No no, you are constantly haunting my comments, it was also quite apparent in that/. story that had the experimental meta-moderation turned on. You are all over my journal with your trolling, you can go on, troll away.
I don't see any government as productive, don't get me started. It's a necessary level of expense, but PRODUCTIVE? None of them are productive. We have to realize that government is an evil, necessary because we must put something into that power vacuum, but it's poison that always ends up destroying the economy and society by providing more and more power to itself and by taking more and more productive capacity out of the economy one way or another and destroying the production.
Economy IS production. Consumption is but a trivial consequence of production.
As to riots - WHO are they going to be rioting against? Themselves? Without most of those employees and most of the regulations repealed and all departments closed, you'll have actual money again that's not devalued and that is saved instead.
The private sector will have the credit that is currently all consumed by the government. The interest rates would rise to where the market takes them and businesses will again be able to get loans that they can't get right now, because all loans go to the government.
No business can get a loan at the rate that government gets them at right now. If the government continues to exist, the private sector will continue to shrink and there will be no recovery of any kind, it will deteriorate, it will get worse and worse, not better.
Federal government is least of all supposed to be dealing with private businesses and preventing people from doing business the way they desire.
1. Gov't must be shrunk to 1/100th of what it is (or smaller preferably). 2. Income/payroll/corporate taxes must be eliminated. 3. Excise taxes must be used to pay for whatever federal gov't there is. This means REAL excise taxes (apportioned between the States, btw), not the bullshit that they argued was excise (and introduced the income taxes in the process), so Constitution must be fixed, the 16th amendment must be replaced with an amendment that in strong language prohibits any attempt to steal people's income again (and there should be an amendment against any attempt at another Federal reserve bank, the money must be Constitutional - gold, and competition must be allowed, not prevented.) 4. Federal gov't can introduce a sales tax if the import taxes are not enough, but this can only happen if gov't is cut dramatically and income/payroll/corporate taxes are eliminated. Sales tax is an excise tax and it promotes production rather than consumption. 5. Federal registry must shrink to 1912 levels. No more business regulations of any kind. People must be able to run their business how they want without federal gov't intruding on private property and private transactions.
There is nothing else that federal gov't should be doing regarding any companies, international, home, etc.
The Federal gov't is not for providing any sort of 'help' when somebody is in 'need'. Didn't you see enough of that help already? You are not sick of it yet?
If you control every job in the United States what does that do to my right to the pursuit of happiness?
- yet this is not what USA saw prior to 1913 and all this nonsense. USA saw very strong competition and lowering prices and increasing production and in fact shortage of LABOR, not shortage of jobs.
Competition creates jobs and lowers prices, and all that it takes is freedom, not gov't laws and benefits that actually cost economy.
BTW., people need to stop thinking in these narrow terms (what if jobs are not there, who is going to feed me?)
You have to start your own business and without gov't standing there, preventing you from doing it, you'd be able to do it actually.
90% of seafood comes to USA from Asia. What? People forgot how to fish in USA? It's surrounded with water.
I'll agree some issues are best handled at the state level, but this idea that states can do everything better than the fed is so beyond ignorant
- no, the idea is not that States can do BETTER. The idea is that States will do LESS DAMAGE because there are 50 of them, the people have more direct control of them, they will compete among each other and it's a healthier system for economy rather than having a failed monopolistic policy that is dying from its own weight.
Do you know what this crisis is about? It's akin to an anaphylactic shock - an allergic reaction, where the market is turning against the allergen (the monopolistic federal all encompassing government), and the body (economy) is shutting down due to the fighting response.
The problem IS the government, you are staring at it and still not seeing it.
There ARE good regulations - MARKET regulations. That's where a company goes BUST if it overcommits and can't pay. It's about businesses starting quickly and those will survive who will provide better product at a more attractive price. Market regulations actually increase efficiencies, decrease prices and maximize production, while government regulations destroy efficiencies, increase costs and thus prices, prevent competition and maximize consumption with fake money and move savings/investment/production offshore.
Wake up, it's an allergic reaction that will kill your economy.
I suppose you are talking about department of energy, it must be shut down (and every other department for that matter).
Nuclear power should be privatized, the gov't shouldn't be in business of picking winners and losers in any power, it's shouldn't be creating moral hazards, regardless of what they are (FDIC, FHA, HUD, Freddie/Fannie, SS, Medicare, dep't of education, energy, agriculture, business, etc.etc.)
Federal government shouldn't own any property, all federal property must be sold off, so this cannot be their issue, because they cannot have any property in the first place.
Nuclear arsenal cannot be sold off, that's one of few actually authorized purposes for a federal government - border protection. These are weapons that federal gov't has authority over, I don't understand why you are lumping it into this question.
