows whats best for me, the country, and he is the arbiter of all values. He is also complaining about SS and Medicare. The provisions for SS and Medicare taken out of my paycheck every two weeks is enough to buy a weeks worth of groceries at Whole Foods. What type of society do you have when the elderly literally eat their young? I’ll leave him with another tidbit paraphrased from Greenspan since he is so up and up about sovereign currencies:

    “Sure you’ll get your SS check in the mail, but what will it buy?”

  78. Also I wanted to make the point that the elderly have had 40+ years to save for retirement and healthcare. I mean you know when you get old health problems are coming. You probably should save for them. Instead of relying on the government, maybe if they would’ve actually saved the money, the savings rate would have been much higher for decades past up to the present, thus there would be more capital spending and investment here for plant equipment and factories. It goes to show that the entitlement programs have undermined industry in this indirect manner.

  79. I’ll give him public education. I benefited from it, but it was in a locally incorporated system not the $50 billion behemoth that is the Dept. of Education. The directives that come down from them undermine the teacher’s creativity and ability to teach.

  80. Ilpoh: There is no doubt that too big to fail companies, supported by the government, have an unfair advantage over those without government support. But, practically, I don’t know how you avoid that. The minute the government needs something and goes to the private sector to acquire it, whoever the government chooses at that point has a leg up on the competition. So over time, those entities that acquire government contracts will also acquire lobbying advantages. The “free market” will never be free of government favoritism.

    I think anti-monopoly statutes are helpful but the government has to be willing to prosecute.

  81. Petey:

    I was slapped hard for being too condescending in my explanation of sovereign currency. But the very fact all of these countries needed taxes to survive when the populace could not support taxes, tells me these were not true sovereign currencies. They were bank currencies acquired by borrowing from the banks which needed to be paid back and needed the revenue source of taxes.

    True sovereign currencies do not need a tax base for support. That is the beauty of them. I explained that in my first example but I was beat up for being condescending.

  82. llpoh: SS is not a charity. It is an investment no different from investments in your 401K. What I like about it is the ability to diversify my portfolio. I can rely on my government investment and my private investment to retire. Now maybe one of these investments go bust, maybe both do and maybe both remain sound.

    The way the stock market keeps tanking every 10 years (or faster) I don’t feel that the private sector is any more likely to provide me with security in my old age than the government.

    To say SS is a charity is disingenuous. I have a contract with the government (a statutory contract) to pay me a return on the premiums I pay. With a charity there is no such contract. Whether the contract I have with the government is worth anything may be debatable. But so far the government has upheld its part of the bargain.

  83. RE: Promoting General Welfare and Ensuring Domestic Tranquility and the establishment of Justice.

    The Preamble of the Constitution, says that in order to form a more perfect union, the government is being formed to do these things as well as several others.

    It seems to me that nothing is worse for a government’s survival than rampant civil unrest. When you fail to promote the general welfare, fail to ensure domestic tranquility and fail to establish justice, the government is not likely to survive very long before civil unrest will take it down.

    I’m with Mickey on this. Governments are most likely to fail when crime is high and people are running the streets. Social security and medicare, when they pay, put a lid on civil unrest. That some may abuse the system is a price I am willing to pay to keep the peace. It is analogous to letting an accused go free when the prosecution fails to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. An individual catches an unfair or luck break so that the rest of us can have a free society.

  84. gmills: If you want a sovereign currency, then don’t complain about big banking, big defense, big agra, etc. (You shouldn’t complain anyway because that’s who the regulations protect). There won’t be a middle class with a sovereign currency. You’ll have the fat corporations, politicians, execs along with those whose basic “needs” will be supplied with freshly printed cash. Why be productive when I can have freshly printed cash handed to me? It doesn’t matter whether I run my company in the black or red, just lobby for that freshly printed sovereign currency. You’re nuts, that system is corporate/individual welfare and nanny state to the extreme.

    “But if the government had to, it could coin a trillion dollar coin, as was recently suggested by a number of economist.” HYPERINFLATION

  85. Admin: That’s the best cartoon you’ve posted in weeks.

    I missed most of the fun on this one.

    davidgmills is fucking progressive lawyer. Is there anything worse in the whole world? These bozos have the banksters beat by a long-shot. I loved reading all the legalese bullshit this maggot abortion wrote. Maggot shit piled on top of a maggot abortion. Bottom line: a fucking piece of shit. Him and his ilk have all but destroyed this country. See my above post.

    Here’s one for ya big Dave:

    The devil visited a lawyer’s office and made him an offer. “Here’s the deal” the devil said. “I’ll increase your income five-fold. Your partners will love you; your clients will respect you; you will have a passionate affair with an associate and your wife will never find out, you’ll have four months of vacation each year and live to be a hundred. All I want in return is that your wife’s soul, your children’s souls, and their children’s souls rot in hell for eternity.”

    The lawyer thought for a moment. “So what’s the catch?” he asked

    The devil is having to renovate Hell to include all the lawyers…


  86. “Shakespeare didn’t literally mean it when he said that the first thing we must do is kill all the lawyers, but you can forgive folks for smiling at the thought, given that the legal profession, collectively and with our complicity, is stripping America of personal accountability and trust. All of us, in ways large and small, partially are responsible for this erosion of integrity, but I place the greatest culpability, with notable exceptions, on attorneys – especially corporate lawyers.”

    John Huntsman, “Winners never cheat”

  87. David – you say SS is an investment? Hahahahahahahahaha! It is a giant ponzi scheme.

    But thanks, that was sure funny.

