0

Your statement was not correct, though. Your 'opinion' was that the government does not make money on its own.. which is both literally and metaphorically incorrect. (The United States treasury 'makes' money by ordering to be printed;))

Seriously, though. You don't have to pay taxes. Leave the country if you don't like our government/laws. You do have a choice. However, you choose to live in this country and you choose to use government services. So you should be required to pay.

I only bad reped you, because your statement was incorrect, not because I did not agree with your opinion.

If the treasury prints money, that simply dilutes the value of the funds already out there, doesn't it? I mean, it's no longer backed by gold and silver, so it doesn't have any real value, merely the amount we think it should. If more shows up, then the total value of a single given bill ought to drop, shouldn't it? Isn't that the kind of comparison that's always being used about Pre-Nazi Germany, with the (possibly exaggerated) claims of 'a wheelbarrow of deutschmarks to buy a loaf of bread'?

And something I've seen elsewhere leads me to believe that even if you leave America, you've still got to pay American taxes for several years. I'll try to look into that further.

0

What ignorance is this? I don't think it's fair to judge roosevelt as he was not president during the crash. Relative to the first 4 years of the depression, Roosevelt did well with what resources he had. I doubt you could have done much better..

Josh, one of the things FDR did to 'assist' the citizenry during the Great Depression was destroying things. No, I'm not making that up. In an effort to give a boost to the agricultural community, the US Government purchased whatever wheat farmers were willing to sell them, at a price higher than the world's market price. The idea was that once the wheat was taken off the market, the price of wheat would skyrocket, and it could be sold for a greater amount. This didn't happen.

Argentina, I know, started shoving their wheat more strongly on the US-free world market. They weren't the only ones, they're just the only ones I can recall at the moment. And everyone knew that, eventually, the US would have to release its stockpiled wheat, dumping the price even lower than the competition already going on. This would have negated the effects of FDR's attempt to help the farmers. So what did FDR do?

He ordered the stockpiles of wheat to be destroyed.

Yes, I said that. In order to artificially keep the price of wheat high, in the middle of the Great Depression, the federal government, during the presidency of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, ordered that the American stockpiles of wheat be destroyed. At the least, if I recall correctly, it was millions of pounds of wheat. I may be misrecalling; it might have been tons worth instead.

If that's an example of FDR's 'political/financial' savvy, then I really doubt that what he did was what turned the economy around. And that's just one example of the stuff he did.

Remember those books I recommended you look at about evolution? I'm adding another book to your requested reading list: The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History, by Thomas Woods.

Wow, another extremely long, and rambling sentence lol.. The federal government can do whatever the hell they want with the money b/c it is theirs. However, we have the option to vote for the people who decide what to do with that money.. and so, we have an indirect ownership of this money, hence democracy. And btw, if you don't like it, then petition and try to change it, or you can leave the country. You don't have to pay taxes, and you don't have to put up with the U.S. government if you don't want to.

Please reference my earlier post; that's all I have to say on this one. I just ask that you recall that the views you are currently espousing do not match up logically with the political outlook you seem to take elsewhere.

0

Sorry for the triple post; I've been away from the thread too long, it seems.

> a nice $60 tax return,
Hey, I get to invest it now though, don't I? The saved me from going out and wasting it early.

They also prevented you from being able to invest it earlier. In effect, they've stolen from you the interest you would have gained.

And the state and local governments derive their power from who?

Themselves. Remember, the 13 colonies had local and colonial self-government before the Articles of Confederation, and well before the Constitution. For that matter, Virginia's ratification of the Constitution was on the proviso that, should the Federal government in any way impede the State's self-governance, the State of Virginia would have the right to withdraw from the Constitutional Union.

Actually, some cities set up a monopoly and a committee to regulate electricity..

Which usually results in power going unavailable because the distribution companies can't get enough of it from their suppliers to feed the needs/wants of those they supply. You do realize that with each statement, you're sounding less like the capitalist you profess yourself to be?

Really? Then what exactly does the bill or amendments do? It protects us from the federal government by enabling us to possess said rights..