Federal gov't shouldn't be in a position to enforce any specific location to store nuclear waste material, this has to be dealt with privately. Somebody can make a lot of money storing the stuff. Of-course I don't have a problem with States regulating where exactly it is safe and what the safety standard is for storing, after all - it's their territory. The important condition to satisfy is property rights, nobody has the right to pollute on other people's property, and this has to be protected.
This is precisely what I am asking about. Why is it better to have "state" monopolies than "federal" monopolies?
- where do you get this dichotomy from?
1. There are many States - 50. This already precludes a monopoly situation, because every State has its own legislature.
2. Dealing with a legislative monopoly within a State is a separate issue. All States are different in their needs and how their citizens like to run them. Personally, I would divide the power further, but again, the important point is not to have one single monopoly that a citizen cannot run away from without leaving the country.
When federal government makes a mistake, you can't just move from one State to another to alleviate it.
Why? What difference does it make? If a state passes an unjust law, how is that preferable to an unjust federal law?
- you say it's unjust, somebody else says it's just. The point is not what to do with separate states, the point is to make sure than a law is not uniformly applied to everybody without their ability to escape it without leaving the country.
I don't know what you're talking about; I'm talking about the US libertarian preference for state power over federal power. It's completely bewildering, and I'm asking what its basis is, other than that it was one system among many proposed by a handful of people a couple hundred years ago.
- I am against all government power. In practice this means that the power has to be divided and dealt as separate issues.
I am in Europe now, so it's not different from EU, with member States being separate countries. 2 years ago I was already asking various people in different countries in EU when are they going to wake up and realize that one solution does not fit all (especially monetary and economic policy), they were shrugging it off. Not anymore.
I don't actually read their site, but I am quite familiar with their take on Ron Paul, and you don't hold water to their hate. You just don't have it in you, compared to their expression of hate, you are no more than a whiff in the wind.
Answer the question. How would YOU deal with several million unemployed federal workers rioting because YOU put them out of a job? Especially since you would have no staff to deal with those rioters.
1. MILLIONS. Therein lies the problem, as it is true, there are near 30,000,000 people working for the government in one capacity or another, most not being elected officials and half not even being direct government employees, but instead being contractors.
2. I would fire them from government immediately and I would immediately slash the federal registry (all the laws and regulations) back to 1912 levels. I would immediately shut down the offices of all the unelected officials. Fed, IRS, FDIC, FBI, CIA, dep't of energy, business, education, agriculture, FEMA, FDA, FAA, EPA, FHA, HUD, etc.etc.etc., all gone.
This is a HUGE burden on the PRODUCTIVE part of the population to have those people sucking on the investment capital of the struggling economy.
This is what WAS DONE in 1921. 70% of gov't budget cut - you don't cut 70% of budget without firing 70% of workers, and they DID IT.
Where there riots? But one thing we do know is that in 1923 the unemployment came DOWN from over 12% to 4%.
As riots - if they riot, that's what National Guard can be used for, and while I'd have all the troops brought home and the National Guard, I wouldn't fire them all in a hurry.
The transition from fascist command economy of today to the free market economy must be protected from all sides - from the banks and the banksters and from rioting crowds.
- because it's one and it can set one monopoly law, while in reality it is up to States to decide such things, and people in States can decide against setting government laws as well, but it is important to make the distinction on what the federal government is allowed and is not authorized to do.
We are not talking about elections of State governors, right? This is about the presidential situation here.
People go hungry and riot when the government destroys the most moral, the most efficient system of creating and distributing wealth - free market capitalism.
This is what the US federal government has been engaged in for near 100 years now. People have a right to riot because the government instead of protecting liberties and freedoms of ALL has been protecting financial gain of SOME by destroying the economy of ALL with all this money counterfeiting, anti-competitive regulations and special dealings, all the corruption.
Whatever the pretense is, the outcome is necessarily the same: destruction of liberties, destruction of rights to property, destruction of economy through destruction of money by the policy of inflation.
For the monopoly of FEDERAL government, the only solution is to allow the market work, regardless of the circumstances.
The problems that can and do occur locally are dealt with by State and municipal governments and private insurance.
Federal government getting into this only creates the moral hazard for all parties involved. Some say that States can't handle it - that' because of all the money that the federal government is stealing, both through taxes and through inflation.
Taxes are current and taxes are future, future taxes are created when gov't steals from the future by spending something it doesn't have and thus by financing it with debt. Debt has to be repaid, and so that's a tax obligation + interest.
The federal government has a special role, it is not to look after the sick and the poor. It is to look after the LIBERTY - individual liberty of persons. Individual freedoms and liberties and border protection.
There are no circumstances under which federal government must be 'providing aid to people in dire need' - this is a State issue, it's a municipal issue it's a local issue and in most cases it should be a private issue of charity.
And they HATE, they HATE Ron Paul. They HATE him with passion that you can NEVER understand or deploy. You are incapable of HATING somebody as much as they HATE Ron Paul.