  88. Petey. There’s not much of a middle class now. The influence peddlers already have the government by the balls. If they are going to get vast sums of money off the government tit, then at least let it be without debt. There is no reason you and I should be taxed to pay the debt these corporations and banks force the government to incur.

    Congress shall have the power to coin money, and to regulate the value thereof. Article I Section 8, US Constitution. I say give them the power back the way the framers gave it to them in the first place. Give the founders some credit. They knew a bit about being screwed by corporate and governmental power.

  89. lloph: And the stock market isn’t a giant ponzi scheme?

    Stick your money under a mattress if you really want it to be safe. That is until your destitute neighbors riot and take it away.

  90. Dm….

    See? You’re already addicted to TBP… admit it. You had to look again and respond.

    At least cite the fucking case you mentioned so I can post it myself… (Hooray Google Scholar)

    Welcome aboard the TBP train to the Wild West. The party’s more fun when there’s whiskey, but watch out for the injuns… they’ll steal your horse when you aren’t looking.

  91. David…I have a dinner date for this evening so it’ll be late when I get in .

    As a lawyer surely you know that the preamble of the Constitution carries no weight of law. That has been decided as it should. A preamble is merely an introduction to the body of a document.

    Why during the first 160 years of our Nation wasn’t money appropriated for the General Welfare of the citizens individually ? I’ll tell you why, because those in Congress new that they had no right under the Constitution to appropriate money for the citizen’s private use. Hence my quote from Davey Crockett on the appropriation of funds for a war widow.

    The General Welfare clause has nothing to do with appropriations for the citizens of the USA. It is a contract between the states and the new government and the General Welfare is for those United States.

    There are only five rights spoken of in the Constitution that deal with individual rights…the writ of Hebeas Corpus, no bill of attainder and ex post facto laws being passed,the rules regarding treason,protection of writings and discoveries of individuals and the election of the House by the people .

    I will right more later…gotta go !

  92. David – you aren’t an entire idiot (around here that amounts to high praise so don’t take offense). As you may be seeing the folks around her have different skillsets, but be assured there is always someone who knows a great deal about almost any topic that comes up.

    With respect to the general welfare issue, politicians would love to use that clause to justify any fucking thing they dream up – and defend it b saying it is in the general interest. It was obviously not intended to be a catch all to allow politicians total control. “It is in the general welfare we have martial law, etc.etc.etc.” Bullshit. But of course the politicians will try it out, and folks such as yourself will wheel it out to defend the actions that they want defended.

  93. AwholeDR.

    I appreciate your take, esp. regarding the spiritual (not religious). Hard work, family/business doing what needs to be done each day to take care of family and business is a spiritual work. It is a battle everyday against our just going out and doing what I want to do, my nature is selfish, my nature is “guy”. I must get up everyday look in the mirror and say “My name is Constman and I am responsible”. That is a spiritual work.

    Secondly, Americans need to realize that they are not special. What makes you, American, any more special than some poor slop born in Haiti? Absolutely nothing. You are not special, but something special has happened to you!! Get the difference? If you understand that you are not special, but that something special has happened to you (born in the USA…….) then you begin to understand that you have a great responsibility to take care of what has been entrusted to you.

    These things (and others) have been pounded into me by a great man who never lets me forget who I am, what I am and how thankful I need to be everyday for what has been entrusted to me.
    It’s Family first/Business First/ I’m not special, but something special has happened to me/ & My name is ……. and I am responsible.

  94. llpoh: The general welfare is what Congress says it is or what the courts say it is. They decide what it means — not you or me. They can change what it means over time. None of us were around in 1789 so none of us really appreciate what the founding fathers went through or really understand all he subtleties of the terminology of the day, so none of us really know what the founding fathers meant by any phrase in the Constitution. And even back then, it probably meant different things to different people. But one things courts have continually held and that Congress has maintained over the years is that the Constituition must be flexible enough to deal with the problems of the time.

    Buckhead: As for the preamble, it is not law, but it is an expression of intent, and courts always look to expressions of intent when they are interpreting the law; and Congress also can look at the preamble as an expression of what the founding fathers wanted to accomplish when they created this government. So the preamble is important although it is not law.

    But I think we can all agree that the USA, if it is not already, is turning into an oligarchy. And an oligarchy is capable of corrupting the government. The reason only 17% of Americans believe they government is ruling with the consent of the governed is because we all know it just seems to be loaded with corruption.

    The problem is that the oligarchs and all branches of the government do not fear the people. Until they start fearing the people, I think the corruption will continue unabated.

  95. David – first you say: “The general welfare is what Congress says it is or what the courts say it is. They decide what it means — not you or me. They can change what it means over time.”

    Then you say “As for the preamble, it is not law, but it is an expression of intent, and courts always look to expressions of intent when they are interpreting the law; and Congress also can look at the preamble as an expression of what the founding fathers wanted to accomplish when they created this government.”

    So which is it – do we follow the intent, or do we interprett it as we see fit given “current” circumstances? Me – I believe that intent is the way to go wherever possible. And there was no intent for a welfare state.

  96. llpoh: Define welfare state. Do you mean governmental assistance to the poor, or assistance to the disabled or governmental guarantees to persons who have paid into a system of benefits?

  97. Hypothetical question:

    Suppose a vaccine was discovered that added thirty years of life expectancy to anyone who got it but its cost was $25,000 per person and this cost could not be significantly reduced even when produced in batches of hundreds of millions.