You said it yourself. It protects us from the Federal Government. This isn't something the government gives us, it's something that the government is prevented from taking from us. There's a fairly large difference there.

You have yet to provide an anti-example

Any of those do? Or will you blatantly declare 'no evidence' on them as well?

0

Josh, one of the things FDR did to 'assist' the citizenry during the Great Depression was destroying things. No, I'm not making that up. In an effort to give a boost to the agricultural community, the US Government purchased whatever wheat farmers were willing to sell them, at a price higher than the world's market price. The idea was that once the wheat was taken off the market, the price of wheat would skyrocket, and it could be sold for a greater amount. This didn't happen.

Argentina, I know, started shoving their wheat more strongly on the US-free world market. They weren't the only ones, they're just the only ones I can recall at the moment. And everyone knew that, eventually, the US would have to release its stockpiled wheat, dumping the price even lower than the competition already going on. This would have negated the effects of FDR's attempt to help the farmers. So what did FDR do?

He ordered the stockpiles of wheat to be destroyed.

Yes, I said that. In order to artificially keep the price of wheat high, in the middle of the Great Depression, the federal government, during the presidency of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, ordered that the American stockpiles of wheat be destroyed. At the least, if I recall correctly, it was millions of pounds of wheat. I may be misrecalling; it might have been tons worth instead.

If that's an example of FDR's 'political/financial' savvy, then I really doubt that what he did was what turned the economy around. And that's just one example of the stuff he did.

Yes, I know that FDR ordered wheat, and many other agricultural products to be destroyed. The American agricultural sector was doing very poorly, because there were no conservation laws in place. Farmers would plow up the dirt, it would become loose, and blow around furiously aka. the dust bowl. What FDR did was beneficial to the economy, so I don't know how you took it the other way around.. if anything, what you said backs up the idea that he tried almost everything he could to bring the economy back. FDR helped the farmers by purchasing their products at a higher price than the market in order to get the economy flowing and get money into the hands of Americans. Once the wheat was bought.. what the hell were they going to do with it? Think about that one.. Are they going to give it away to the people? No! That would have harmed the depression even more. Were they going to sell the wheat else where? No! That would have diluted the markets.. The only logical thing that the federal government could have done was to destroy the wheat... and it was a very good idea.

0

Themselves. Remember, the 13 colonies had local and colonial self-government before the Articles of Confederation, and well before the Constitution. For that matter, Virginia's ratification of the Constitution was on the proviso that, should the Federal government in any way impede the State's self-governance, the State of Virginia would have the right to withdraw from the Constitutional Union.

Did I say that local governments were introduced by the federal government? No, I said local and state governments derive their power from the federal government..

Which usually results in power going unavailable because the distribution companies can't get enough of it from their suppliers to feed the needs/wants of those they supply. You do realize that with each statement, you're sounding less like the capitalist you profess yourself to be?

What evidence do you have that this usually happens? And did I ever say that I agreed with it? Besides, monopolies are not always bad..

You said it yourself. It protects us from the Federal Government. This isn't something the government gives us, it's something that the government is prevented from taking from us. There's a fairly large difference there.

Yes, the bill of rights lists restrictions of the federal government. So, the government gives us these rights, because they have to.. but it is still something that they give us. Look at other governments that are run by corrupt leaders, and who strip their citizens of most rights..

0

Did I say that local governments were introduced by the federal government? No, I said local and state governments derive their power from the federal government..

Unless the lower-area government was set in place by the higher-area government (local-state, local-federal, state-federal), then I fail to see how the lower-area government derives its power from the higher-area one.

What evidence do you have that this usually happens? And did I ever say that I agreed with it? Besides, monopolies are not always bad..

The fact that I cannot recall ever hearing of a single regulated industry where the regulations didn't cause some form of hardship to those who had to deal with them. Perhaps it's not what usually happens, in which case I agree that I am in error.

And if you don't want us to think you agree with something, then it might be a good idea not to describe it in a highly positive light. Simply leave it out of the discussion.