Too much logic was applied in your comment. Your account is pending suspension now since you have been identified as dangerous to the State. Please wait by the door as the Feeling Beautiful Inside reprocessing agency members are coming to help you with your problem, have a bag with 2 pairs of clean underwear with you, nothing else please.
True, it is sad. In place of a president I would not only cut all wars and bring everybody home. I would slash federal gov't spending to 0.1% of what it is now. Wars, all subsidies to all businesses, SS, Medicare, Medicaid all gone in a second. 99% of all gov't employees, contractors gone. I wouldn't wait for attrition to work its way through, there is NO time to wait for that.
Federal reserve - shut down. All actors of the scam investigated and jailed, don't care about the time limits on any of the crimes. This includes federal and State bureaucrats and bank officials.
All unelected offices shut down. All of them immediately (all multi letter agencies, all departments, whatever exists). Everybody goes home and starts looking around at the REAL people and how they live and start thinking about retooling and re-establishing themselves as useful members of society.
IRS - shut down. No more IRS at all. Only excise taxes are collected - 5% import taxes on the borders, and all products get a 10% tax in the stores. Done.
Federal registry gets a nice slashing back to the levels of 1912. All laws immediately repealed to that level.
I would shock the system, make it regurgitate itself and spill its guts.
Good job completely avoiding the topic at hand. How does your favorite candidate's plan to bring home the troops make any difference for emergency responders?
- National Guard would come home AND money would be available in case of real emergencies.
Oh, how cute. Most conservative idiots just try to link Obama to the middle east or Islam. Instead you want people to think he is a Star Wars Wookie from Kazakhstan? Yeah, that makes perfect sense if you're on heavy drugs.
- no, I just like the SOUND of it:
Just say it outloud: BORAT CHUBAKA.
It really sounds better than his name.
By the way, it's on the record in this site (I can find the links), I don't believe in any of the nonsense about Obama, he is whatever, it doesn't matter to me one bit. His mother is a US citizens, so is he. He says he is Christian, good for him. I am an ATHEIST. I don't care.
As opposed to what other president that we've had in the US in the past several decades?
- PRECISELY.
--
Now, tell me this: are you sympathetic to the OWS demand that the banks stop having special privileges with the government? Are you against special privileges that the banks have, with all that money?
If you say 'YES', then you are a hypocrite. You are against some special privileges but you are for other special privileges.
FEMA is no better than the banks, it's all moral hazard, it's all fake insurance and it's all financed by theft (either via taxes or via inflation - printing or via future taxes - borrowing).
To me the banks getting bail outs or the victims of natural disasters getting bail outs - SAME DEAL. They all have moral hazard provided by government and they all get bailed out with theft. They all should go out of business and they all should have private insurance and be regulated by market regulations, not gov't bullshit.
if you say 'NO' - then I can understand your position. You like big gov't, you are with all this spending, you are fine with borrowing, taxing income, printing and inflating money, then your position is NOT hypocritical, but it is the WRONG position.
In the Iowa voters result, Paul took 82%. Following him were Herman Cain with 14.7%, Rick Santorum with 1%, Newt Gingrich with 0.9%, Michele Bachmann with 0.5%, Rick Perry with 0.5%, Gary Johnson with 0.2%, with Mitt Romney and Jon Huntsman 0%.
for non-Iowans who voted he ALSO won:
In the tally of non-Iowans who voted, Paul won 26% followed by Cain at 25%, Perry and Santorum tied at 16%, Gingrich at 11%, Bachmann at 6%, Romney at 1%, and Huntsman and Johnson with 0%.
See, that's called COMMITMENT. You think it takes a majority to win? It takes a group of dedicated people acting as one and not sitting on their asses.
I left out Ron Paul and Gary Johnson on principle that they are the only people that will address the underlying fundamental issues, everybody else in that race is a zombie for the undead party (both, one and the same).
Ron Paul would bring US troops home, the National Guard as well and would cut militarist costs by hundreds of billions and would cut 1 Trillion in spending in the first year with the goal of balancing the budget in 3 years and with the goal of getting rid of the Fed and restoring liberty.
There is nothing better that anybody else either proposes or would do (well, I think Gary Johnson has good ideas too, but he won't get nominated, they don't acknowledge him at all.)
You THINK Ron Paul has no chance of winning, but we'll see. AFAIC you are wrong, and we'll see how the next steps goes - the Register as a Republic Bomb to make sure that Ron Paul is nominated. The biggest hurdle in front of Ron Paul is not Borat Chubaka, because Borat is a plant by the military industrial complex and by big pharma and by the banking and insurance industries.