    Should the government give assistance to those who desperately want it but can’t afford it. If so, why? if not, why not?

  98. David – 1) yes, 2) yes, 3) SS is NOT a system of benefits – it is an insurance system that has psuedo-morphed such that people believe that they are paying into a bank which they can later withdraw – which is 100% untrue, was never intended to be true, and which the courts have ruled to be untrue. It is an unsustainable Ponzi scheme. People draw on average 2 to 3 times more out of the “system” than they ever put in, even allowing for growth of the “investment” and the only way it has survived until now is that the number of contributors has far exceeded the number of “beneficiaries”. As Bommers retire, there will be insufficient contributors, and then it is lights out, unless benefits are drastially reduced or the tax is drastically increased.

    With regard to # 2 (a trick question, I am sure!) all that is necessary to prove that such a system is unworkable is to not how many folks are currently drawing disability in the US – over 8 MILLION and climbing like a rocket. These welfare systems, perhaps good intentioned, are rife with abuse, and there is simply no way to control the abuse. If you put a charitable system up, it will be abused – no ifs/ands/or buts. Plus these systems kill incentive.

    Only in perhaps the last five decades or so did any world governments begin to offer carte blanche charity to their citizens. It has failed. Current studies show that European nations have been hit so hard by their welfare systems that their GDPs are perhaps as much as 40% lower than they would be if the welfare state had not been implemented. So I say this – if Europe had as a whole a GDP 40% higher than currently is the case, overall the people of Europe would be vastly better off – including the disabled. There wouldn’t be so many “poor” as they would be employed. and enough charity would flow voluntarily such that truly needy would be taken care of.

    Welfare states are failing and will fail. Human nature will ensure it happens. Slashing growth/GDP by approximately 2% per annum indefinitely is no way to ensure the general welfare of the nation.

    Right now I donate modestly to charities. I for one would donate much ore heavily if the government didn’t force me to donate but rather left the decision to me.

    Welfare states are failing world-wide. It is a failed system. No matter that people want the world to be a kinder, gentler place. It is a failed system and all of the good-intentions in the world will not stop the process.

  99. David – re your hypothetical question, in the dollars you quote it may be possible to create an economic model and see if it is a wothwhile investment. Decision on life and death are made every day – and are based on economics. A actuary could model it.

    But there is no right to government supported life – none whatsoever. To illustrate, take it to the extreme – say that the cost of extending one life for any period of time cost the entire wealth of the nation. Of course the life would not be extended. Therefore, it is clear that the government does not and cannot grant the right to extend life. It is an economic decision in the end.

    The same argument can be applied to welfare of any kind. Governments simply cannot guarantee the right to welfare, as ultimately the cost can reach unsustainable levels – which has already happened. So no such right can be granted. And any attempt to grant partial rights has seen such severe escalation of costs that the nation inevitably goes broke.

    So the answer must lie inpersonal accountability, and the government, instead of looking to be a charitable foundation, should instead focus on promoting commerce and industry, family values, and defense of the population.

  100. David…you didn’t answer my question…why didn’t the government provide money to citizens for their welfare for the first 160 years of our Nation ?

    What is a welfare state….pretty easy ..A welfare state is any form of government that takes the wealth of one group of citizens to be redistributed to other group of citizens . As Bastiat said and I love to reiterate…Taking from someone without their permission is stealing.

    Most of the rulings of the court that I recall reading is whether the Preamble conveys rights not found in the Constitution .I don’t recall a ruling on the intent of the Preamble ?

    The only case in which the Supreme Court has directly addressed a claim based on the Preamble is Jacobson vs Mass. In this case the court rejected his claim to a personal right, derived from then Preamble, to the “blessings of liberty”. In rejecting Jacobson’s claim, the Court wrote that “the Preamble indicates the general purpose for which the people ordained and established the Constitution” and went on to point out that “[the Preamble] has never been regarded as the source of any substantive power conferred on the Government.

  101. LLPOH…could you donate to my Wine,Women and Song Charity…it’s down a few bucks after tonight’s dinner date .

  102. Buckhed – it seems that your investment did not pay off, or you would not now have time to write. Bad luck. But bad luck, or in your case failure to properly evaluate cost/benefit, on your behalf does not translate into a charitable contribution on my behalf.

    I used to have a rule – if I went out, I knew that if I wanted to get drunk, I would be successful 100 times out of 100 attempts, but my odds of getting lucky were significantly less than that. So I tended to go with the odds.

  103. David – by now you must realize that hammering away on the theme that the Constitution somehow supports, or can be seen to support, the creation of a welfare state is not a real winner on this site.

  104. @Buckhead and llpoh:

    I like Buckhead’s definition of taking wealth from one group of citizens and giving it to another group of citizens. Since about 1% of the population has stolen half the wealth of the country from about 80% of the population through the assistance of the government, I must agree we are indeed a welfare state by his definition.

    Whether you want to call SS an investment or insurance makes no difference to me. It is like an insurance policy in that you don’t get to use it until you reach a certain age. If you don’t get to the age of benefit, then you don’t get benefits.

    This business about SS running out of money is flat hooey. The average black male life expectancy is 69 so right now the government only has to pay four years on the average black male. The average white male is about 76 so the government only has to pay about 11 years on the average white male. Women get a few more years. We simply don’t live that long past 65. So I ain’t buying none of that bs about it going broke any time soon. The dollars we put in simply don’t equate with life expectancy.

    It’s just absolute accounting bs as far as I am concerned. And disability before 65 is damn hard to get. And most of the people who do qualify for it have short life expectancies after they get it.