Yes, the bill of rights lists restrictions of the federal government. So, the government gives us these rights, because they have to.. but it is still something that they give us. Look at other governments that are run by corrupt leaders, and who strip their citizens of most rights..

There is a difference between giving something and not taking something. Or would you say that if you were mugged, and the mugger stole your cash, your credit cards, and any other useable/salable goods you possessed, but allowed you to keep five dollars, that the mugger gave you five dollars?

0

Yeah, the Germans did have to actually take wheelbarrows of marks to pay for bread. I remember seeing a picture of children building small castles with tons of almost useless marks.

Freedom of speech: The government certainly does not give us that. Look at Schenk v. U.S. All he did was distribute pamplets that were not in agreement with the U.S. government and he was found guilty. That isn't the only court case. Look at the Alien and Sedition acts. Look at libel and slander cases. There are so many restrictions on the "freedom" of speech. And for the right to bear arms, you can't have been convicted of certain crimes beforehand, you have to have a seventy two hour waiting period. A lot of states have a concealed weapon law. As for the free exercise and establishment clauses, you said yourself that those are violated all the time in your area (directed to Josh). I'm sick of hearing, "If you don't like it, leave" That's just stupid. Should I try to correct the problems in my country, which still has pros in it, it isn't all negative, or should I just say screw it and leave? There wouldn't be anywhere to go anyway.

0

Yeah, the Germans did have to actually take wheelbarrows of marks to pay for bread. I remember seeing a picture of children building small castles with tons of almost useless marks.

Freedom of speech: The government certainly does not give us that. Look at Schenk v. U.S. All he did was distribute pamplets that were not in agreement with the U.S. government and he was found guilty. That isn't the only court case. Look at the Alien and Sedition acts. Look at libel and slander cases. There are so many restrictions on the "freedom" of speech. And for the right to bear arms, you can't have been convicted of certain crimes beforehand, you have to have a seventy two hour waiting period. A lot of states have a concealed weapon law. As for the free exercise and establishment clauses, you said yourself that those are violated all the time in your area (directed to Josh). I'm sick of hearing, "If you don't like it, leave" That's just stupid. Should I try to correct the problems in my country, which still has pros in it, it isn't all negative, or should I just say screw it and leave? There wouldn't be anywhere to go anyway.

Yea, I'm still uncertain how pre-war Germany ever came into this thread, but whatever..

The court cases you mentioned were decided via the democratic processes of law. They may have conflicted with the bill of rights, but American judges and jurors obviously didn't think so.. There have been many changes in the American judicial system.. "Majority rules, but minority rights protected" is much more prominent now..

>I'm sick of hearing, "If you don't like it, leave" That's just stupid. Should I try to correct the problems in my country, which still has pros in it, it isn't all negative, or should I just say screw it and leave?

As I said, either DO something about it or shut up.. I hate when people are always complaining about the 'wrongs' of America and the government.. they should try to do something about it.. or just shut up. If you don't like the way the country is run, and you do nothing about it, then you certainly have no right to complain about it. (Note: this is not directed at anyone in particular)

0

was laughing at all of the skillfully worded questions. A lot of them exhibit a logical fallacy and the rest are carefully biased. I got some funny looks when I read the Death Match Challenge question.

yes, seen such things before. Designed to make you choose answers that lead to a leftwing political view.
But not as blatant a fraud as what they had here during election time a few years ago. Whatever answers you gave the result was advise to vote for the Stalinist/green party.
Here I was, Ronald Reagan my hero, being told I fit best with the likes of Stalin and Ho Chi Minh.
And choosing different answers didn't make any difference whatsoever, it ALWAYS gave the same result.

Also, their placement of political ideologies in their "result" graph is highly questionable.
Fascism for example is hardly where they place it, but very close to (in fact in many areas overlapping with) communism.
Socialists ARE totalitarian...
So-called "democrats" ARE socialists.
etc. etc.

0

Yea, I'm still uncertain how pre-war Germany ever came into this thread, but whatever..