Here is a list of proposals for their next training exercises (all are scary):
* an alien invasion * earth core cooling, stopping and disrupting the magnetic field * a tear in time continuum * the Sun exploding * ghosts * Richard Nixon * Obama winning the second term * One of (Bachmann, Perry, Romney, Jizzbucke.... Santorum, Gingrich, Cain) becoming POTUS
Oh, how easy it is to spy on people, how hard it is to keep secrets nowadays. No KGB agent had such wealth of information upon their targets as the potential targets of today are providing themselves with all these social media sites and systems. One wonders what McCarthyism in USA (or Soviet repressions) would have looked like, given all these tools, all these ways to spy on people and all these ways to aggregate data with easy tools and powerful mechanisms to do it that exist today. Are we even starting to understand this just now, as more and more liberties erode and more and more authorities go above the law and put their hands all over the data?
Precrime is being developed by DHS, it will have more data than necessary to come and pre-prison you because they figure that in the future you just may do something they don't like.
Maybe it doesn't matter that you apartment layout can be viewed online, maybe it does.
No, I am not arguing that self signed certificates themselves are good enough to fix the problem. Yes, I am arguing that HTTP and HTTPS with self signed certificates should be treated equally (but in the address bar it would be useful to have a quick way to view certificate hash keys - fingerprints).
My point is that the current model is outdated and very flawed because: 1. It relies on central authority to get certificates and authenticate them. 2. The browsers mistreat the self signed certificates without even trying to understand why that is in fact the wrong behavior if they cared about a switch to a safer web and better user experience.
Actually you are right, I don't see used ones on ebay, well, they don't really break so if somebody bought one 6-7 years ago (like I did), they'd still be in good shape.
I still have one, they are obsolete today! or so this says but it is a very reliable programmer, if you can get one, it's definitely going to be used and so it should be cheap maybe 50 bucks or so.
1. He works for free in terms of personal salary, he choses to be paid in dividends. Any amount of money he gets that is from dividends is taxed at 15%. OTOH if he sells any of his stocks, that's capital gains.
2. He is the major shareholder of his company - Berkshire Hathaway. He owns majority stock, he is still the actual owner.
3. Any corporate taxes that his company pays, is the money he is not getting in dividends, it's HIS money. If his company pays 35% (not exactly, he is a hypocrite so he is fighting IRS on a few points there), then it's HIM who is not getting that money.
If his corporate tax WAS 35% and dividends were taxed at 15% and that was it, he ends up paying 44.5% in overall income taxes.
4. The fact that his company is NOT paying 35% in taxes, but pays somewhat less based on various ways he structures it, means that his company will NOT pay any increased amount.
Anybody who can escape the full amount of taxes today will NOT be paying the full amount in taxes even if the rates go up.
5. It is wrong for people to have to pay more PERCENTAGE of their taxes the more money they make, because there is a HUGE portion of population (50%), who don't pay ANY income taxes. For those people there is no reason NOT to vote for ANY increase in income taxes.
All taxes should be apportioned, the 16th amendment needs to be abolished, but the Supreme Court is just a political extension of the rest of the government, nothing else.
The problem with taxes that some people pay and some do not, is that those who don't pay benefit tremendously from increasing the taxes on those who pay in every instance, and it's completely unfair, all taxes should be apportioned to the States and divided among population, otherwise it's basically gov't legalized robbery and bribery.
6. Most of the people who are high earners do pay 35% personal, 3%Medicare taxes on their entire salary, that's 38%. Then there is 12% SS and the State taxes, which are different from place to place, can be 0 (Texas), can be 7% (Connecticut).
7. The high tax rates that were present during the WWII and for some time after it were NOT paid, because people didn't pay themselves these salaries, instead they used the business money to write off ANY expenses. It was possible because information was not as tightly regulated and consolidated with all the computer systems.
There is a reason it is now illegal to transact in cash in Louisiana for second hand items (so basically the cash is outlawed if you do a garage sale for example), I think the pawn shops are still exempt. There is less and less actual freedom and liberty in USA.
8. Berkshire Hathaway makes plenty of money on buying up and restructuring businesses in fire sales when the death taxes have to be paid, because death taxes cannot be paid just from some cash that sits somewhere, people invest all of the money they don't spend, that's why it's a completely wrong policy to tax income and not spending because any income that's not consumed is being reinvested into economy. If income is taxed it's not invested, it's consumed by gov't.
Slashdot Mirror
No no, you are constantly haunting my comments, it was also quite apparent in that /. story that had the experimental meta-moderation turned on. You are all over my journal with your trolling, you can go on, troll away.
I don't see any government as productive, don't get me started. It's a necessary level of expense, but PRODUCTIVE? None of them are productive. We have to realize that government is an evil, necessary because we must put something into that power vacuum, but it's poison that always ends up destroying the economy and society by providing more and more power to itself and by taking more and more productive capacity out of the economy one way or another and destroying the production.
Economy IS production. Consumption is but a trivial consequence of production.
As to riots - WHO are they going to be rioting against? Themselves? Without most of those employees and most of the regulations repealed and all departments closed, you'll have actual money again that's not devalued and that is saved instead.