    Medicare is another story. But its problem is medical cost for which we pay about twice per person as any other developed country. As we speak, my 90 year old father in law who really beat the life expectancy average is in the hospital getting ridiculous numbers of tests. Just jacks the costs out of sight.

    All the rest of the developed countries have some sort of government insured medicine that keeps costs low. I know you guys hate the idea. But to me its like education. I want the choice of public insurance or private insurance just like I want the choice of public or private schools.

    As for why we didn’t take care of our citizens for the first 160 years. Well, we just came out of the dark ages back then. We were still trying to get out of the feudalistic era. Many many steps to climb. Of course now we are entering the neofeudalistic era. So maybe we should all return to the days when we were serfs and enjoy the benefits of serfdom once again.

  105. And all those welfare states like Sweden and Finland and Norway and Denmark and Germany all have the highest quality of life now. Just imagine how high that quality would be if only they had a few more bucks by working a few more hours a year.

    And of course Germany just happens to make the best products in the world in that welfare socialistic state. Damn must be from the disincentive of having a good life.

  106. David – and here is where the conversation tends to go from civil to feral. The crap you post about “you don’t buy it” is just crap and isn’t supported by any facts whatsoever. You are wrong, and in this at least, stupid. A great many SS receipients do not start at 65. A lot start earlier (didn’t I mention the 8 million on disability? Of fucking course I did.). Go onto the net and get some facts before you shoot your mouth off. Really, do some research. What you believe you simply cannot support with facts, but you want to hang on to your leftist ” but -I -paid – in -so – am -entitled” bullshit in the face of all facts to the contrary. And referencing you statement re blacks, what say you do a bit of research on the break-out on who is getting the disability payments I mentioned before. Just how in hell do you think the country is running a $1.6 trillion dollar a year deficit? Gee, there is all of that SS money flowing in! Horseshit.

    As for you 1% has stolen from the 80% crappola, I am in that 1%, and I assure you I haven’t stolen from anyone. Indeed, I have built a business, against the odds, and employ people. But to you I am a thief. See, there you go again, talking down to people, and you do not have a fucking clue. So fuck you, asshole. I just love it when people call me a thief.

    And your shit about quality of life – what a load. If they worked more hours, they would drop down the quality of life list – or didn’t you know that? One of the main measurements is leisure time. And, of course, they do not measure how far in debt they are going in order to pay for that quality of life, now do they? The more you borrow to spend on goodies, the higher you are apt to go on the list. Not that all of them on the list are in trouble. But for fuck sake, why do people trot out these success stories for nations with what, 5 million people? Gee, they are good examples.

    Go do some research, educate yourself, and quit trying to justify your lefty positions via a perverse reading of the Constitution. The facts speak plainly, but you are too clueless to actually use facts, instead you want to ignore them or claim they are some “accounting bs”. Wow – now there is an argument. Ok – my bad – you win. Your gut feeling trumps my facts any time.

    And, as I said, the idea of welfare states has failed (just have a fucking look around – the entire welfare world is broke and going up in flames. And you can’t see it? Holy crap!), your “dark ages” comments not withstanding. All of your hopes and dreams of a new kinder, gentler world are fading into dust. The world simply does not function that way. Too bad so sad.

    As I said, you are not stupid. But if you are going to come around here, you really need to educate yourself and quit spouting lefty propaganda you can’t back up with any more than your gut feeling. It just ain’t gonna play, and I will no longer be nice about it.

  107. davidgmills

    Well, golly, this was an entertaining read. I had a point to address on your first post but I decided to read through and see if anyone else brought it up. Flemming v. Nestor.

    Admin and llpoh will speak of the insurance aspect of Social Security as an insurance scheme; and that is rather in alignment with the legislation. Unfortunately, the legaese is not what was sold to the people. The 1936 SS pamphlet clearly stated: “you are saving for your retirement” and a lot more promises that were broken. Good year that, I was born then — and no, I did not read it then (but I learned to read before I was five years old and kept up the habit.)

    That “saving” bit in itself was a lie. The first people paying in could not be saving for themselves if they were also paying for those who came before. Here’s an example:

    “The first monthly payment was issued on January 31, 1940 to Ida May Fuller of Ludlow, Vermont. In 1937, 1938 and 1939 she paid a total of $24.75 into the Social Security System. Her first check was for $22.54. After her second check, Fuller already had received more than she contributed over the three-year period. She lived to be 100 and collected a total of $22,888.92.”

    One has to wonder about a social support scheme that is in the hole when it starts. At least Otto von Bismarck’s world first retirement/aged pension plan was set up to work, kind of … he promised retirement at age 60 with a government pension. The average lifespan then was 46.

    Heh. Even one of FDR’s brain trust said, “This is a Ponzi scheme, isn’t it?” Of course, the whole idea was set up based on population growth to cover the backloading. Hey, some of your 40 years of contributions could be coming to me! LOL. And what was even more embarrassing was when someone pointed out, you know, no one has deductions now, and they pay their tax in the following year? So ’36 tax due” with a SS hit right now would be a double dip, the people won’t like it.

    That’s why Ida May had no 1936 contribution. Instead, they kindly decided to waive the 1937 tax bite. to implement SS. “We’ll make up the revenue loss on volume.” Or something.

    So you claim not to be a progressive but surely you must be, for the basic reason that progressives can’t do simple arithmetic.

    I’d like to comment on economic history of the 19th century, as well as the dearth of education in those dismal times, what with no safety nets, income tax, nor much appreciation of the general welfare clause. Strange, though, how simple farmers could read the King James bible and discuss politics and the economy and know what they were talking about.