The court cases you mentioned were decided via the democratic processes of law. They may have conflicted with the bill of rights, but American judges and jurors obviously didn't think so.. There have been many changes in the American judicial system.. "Majority rules, but minority rights protected" is much more prominent now..

>I'm sick of hearing, "If you don't like it, leave" That's just stupid. Should I try to correct the problems in my country, which still has pros in it, it isn't all negative, or should I just say screw it and leave?

As I said, either DO something about it or shut up.. I hate when people are always complaining about the 'wrongs' of America and the government.. they should try to do something about it.. or just shut up. If you don't like the way the country is run, and you do nothing about it, then you certainly have no right to complain about it. (Note: this is not directed at anyone in particular)

What I'm doing about it is bringing it to people's attention. Considering my low rank in this government as of now, there's very little I can do except bringing it to other people's attention, which is what many political activists do.

0

icic.. Well, you can't even vote yet.. I was talking more about the older people who are always B****n about the government, but never do anything about it.

What exactly is your problem with the govt anyway?

0

I am not completely against our government. I just hate a few things about it. For one the corruption, for two the illusion of a government that derives its power from the people when it really doesn't. For three, some of its policies that I disagree with and four, its hypocracy. It doesn't mean I would rather live somewhere else. I think it just needs to be repaired.

0

1. Power is always accompanied by corruption

2. The government does derive its power from the people, hence democracy.

3. There will always be something you disagree with. It is impossible to please everyone.

4. hypocracy, how so?

0

icic.. Well, you can't even vote yet.. I was talking more about the older people who are always B****n about the government, but never do anything about it.

What do you recommend, rebellion?

0

The government doesn't always derive its power from the people. For example, three times in history, the person with the majority of votes did NOT become president. A lot of states used closed primaries, so afterwards we have only two choices to choose from, resulting in a clothes pin vote for many (cough cough Kerry v. Bush cough cough). The Bureacracy is determined by the President and Congress, they are not elected officials yet they play a part in our everyday lives.

Hypocracy: one thing that comes to mind is this: they have the free exercise and establishment clauses in the first amendment. This makes things like government funding for parochial schools illegal. Yet during the Soviet Union's war in Afghanistan, the United States funded a group that fought the Soviet Union that was primarily a religious force. Not to mention that now we are fighting those that we once supported, and that's happened before (with the soviet union itself, but that may be a little different).

It is possible to please more people, although not everyone.

Our government is formed in a way that makes corruption much easier than in other forms of government.

0

What do you recommend, rebellion?

There are many ways in which people can interact with our elected officials. Petitions, writing members of congress, rallies, assemblies, etc.

The government doesn't always derive its power from the people. For example, three times in history, the person with the majority of votes did NOT become president. A lot of states used closed primaries, so afterwards we have only two choices to choose from, resulting in a clothes pin vote for many (cough cough Kerry v. Bush cough cough). The Bureacracy is determined by the President and Congress, they are not elected officials yet they play a part in our everyday lives.

Well, the electoral college was originally set up b/c the fathers of the constitution didn't think the common man was intelligent enough to decide who to vote for (can't say that I disagree). The system was built as a fail-safe, and there has been talk about changing it, specifically after the last couple of elections. However, many people like the electoral college because it is a tradition as old as the U.S. itself. But yea, I think only the popular vote should be used to elect the president.

Hypocracy: one thing that comes to mind is this: they have the free exercise and establishment clauses in the first amendment. This makes things like government funding for parochial schools illegal. Yet during the Soviet Union's war in Afghanistan, the United States funded a group that fought the Soviet Union that was primarily a religious force. Not to mention that now we are fighting those that we once supported, and that's happened before (with the soviet union itself, but that may be a little different).

True, but the Cold War was difficult to fight, and the government thought that supplying terrorists with military support might aide democracy.. came back to bite us in the a$$ though.

Our government is formed in a way that makes corruption much easier than in other forms of government.