The private sector will have the credit that is currently all consumed by the government. The interest rates would rise to where the market takes them and businesses will again be able to get loans that they can't get right now, because all loans go to the government.
No business can get a loan at the rate that government gets them at right now. If the government continues to exist, the private sector will continue to shrink and there will be no recovery of any kind, it will deteriorate, it will get worse and worse, not better.
Federal government is least of all supposed to be dealing with private businesses and preventing people from doing business the way they desire.
1. Gov't must be shrunk to 1/100th of what it is (or smaller preferably).
2. Income/payroll/corporate taxes must be eliminated.
3. Excise taxes must be used to pay for whatever federal gov't there is. This means REAL excise taxes (apportioned between the States, btw), not the bullshit that they argued was excise (and introduced the income taxes in the process), so Constitution must be fixed, the 16th amendment must be replaced with an amendment that in strong language prohibits any attempt to steal people's income again (and there should be an amendment against any attempt at another Federal reserve bank, the money must be Constitutional - gold, and competition must be allowed, not prevented.)
4. Federal gov't can introduce a sales tax if the import taxes are not enough, but this can only happen if gov't is cut dramatically and income/payroll/corporate taxes are eliminated. Sales tax is an excise tax and it promotes production rather than consumption.
5. Federal registry must shrink to 1912 levels. No more business regulations of any kind. People must be able to run their business how they want without federal gov't intruding on private property and private transactions.
There is nothing else that federal gov't should be doing regarding any companies, international, home, etc.
The Federal gov't is not for providing any sort of 'help' when somebody is in 'need'. Didn't you see enough of that help already? You are not sick of it yet?
If you control every job in the United States what does that do to my right to the pursuit of happiness?
- yet this is not what USA saw prior to 1913 and all this nonsense. USA saw very strong competition and lowering prices and increasing production and in fact shortage of LABOR, not shortage of jobs.
Competition creates jobs and lowers prices, and all that it takes is freedom, not gov't laws and benefits that actually cost economy.
BTW., people need to stop thinking in these narrow terms (what if jobs are not there, who is going to feed me?)
You have to start your own business and without gov't standing there, preventing you from doing it, you'd be able to do it actually.
90% of seafood comes to USA from Asia. What? People forgot how to fish in USA? It's surrounded with water.
I'll agree some issues are best handled at the state level, but this idea that states can do everything better than the fed is so beyond ignorant
- no, the idea is not that States can do BETTER. The idea is that States will do LESS DAMAGE because there are 50 of them, the people have more direct control of them, they will compete among each other and it's a healthier system for economy rather than having a failed monopolistic policy that is dying from its own weight.
Do you know what this crisis is about? It's akin to an anaphylactic shock - an allergic reaction, where the market is turning against the allergen (the monopolistic federal all encompassing government), and the body (economy) is shutting down due to the fighting response.
The problem IS the government, you are staring at it and still not seeing it.
There ARE good regulations - MARKET regulations. That's where a company goes BUST if it overcommits and can't pay. It's about businesses starting quickly and those will survive who will provide better product at a more attractive price. Market regulations actually increase efficiencies, decrease prices and maximize production, while government regulations destroy efficiencies, increase costs and thus prices, prevent competition and maximize consumption with fake money and move savings/investment/production offshore.
Wake up, it's an allergic reaction that will kill your economy.
I suppose you are talking about department of energy, it must be shut down (and every other department for that matter).
Nuclear power should be privatized, the gov't shouldn't be in business of picking winners and losers in any power, it's shouldn't be creating moral hazards, regardless of what they are (FDIC, FHA, HUD, Freddie/Fannie, SS, Medicare, dep't of education, energy, agriculture, business, etc.etc.)
Federal government shouldn't own any property, all federal property must be sold off, so this cannot be their issue, because they cannot have any property in the first place.
Nuclear arsenal cannot be sold off, that's one of few actually authorized purposes for a federal government - border protection. These are weapons that federal gov't has authority over, I don't understand why you are lumping it into this question.
Federal gov't shouldn't be in a position to enforce any specific location to store nuclear waste material, this has to be dealt with privately. Somebody can make a lot of money storing the stuff. Of-course I don't have a problem with States regulating where exactly it is safe and what the safety standard is for storing, after all - it's their territory. The important condition to satisfy is property rights, nobody has the right to pollute on other people's property, and this has to be protected.
This is precisely what I am asking about. Why is it better to have "state" monopolies than "federal" monopolies?
- where do you get this dichotomy from?
1. There are many States - 50. This already precludes a monopoly situation, because every State has its own legislature.
2. Dealing with a legislative monopoly within a State is a separate issue. All States are different in their needs and how their citizens like to run them. Personally, I would divide the power further, but again, the important point is not to have one single monopoly that a citizen cannot run away from without leaving the country.
When federal government makes a mistake, you can't just move from one State to another to alleviate it.