    Maybe tomorrow. I’d like to read more than one article on this site tonight.

    Have a nice day.

  108. I will link to this from my Old Jarhead blog. Every day we drift closer to the abyss. It grows increasingly difficult for me to see how we avoid a fiscal collapse, followed by a political and social collapse. Personally, as long as I don’t think about my granddaughter, postponing the implosion is good; I’m 65 and have pulmonary fibrosis, which is eventually terminal, so I may escape the coming desperate years. Unfortunately, the changes needed are so politically painful, they will only happen when the pain of not changing is greater. I hope I’m wrong, but I greatly fear that will involve riots and bloodshed in the streets.

    Robert A. Hall
    Author: The Coming Collapse of the American Republic
    (All royalties go to a charity to help wounded veterans)


    NEW YORK | Thu Aug 11, 2011 1:32pm EDT

    NEW YORK (Reuters) – Warren Buffett has been buying amid this week’s sharp declines in the market, and has not yet seen anything that suggests another downturn is emerging, the legendary investor told Fortune magazine.

    In an interview published on Thursday, Buffett also told the magazine he understood why Standard & Poor’s lowered its outlook on the credit rating of his conglomerate Berkshire Hathaway, but said he disagreed with the underlying premise – the downgrade of the United States’ credit rating.

    The 80-year-old “Oracle of Omaha” is known for his love of a good deal, which is why his company made an unsolicited offer below book value for reinsurance company Transatlantic Holdings last weekend, and why Berkshire sold $2 billion of senior unsecured notes this week at historically low rates.

    In that vein, Buffett told Fortune Managing Editor Andy Serwer the market declines have not fazed him.

    “The lower things go, the more I buy. We are in the business of buying,” he said, adding that he had “never been better.”

    Buffett also told the magazine that he was not seeing fresh indications of the economy turning bad again, though things could change if market conditions do not improve.

    “Up until right now, all of our businesses have been coming back — even Europe isn’t doing that badly — except for businesses relating to home construction which is on its rear end,” Buffett said.

  110. Ok, so “Progressive Lawyer” doesn’t seem to be a lawyer at all… No citations and not even a hint at what philosophy of jurisprudence he holds. Natural Law? Positivism? Anything?

    Type of law practiced?

    Judging solely on his comments, he does hold the supposed abilities of the State to function with any degree of efficiency in high esteem, but that can be acquired by simply watching the MSM.

    Doesn’t know the history of Progism, either.

    Cite the fucking cases so we can read the opinions is the first thing…. without this simple act I, and so should all, consider the posts by dmills as bogus. It’s not hard, and the cases are public.

    I’m not entirely anti-lawyer, but saying you’re a lawyer is about as specific as… well, nothing.

  111. Colma – I am too soft hearted. I tried to give him a chance but he cannot help himself. He thinks his gut-feelings are superior to the facts we mere mortals use. I am through with him. It is now open season if he happens by again. Which I doubt will happen.

  112. Guys, I really do think he is/was a troll. His initial, “Hope you guys catch on” was quickly replaced with, “I am just an inquiring mind. I just want to know.”

    Then, when he’s pointed toward three articles Jim has written about the insolvency of SS — backed up by facts — he claims it’s “flat hooey.” Yet he offers no facts of his own.

    He’s pushing your buttons. But cleverly, which makes me think he’s been here before, under a different name. He knows who he wants to pick on and avoids those he doesn’t.

    Then again, there is an attorney who goes by that name, who does personal injury law in Tennessee and Texas. And belongs to a 9/11 truther group. Draw your own conclusions.

  113. Thinker – I would have picked him for an ambulance chaser. And as for being a truther, my first thoughts would be he is too dense to be part of that group but maybe they lowered their standards.

    Good investigative job.

  114. A few common sense adjustments (see below) here and there that wouldn’t severely piss off anybody would give the country some time to adjust to the coming shit storm of energy shortages and environmental catastrophe, but NO…we have to spend most of our time calling each other names instead of humbly engaging in dialogue.

    Examples of adjustments: Re-instate Glass-Steagall and put the top managers of the too big to fail banks in jail, increase the taxes on the 1% of super-high earners who make 22% of the national wealth from their current burden of 21% of national income taxes paid to 22% of national income taxes paid, change all local property tax scheme to a tax on land value instead of the value of improvements, dismantle the excesses of our corrupt military-industrial-congressional world-wide empire, revert to Senators elected by state legislators, cut BOTH individual and corporate welfare, do some common sense tinkering with the revenue and retirement age scheme in Social Security since with small changes we will be able to keep it going past the boomer hump if we do everything else listed here, raise the threshold for estate tax to trigger to an amount so high ($100,000,000 sound like a good start) and then raise the actual rate of the tax rate so as to raise come really good sums, even the playing field between small business and big business by making all un-earned (investment) income below $250,000 per year tax free, and then tax all retained business income from any type of business at the same rate as personal income, ban private medical insurance so as to break up the corrupt government supported medical care cartel and then for those who wish not to go into the medical care market on a cash basis open up the existing taxpayer paid VA system with all its limitations to all citizens, ban any and all fundraising by any incumbent politician and then publicly finance his re-election campaign at a reasonable percent of the amount raised by his challengers under an unrestricted but fully disclosed campaign finance system, restore sound money based upon a free floating bi-metal (gold/silver) system.

    Did I miss anything?