I disagree. I mean, the writers of the constitution did several things to try to limit the power of the common man, but the U.S. has many checks and balances and fail-safes that help it to run much smoother.. 200+ years, and only one revolutionary war ain't bad ;)

0

Well it seems that some post of yours indicate you got the intent of the US Constitution completely backwards; you are proud to be a capitalist, but you misunderstand the concept of money; and you've got conservative and liberal rather backwards; other than that, great.

[Sorta reminds me of myself about 20 years ago, except the Constitution part.]

0

Is that so? No, I've got the liberal and conservative terms correct, and the intent of the U.S. constitution correct. The founders did not believe that the common man was capable of choosing their leaders..

So unless you can give proof of how I am wrong then I suggest that you refrain from posting.

0

So unless you can give proof of how I am wrong then I suggest that you refrain from posting.

Well doesn't that sound like a totalitarian "Liberal". Silence dissent!

I think you are confusing "liberal" with "classical liberal". A dictionary will give you one definition of "liberal", but that hardly suits today's American liberal.

Thinking that the states or the people therein derive their rights from the federal government is in direct opposition to the entire intent of the US Constitution, which is to limit to power of the federal government.

And with regard to money, I might recommend a short cheap read entitled, "What Has the Government Done With My Money".

0

I think you are confusing "liberal" with "classical liberal". A dictionary will give you one definition of "liberal", but that hardly suits today's American liberal.

Liberals and "neo-liberals" are basically the same.. they fundamentally believe in change, no? The neo-liberals are just a bit more conservative, or so thats how I view the two.

Thinking that the states or the people therein derive their rights from the federal government is in direct opposition to the entire intent of the US Constitution, which is to limit to power of the federal government.

hmm.. you either misinterpreted what I wrote or you simply can't read:

2. The government does derive its power from the people, hence democracy.

And with regard to money, I might recommend a short cheap read entitled,

uh, yea.. I have a firm grasp on economics and the idea of money.. you give no reason for linking me to this site. And based on what you said in your last post, perhaps you should go back and re-read what I wrote.

0

Liberals and "neo-liberals" are basically the same.. they fundamentally believe in change, no? The neo-liberals are just a bit more conservative, or so thats how I view the two.

Still looking at a dictionary?

The Liberals are the system, they are they status quo. Exactly what are they (supposedly) trying to change?

Uh...

Did I say that local governments were introduced by the federal government? No, I said local and state governments derive their power from the federal government..

And with regard to money, your comments on taxation seem to indicate otherwise.

0

Still looking at a dictionary?

The Liberals are the system, they are they status quo. Exactly what are they (supposedly) trying to change?

"a political or social philosophy advocating the freedom of the individual, parliamentary systems of government, nonviolent modification of political, social, or economic institutions to assure unrestricted development in all spheres of human endeavor, and governmental guarantees of individual rights and civil liberties."

The democrats favor change in immigration policy, abortion, health care, etc. Where does it say in the definition that they are the status quo?

Uh...

And once again, had you read my quote you would see that I wrote "local and state governments derive their power from the federal government". I'm talking about the governments here, not the people. The Federal government derives its power from the people; however, the Federal government gives the states their power.. and the states give local government their power..

And with regard to money, your comments on taxation seem to indicate otherwise.

What comments on taxation?

1

My God. You really don't know, do you?

The democrats favor change in immigration policy, abortion, health care, etc. Where does it say in the definition that they are the status quo?

They're the one's going for keeping immigration policy the same, abortion the same, and going even more socialist in health care?

And once again, had you read my quote you would see that I wrote "local and state governments derive their power from the federal government". I'm talking about the governments here, not the people. The Federal government derives its power from the people; however, the Federal government gives the states their power.. and the states give local government their power..

Yup. Completely backwards.

What comments on taxation?

Somewhere back about government "making" money.

Government is a tolerated parasite living on the backs of people who work. More government is antithetical to capitalism.

Votes + Comments
parasite, yes that's the word I would use too.
This topic has been dead for over six months. Start a new discussion instead.
Have something to contribute to this discussion? Please be thoughtful, detailed and courteous, and be sure to adhere to our posting rules.