Why? What difference does it make? If a state passes an unjust law, how is that preferable to an unjust federal law?
- you say it's unjust, somebody else says it's just. The point is not what to do with separate states, the point is to make sure than a law is not uniformly applied to everybody without their ability to escape it without leaving the country.
I don't know what you're talking about; I'm talking about the US libertarian preference for state power over federal power. It's completely bewildering, and I'm asking what its basis is, other than that it was one system among many proposed by a handful of people a couple hundred years ago.
- I am against all government power. In practice this means that the power has to be divided and dealt as separate issues.
I am in Europe now, so it's not different from EU, with member States being separate countries. 2 years ago I was already asking various people in different countries in EU when are they going to wake up and realize that one solution does not fit all (especially monetary and economic policy), they were shrugging it off. Not anymore.
I don't actually read their site, but I am quite familiar with their take on Ron Paul, and you don't hold water to their hate. You just don't have it in you, compared to their expression of hate, you are no more than a whiff in the wind.
Answer the question. How would YOU deal with several million unemployed federal workers rioting because YOU put them out of a job? Especially since you would have no staff to deal with those rioters.
1. MILLIONS. Therein lies the problem, as it is true, there are near 30,000,000 people working for the government in one capacity or another, most not being elected officials and half not even being direct government employees, but instead being contractors.
2. I would fire them from government immediately and I would immediately slash the federal registry (all the laws and regulations) back to 1912 levels. I would immediately shut down the offices of all the unelected officials. Fed, IRS, FDIC, FBI, CIA, dep't of energy, business, education, agriculture, FEMA, FDA, FAA, EPA, FHA, HUD, etc.etc.etc., all gone.
This is a HUGE burden on the PRODUCTIVE part of the population to have those people sucking on the investment capital of the struggling economy.
This is what WAS DONE in 1921. 70% of gov't budget cut - you don't cut 70% of budget without firing 70% of workers, and they DID IT.
Where there riots? But one thing we do know is that in 1923 the unemployment came DOWN from over 12% to 4%.
As riots - if they riot, that's what National Guard can be used for, and while I'd have all the troops brought home and the National Guard, I wouldn't fire them all in a hurry.
The transition from fascist command economy of today to the free market economy must be protected from all sides - from the banks and the banksters and from rioting crowds.
Why is the US federal government special?
- because it's one and it can set one monopoly law, while in reality it is up to States to decide such things, and people in States can decide against setting government laws as well, but it is important to make the distinction on what the federal government is allowed and is not authorized to do.
We are not talking about elections of State governors, right? This is about the presidential situation here.
People go hungry and riot when the government destroys the most moral, the most efficient system of creating and distributing wealth - free market capitalism.
This is what the US federal government has been engaged in for near 100 years now. People have a right to riot because the government instead of protecting liberties and freedoms of ALL has been protecting financial gain of SOME by destroying the economy of ALL with all this money counterfeiting, anti-competitive regulations and special dealings, all the corruption.
Whatever the pretense is, the outcome is necessarily the same: destruction of liberties, destruction of rights to property, destruction of economy through destruction of money by the policy of inflation.
For the monopoly of FEDERAL government, the only solution is to allow the market work, regardless of the circumstances.
The problems that can and do occur locally are dealt with by State and municipal governments and private insurance.
Federal government getting into this only creates the moral hazard for all parties involved. Some say that States can't handle it - that' because of all the money that the federal government is stealing, both through taxes and through inflation.
Taxes are current and taxes are future, future taxes are created when gov't steals from the future by spending something it doesn't have and thus by financing it with debt. Debt has to be repaid, and so that's a tax obligation + interest.
The federal government has a special role, it is not to look after the sick and the poor. It is to look after the LIBERTY - individual liberty of persons. Individual freedoms and liberties and border protection.
There are no circumstances under which federal government must be 'providing aid to people in dire need' - this is a State issue, it's a municipal issue it's a local issue and in most cases it should be a private issue of charity.
Oh, by the way. You have NO CLUE what a 'right wing' site looks like.
And they HATE, they HATE Ron Paul. They HATE him with passion that you can NEVER understand or deploy. You are incapable of HATING somebody as much as they HATE Ron Paul.
Because he shows them what they really are.
But what are YOU?
I am sorry, but your sensibilities would be better served not with an outrage over a /. comment but instead at a ballot box, where you should register and vote for somebody who clearly understand this issue and is vocal against it.
Too much logic was applied in your comment. Your account is pending suspension now since you have been identified as dangerous to the State. Please wait by the door as the Feeling Beautiful Inside reprocessing agency members are coming to help you with your problem, have a bag with 2 pairs of clean underwear with you, nothing else please.
True, it is sad. In place of a president I would not only cut all wars and bring everybody home. I would slash federal gov't spending to 0.1% of what it is now. Wars, all subsidies to all businesses, SS, Medicare, Medicaid all gone in a second. 99% of all gov't employees, contractors gone. I wouldn't wait for attrition to work its way through, there is NO time to wait for that.