    Obviously I wouldn’t have found this site if I thought “we the people” had the common sense and unity to achieve the above mentioned reforms. I probably found this site through a link to or Charles Hughs Smith’s Nonetheless it provided good entertain while continue to stack silver and gold bullion, ammunition, preserved food, cultivated land, and supportive community in preparation for the coming shit storm.

  115. I’m back guys.

    So it takes citations to prove one is a lawyer. That’s a new one. I guess I am damned if I do and damned if I don’t. I did mention the greenback cases though I didn’t cite them. But someone wanted to discuss the Constitution without reference to what the SC said about it so I just used the language of the Constitution pertinent to this thread. Apparently some one else thinks I should cite cases. Can’t please everybody.

    I am licensed in both TN and TX and its not hard to find out from those bars who I am. Check me out if you are interested.

    I have never hid my identity on the internet. I kinda resent anonymous posters who take cheap shots.

    As for being a troll. I went back and checked to see how I landed here. I stumbled here on a link from, which I have visited almost daily for a number of years. I like Michael Rivero.

    Never heard of this blog before I landed here this week and still don’t know what it is.

    Novista? Are you getting your SS check? If so, maybe the insurance is still working. I know my 90 year old father in law and 86 year old mother in law are still regularly getting theirs. Never heard them complain about it at all. And never heard many complaints about their medicare. Oh, and they are lifetime Republicans. My parents were also Republicans and they got their checks up until they died.

    I expect to get my SS too, even though I haven’t been a Republican since high school, which was about the time I outgrew Republicanism.

    Now whether or not I will ever be able to count on my SEP, that is the question. But so far my in-laws still are doing fine with their investments. So maybe I shouldn’t worry about the stock market either. Maybe Buffet is right. Maybe the Wall Street Ponzi scheme is perpetual.

    I don’t really think you guys have done much to refute what I have said.

    Of course it is hard to refute the actual clear text of the Constitution.

    So I will reiterate the two clauses I think pertain to this thread:

    1.Congress has the power to provide for the general welfare,

    and 2. to coin money and regulate the value thereof.

  116. David- no ambulances to chase? And you must either not be too good about it or else you would be one of the top 1 percent thieves you speak of. Ignorant shyster.

  117. @David

    Obama should have just directed the mint to produce a $3 Trillion dollar platinum coin, deposited in the Treasury and told Congress to get f**cked regarding the debt ceiling…but, no…that wouldn’t have set up the sheeple sufficiently for further slow boiling as the powers to be use pretend and extend to keep the current zombie financial system shuffling along for a few more years.

  118. Casa – that is even stupider than the shyster. Unless of course you are looking to ramp up inflation. Printing money by the trillions will do that you know.

    What we after would be no inflation or controlled low inflation so as to preserve the assets of those that have any, combined with reduced expenditures sufficient to allow us to meet our debts. Rampant inflation will destroy the saving of the middle class – which they worked for honestly and diligiently – while leaving the mega-rich largely untouched.

  119. llpoh:

    I don’t advocate government induced hyperinflation, but at the same time I believe that if the executive branch honestly and openly printed money the public awareness that would generate would lead to quicker reform than the kabuki theater we recently witnessed with the debt ceiling debacle. I believe the political negotiations over how to establish a more sound budget policy will proceed more directly without the debt ceiling farce. When a small interest group can use a phony excuse like the debt ceiling to refuse to participate in the building of a political consensus then everyone looses.

  120. llpoh:

    …and with political deadlock (in my opinion, purposeful) inflation will most certainly continue to ramp up.

    So is my idea still stupid or just different from your’s?

  121. Casa – so your answer is to cause inflation in order to avoid inflation. Kinda like spend more borrowed money in order to reduce your debt isn’t it. That will never work.

    I think the answer to your question is obvious but I am trying to play nice.

  122. And of course we all know the story of the committee that set out to build a horse and ended up with a camel. The two major parties couldn’t spell cat if you spotted them the c and the a. Consensus will never happen. Two many sacred cows – dems won’t cut entitlement spending and the GOP won’t hurt the banksters and corporations and megarich. The idea that they will reach consensus seems naïve to me. Good luck with that.

  123. davidgmills

    “Can’t please everybody.” A truism; but maybe you, like Caligula would prefer TBP had but one neck. Could it be, instead of a dialogue with an individual, you prefer monologue?

    “I kinda resent anonymous posters who take cheap shots.” How do you feel about high-value shots? I kinda resent identified posters taking cheap shots — ikn case you forgot your grand entrance.

    [this blog] “still don’t know what it is.” What it is, is not your usual site pushing a monolithic ideology. Think of here as a gathering of iconoclasts, hunters of sacred cows, fans of H.L.Mencken, Mark Twain, and more; a wide spectrum of attitudes, including old-fashioned, limited government, wary of interventions, both empiric and economic; independents, apoliticals, libertarians, optimists who have no arrived, and pessimists who regret the destination. Doomers, heavy or light.

    Rather than suffer fools gladly, we welcome them. It’s fun to watch the velociraptors circling prey.

    “Novista? Are you getting your SS check? If so, maybe the insurance is still working.” And I am supposed to say, “I’m all right, Jack” and to hell with future generations. Uh huh, sure.

    “about the time I outgrew Republicanism.” You still have growing to do, grasshopper.