Federal reserve - shut down. All actors of the scam investigated and jailed, don't care about the time limits on any of the crimes. This includes federal and State bureaucrats and bank officials.
All unelected offices shut down. All of them immediately (all multi letter agencies, all departments, whatever exists). Everybody goes home and starts looking around at the REAL people and how they live and start thinking about retooling and re-establishing themselves as useful members of society.
IRS - shut down. No more IRS at all. Only excise taxes are collected - 5% import taxes on the borders, and all products get a 10% tax in the stores. Done.
Federal registry gets a nice slashing back to the levels of 1912. All laws immediately repealed to that level.
I would shock the system, make it regurgitate itself and spill its guts.
Good job completely avoiding the topic at hand. How does your favorite candidate's plan to bring home the troops make any difference for emergency responders?
- National Guard would come home AND money would be available in case of real emergencies.
Oh, how cute. Most conservative idiots just try to link Obama to the middle east or Islam. Instead you want people to think he is a Star Wars Wookie from Kazakhstan? Yeah, that makes perfect sense if you're on heavy drugs.
- no, I just like the SOUND of it:
Just say it outloud: BORAT CHUBAKA.
It really sounds better than his name.
By the way, it's on the record in this site (I can find the links), I don't believe in any of the nonsense about Obama, he is whatever, it doesn't matter to me one bit. His mother is a US citizens, so is he. He says he is Christian, good for him. I am an ATHEIST. I don't care.
As opposed to what other president that we've had in the US in the past several decades?
- PRECISELY.
--
Now, tell me this: are you sympathetic to the OWS demand that the banks stop having special privileges with the government? Are you against special privileges that the banks have, with all that money?
If you say 'YES', then you are a hypocrite. You are against some special privileges but you are for other special privileges.
FEMA is no better than the banks, it's all moral hazard, it's all fake insurance and it's all financed by theft (either via taxes or via inflation - printing or via future taxes - borrowing).
To me the banks getting bail outs or the victims of natural disasters getting bail outs - SAME DEAL. They all have moral hazard provided by government and they all get bailed out with theft. They all should go out of business and they all should have private insurance and be regulated by market regulations, not gov't bullshit.
if you say 'NO' - then I can understand your position. You like big gov't, you are with all this spending, you are fine with borrowing, taxing income, printing and inflating money, then your position is NOT hypocritical, but it is the WRONG position.
--
As to whether Ron Paul has no chance. Whatever. Let us look at the facts.
Ron Paul is pulling in millions from tiny donations, he pulled in 8 million in the third quarter of 2011. He is steady at 11-15% support.
He just won another straw poll in Iowa with 82% out of 430 voters.
In the Iowa voters result, Paul took 82%. Following him were Herman Cain with 14.7%, Rick Santorum with 1%, Newt Gingrich with 0.9%, Michele Bachmann with 0.5%, Rick Perry with 0.5%, Gary Johnson with 0.2%, with Mitt Romney and Jon Huntsman 0%.
for non-Iowans who voted he ALSO won:
In the tally of non-Iowans who voted, Paul won 26% followed by Cain at 25%, Perry and Santorum tied at 16%, Gingrich at 11%, Bachmann at 6%, Romney at 1%, and Huntsman and Johnson with 0%.
See, that's called COMMITMENT. You think it takes a majority to win? It takes a group of dedicated people acting as one and not sitting on their asses.
I left out Ron Paul and Gary Johnson on principle that they are the only people that will address the underlying fundamental issues, everybody else in that race is a zombie for the undead party (both, one and the same).
Ron Paul would bring US troops home, the National Guard as well and would cut militarist costs by hundreds of billions and would cut 1 Trillion in spending in the first year with the goal of balancing the budget in 3 years and with the goal of getting rid of the Fed and restoring liberty.
There is nothing better that anybody else either proposes or would do (well, I think Gary Johnson has good ideas too, but he won't get nominated, they don't acknowledge him at all.)
You THINK Ron Paul has no chance of winning, but we'll see. AFAIC you are wrong, and we'll see how the next steps goes - the Register as a Republic Bomb to make sure that Ron Paul is nominated. The biggest hurdle in front of Ron Paul is not Borat Chubaka, because Borat is a plant by the military industrial complex and by big pharma and by the banking and insurance industries.
Here is a list of proposals for their next training exercises (all are scary):
* an alien invasion
* earth core cooling, stopping and disrupting the magnetic field
* a tear in time continuum
* the Sun exploding
* ghosts
* Richard Nixon
* Obama winning the second term
* One of (Bachmann, Perry, Romney, Jizzbucke.... Santorum, Gingrich, Cain) becoming POTUS
I was confused, I just left a comment in a topic that is so similar to this one, for a moment I thought /. is repeating the same story on the front page again within minutes from each other.