    “I don’t really think you guys have done much to refute what I have said.” To accurately apply your own term, “flat hooey.” How you twist and turn, like a … twisty-turning thing. You avoid addressing specific points with more monologue of generalizations, unsupported ‘facts’ but — I have to give you credit for some spiffy rhetoric: “dark ages, feudalism” and more. I think you need to study up on the 19th century. Or beware of grandfather’s past …

    I’ll see your ‘general welfare clause and raise you William Graham Sumner’s “The Forgotten Man.”

    Then you can explain how special = general.

  124. @David and Mickey, I agree with a lot both of you say, except, “…Yes, a welfare state can encourage those that are lazy to stay lazy. It also means that there aren’t beggars on the street, or people starving to death and raiding the rubbish bins of restaurants…”


    We have the highest incarceration rate in the free world. We are being crushed to death and/or jailed at levels never before seen. Our crime rates are out of control. Meanwhile our homeless camps are EXPLODING all over the country. You cannot go to ANY major city without encountering beggars.

    At the SAME exact time that we have 45 MILLION people on food stamps, 8 million on disability, millions more below poverty but only sucking the tax “return” government tit.

    So, the whole feel-good bullshit about free shit being necessary or the world goes to hell is bullshit, the world HAS gone to hell anyway.

    When you gift people their very existence, especially for long periods of time, you remove ANY sense of self-worth AND any sense of effort equating to betterment. Which then creates boredom, spiritual voids, apathy and eventually destruction. Come to Detroit and SEE what “caring for the bottom members of society” brings. It brings their complete destruction.

    I have to tell you, my sister has been a card-carrying member of the FSA for over five years. More if you count her years of working and living in government assisted housing. Over the past few years I have gotten to know her and her neighbors pretty well. Your charity and hard work is creating a whole strata of society that is ENTITLED to work less and get more. Half the residents are continuously petitioning the government for more. More food stamps, more heat allowance, kids on disability, them on disability, etc., etc. They are not sitting around trying to figure out how to get a job and make something of themselves, not at all. They have boyfriends/hubs that work for cash or minimum wage, they buy their shrimp & diet coke with their food stamps and they watch cable tv while texting on their Blackberries.

    Charity is giving someone a leg up when they are down and their family is incapable of helping. America’s version of charity is trapping people in the natural law constraints of inertia and fear of change. The bias towards the connected mega-business has wiped out jobs for the largely lower IQ masses and all it takes is a few months of being helped and many humans decide it ain’t so bad this doing nothing. Sure as hell beats working at a job available for your IQ and work ethic.

    America does NOT need government sanctioned charity, it needs hunger and desire, and then the government getting the freak out of our way.

    But taking more from the producers under the guise of charity and safety isn’t working. No matter what Ghandi says.

    @llpoh, yeah both, I really wish for both. But reality, and the sands of time, are brutal things…lol

  125. Whoa, there, Neddy! You can’t play fast and loose with percentages like that and still expect to get the right answer. Let’s take this step by step.

    The stock market was 40% overvalued. Therefore

    OldMarketValue = TrueValue * 1.4

    The Market Value dropped 17%, therefore

    NewMarket Value = OldMarketValue * (1 – 0.17)

    NewMarket Value = OldMarketValue * 0.83

    NewMarket Value = TrueValue * 1.4 * 0.83

    NewMarketValue = TrueValue * 1.162

    So the Market is now only 16.2% overvalued, not 23% as you stated. Quite a big difference.

    Thing is, if we can’t trust you to get simple stuff like this right, how can we trust that the rest of your post is error-free? I mean, it sounds reasonable. But then so did your market valuation.

  126. Arithmetic Tutor

    I sure hope you don’t make a living trying to teach math. Maybe you teach it to government drones at the BLS. A shit eating monkey could do a better job.

    The S&P 500 was 1,343 two weeks prior to my article. Therefore, fair value being 40% lower would be 806. Got it Mr. Rocket Scientist?

    The S&P 500 had fallen to 1,119 when I wrote the article. That was 17% down.

    Now here is where I was just too optimistic by saying there was another 23% to go. That would only bring us to 861 on the S&P 500. We actually have 28% to go from 1,119.

    Your bullshit algorithms and formulas to arrive at 16.2% are all very quaint, but you prove yourself to be a dumbass.

    Any moron, with the exception of you, knew the market would need to fall from 1,343 to 806 to be fairly valued and understood my statement.

    Go back to the drawing board and stick the chalk up your ass.

  127. That’s a laugh…. We get brilliant mathematicians on top of delusional lawyers. For the latter:

    You post saying you’re Mr. Constitutional knowitall, but dismiss an invitation to discuss your claims. A citation would allow us to see where a coin and a bill of credit are made equvalent and allow us to read the value of the dissenting opinions… again, I offered to do the legwork but no… Don’t refer to something and ignore valid questions expecting us to take your word.

    About your word and your willingness to post your real name. Good for you, but don’t expect an ego stroke. Anonymity is a virtue… I don’t post my name as a matter of not advertising my interests, which is clearly your intentions. Fact is, nobody here really cares what real names are, especially yours. Cowardness vs. Humility, take your pick, but I guarantee you most are anonymous to remove their station in life for open discussion.

    Otherwise I’d be writing llpoh for scholarships and he’d be looking for me to hook him up with some boot-hay-hay. Ok, maybe not, but I assure you if I get hurt in Texas, I will not be calling you!

  128. TeresaE

    A brilliant exposition!

    It got me thinking about organized charity, modern style, whether government or otherwise. Remember the United Appeal campaigns back in the early ’60s. Top-down blackmail, is what it was. In 1961, I was an army draftee in Washington and the work came down the line, the general experts all of you to donate. ,,, enlisted pay was nothing to cheer about but there was a subsidy for spouse. Yeah, I’d been married just over a year when I got drafted.

    A month later, the demand was for everyone to buy savings bonds. One of my army buddies, also married, was cashing them in as soon as they arrived. The company major learned of this, decided it was violating the ‘spirit’ and intent, began confiscating the mail and putting the bonds in the company safe. Sheesh.

    Shortly after that, I was released from active duty, returned to my previous civilian job. And lo, the same double whammy. Involuntary charity ain’t charity.

    The United Appeal would co-opt some fat-cat as national co-ordinator and government advertising/propaganda did the rest. To us on the bottom of the pile. I remember one payday several of were at Bob Jones’ saloon, best roast beef sandwiches in Cincinnati. There was a team of UA canvassers in the next booth, whining about ‘not making our quota, gotta push ’em harder.’

    This was another ‘trickle-down’ scheme, amazing how much charity gets eaten up in administrative costs, innit!

    … “a whole strata of society that is ENTITLED to work less and get more.” More. Yeah, I’m starting to get a handle on what Paul Krugman means by that word.

  129. The Video Congress Does NOT Want You To See!

    Many have had the sneaking suspicion that our elected “leaders” in Congress are not going to Washington D.C. to represent us…but for their own personal gain. This video may just validate that assessment! (My note: Anyone still harboring just a “sneaking suspicion” or still in search of “validation” needs a complete divorce from the controlled media OR should curse their higher power for making them genuinely stupid)

    Using the net worth data compiled by the non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics (see list below) we found a disturbing trend. The analysis of the information in this video has not been seen by anyone…not on Fox News…not on CNN…and you have not read about this in the Wall Street Journal…yet. (Please note Obama’s jaw-dropping increase in gained “wealth” – carrying out the Money Masters’ agenda pays very well indeed – much like Blankfein’s lucrative pay for carrying out “God’s work”)

  130. Wow. This is one of the best articles about the economy – ever.

    The point about the stock market being below an 11-year high was a real eye opener. And have to agree about Krugman. Biggest idiot I’ve ever read. According to him the feds should simply spend unlimited money as that will not only end the economic doldrums, but create wealth for everyone beyond belief.

  131. Was away for a couple of days.

    IIpoh. You kinda surprise me. For awhile there, I thought you might want to debate. Next thing I know, no more debating ideas, just ad hominems.

    Novista: No velociraptors here. Don’t know what you are taking about. I still have no takers on the Constitutional issues I raised so why should I feel like prey? Hard to feel like prey when no one is taking you on except by calling you names. You know what they say about words never hurting you.

    A challenge. I am throwing down the gauntlet for all of you who claim to believe in the Constitution.

    I repeat the Article I Section 8 of the Constitution for all of you who claim you believe in it: Congress “shall have the power” to “coin money” and to “provide” for the “general welfare”.

    I think Congress should use its power. After all, can there be a government that doesn’t use power?

    I guess maybe you guys think Congress should only use its enumerated powers for a few things in the Constitution that you happen to like and not use the enumerated powers for things you don’t like.

    I can’t see how giving the banks the power to issue currency has helped us. In fact, I don’t think things could get much worse. So I say Congress should take that power back. It should have never ceded it in the first place. You can’t be much of a sovereign government when you give up your power to control the currency.

    I also can’t see how Congress is providing for the general welfare of the population when 45 million Americans have no health insurance and little ability to see a doctor. I think Congress should use its power to improve the health of these people. We no longer live with 18th century medicine. Is your concept of the providing for the general welfare making sure everyone has enough leeches for bloodletting?

    I also think that Congress should use its general welfare power to make good paying jobs plentiful rather than scarce. If the government has to provide jobs when the private sector won’t, my I beleive the government should do that. Then maybe those people in places like Detroit (per one poster above) would choose to work to regain their dignity or find some dignity they never had through working for a decent wage.

    For all your claims about believing in the Constitution, I don’t think you really believe in the totality of it. Just the few portions of it you happen to like.

    Nuriel Roubini, a very middle of the road Nobel Prize winning economist gave this recent interview for the WSJ. He basically pointed out (duh) that when all income goes to capital and income ceases to go workers or to people who need or want to work, capitalism begins to fail because nobody can afford to buy the goods the capitalists want to make. He even used that dreaded name: Marx.

    Check out the video of his interview:

  132. this idiot still fulminating about providing and promoting general welfare? what a waste of electrons.

    gee, the welfare clause sure is specific. no room for interpretation there. even though my 8th grade history teacher said the opposite.

    nouriel roubini never won a nobel. folks on this blog have been reading him since before he was proved correct. no need to condescendingly explain who the hell he is to us.


  133. When it comes to the Constitution, you guys just need to face it. You are real lightweights here. You parade around as if you know something, but you just can’t make a cogent argument no matter how hard you try.

    All you do is name call like a bunch of sixth graders.

    How about making some arguments other than what my high school history teacher said!

    Now I happened on another blog where the level of discussion concerning the general welfare clause is a bit intriguing. Come if you like:

    My bad about Nuriel. Thought he won the Nobel.

  134. Yawn back at you. Crickets.

    Apparently this board is filled with idealogues who find the Constitution inconvenient.

    It seems that to members of this board whenever the Constitution conflicts with the PC dogma of this board, the Constitution loses.

    1. davidgmills speaks – blah, blah, blah, Constitution, blah, blah, blah.

      You are like the sound of one hand clapping.


Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published.

You can add images to your comment by clicking here.