Then I realized it wasn't the same story.
Then I realized it was.
Oh, how easy it is to spy on people, how hard it is to keep secrets nowadays. No KGB agent had such wealth of information upon their targets as the potential targets of today are providing themselves with all these social media sites and systems. One wonders what McCarthyism in USA (or Soviet repressions) would have looked like, given all these tools, all these ways to spy on people and all these ways to aggregate data with easy tools and powerful mechanisms to do it that exist today. Are we even starting to understand this just now, as more and more liberties erode and more and more authorities go above the law and put their hands all over the data?
Precrime is being developed by DHS, it will have more data than necessary to come and pre-prison you because they figure that in the future you just may do something they don't like.
Maybe it doesn't matter that you apartment layout can be viewed online, maybe it does.
Trust me, I had this discussion here often enough with the same faulty points are being regurgitated over and over.
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1690388&cid=32611676
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2417038&cid=37328184
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2382470&cid=37111036
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2053436&cid=35611648
http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2419404&cid=37345104
http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2403804&cid=37250882
http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2419404&cid=37345104
No, I am not arguing that self signed certificates themselves are good enough to fix the problem. Yes, I am arguing that HTTP and HTTPS with self signed certificates should be treated equally (but in the address bar it would be useful to have a quick way to view certificate hash keys - fingerprints).
My point is that the current model is outdated and very flawed because:
1. It relies on central authority to get certificates and authenticate them.
2. The browsers mistreat the self signed certificates without even trying to understand why that is in fact the wrong behavior if they cared about a switch to a safer web and better user experience.
Actually you are right, I don't see used ones on ebay, well, they don't really break so if somebody bought one 6-7 years ago (like I did), they'd still be in good shape.
Craigslist maybe.
Can you believe it has been a year since this was announced on /. NASA Head Ignores Congress, Eyes Cooperation With China
A year has passed! Oh, how fast the time flies by.
What I said then applies today even more, it's just it's more obvious to even more people.
I still have one, they are obsolete today! or so this says but it is a very reliable programmer, if you can get one, it's definitely going to be used and so it should be cheap maybe 50 bucks or so.
Maybe you need something to help you with that pain, ever tried pot?
Buffet is FULL of it. He is a LIAR.
1. He works for free in terms of personal salary, he choses to be paid in dividends. Any amount of money he gets that is from dividends is taxed at 15%. OTOH if he sells any of his stocks, that's capital gains.
2. He is the major shareholder of his company - Berkshire Hathaway. He owns majority stock, he is still the actual owner.
3. Any corporate taxes that his company pays, is the money he is not getting in dividends, it's HIS money. If his company pays 35% (not exactly, he is a hypocrite so he is fighting IRS on a few points there), then it's HIM who is not getting that money.
If his corporate tax WAS 35% and dividends were taxed at 15% and that was it, he ends up paying 44.5% in overall income taxes.
4. The fact that his company is NOT paying 35% in taxes, but pays somewhat less based on various ways he structures it, means that his company will NOT pay any increased amount.
Anybody who can escape the full amount of taxes today will NOT be paying the full amount in taxes even if the rates go up.
5. It is wrong for people to have to pay more PERCENTAGE of their taxes the more money they make, because there is a HUGE portion of population (50%), who don't pay ANY income taxes. For those people there is no reason NOT to vote for ANY increase in income taxes.
All taxes should be apportioned, the 16th amendment needs to be abolished, but the Supreme Court is just a political extension of the rest of the government, nothing else.
The problem with taxes that some people pay and some do not, is that those who don't pay benefit tremendously from increasing the taxes on those who pay in every instance, and it's completely unfair, all taxes should be apportioned to the States and divided among population, otherwise it's basically gov't legalized robbery and bribery.
6. Most of the people who are high earners do pay 35% personal, 3%Medicare taxes on their entire salary, that's 38%. Then there is 12% SS and the State taxes, which are different from place to place, can be 0 (Texas), can be 7% (Connecticut).
7. The high tax rates that were present during the WWII and for some time after it were NOT paid, because people didn't pay themselves these salaries, instead they used the business money to write off ANY expenses. It was possible because information was not as tightly regulated and consolidated with all the computer systems.
There is a reason it is now illegal to transact in cash in Louisiana for second hand items (so basically the cash is outlawed if you do a garage sale for example), I think the pawn shops are still exempt. There is less and less actual freedom and liberty in USA.
8. Berkshire Hathaway makes plenty of money on buying up and restructuring businesses in fire sales when the death taxes have to be paid, because death taxes cannot be paid just from some cash that sits somewhere, people invest all of the money they don't spend, that's why it's a completely wrong policy to tax income and not spending because any income that's not consumed is being reinvested into economy. If income is taxed it's not invested, it's consumed by gov't.
But again and again: WARREN BUFFET IS A LIAR.