You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Quote from WilliamV:
The one thing America needs to learn: when you put the party who doesn't like government and doesn't know how to govern efficiently into power, then you have a broken system.
It's hard for the other party to correct the ship, because austerity needs to happen in the booming years and govt investment needs to take place in recessions and when capital is not flowing because of corporate moral strucuture, and lack of public assurance regulations.
Just honor the social safety net that families have paid into for years like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid. Maintain a strong military, and give incentive and invest in the overall public good.
Concern yourself with what's going on OUTSIDE your gated communities.
You may not know this; BUT you have to sign up for SS. It does not come to anyone automatically. And the size of what you get is in a range that you chose from.
SS uses what they think you told the government you earned. The Government record keeping doesn't work. It is very funny to look at what they have on file. For some reason they ask you to sign off that they have it correct.
If you fail to sign up at the time they want, then you get a time penalty as well.
well then I aint gonna get shit. I never told them nuthin. Everything they know about me they had to find out for themselves.Quote from jack hershey:
You may not know this; BUT you have to sign up for SS. It does not come to anyone automatically. And the size of what you get is in a range that you chose from.
SS uses what they think you told the government you earned. The Government record keeping doesn't work. It is very funny to look at what they have on file. For some reason they ask you to sign off that they have it correct.
If you fail to sign up at the time they want, then you get a time penalty as well.
My own contribution to self-righteousness: going over this thread I see by way of the quoting mechanism that a certain idiot (in the original sense of the word; look it up and you'll see what I mean) posted that in a republic, property rights take precedence over democracy, or something.
Really? Every gov't on the planet has a law that condemns properties for the public good, for putting up highways, forts, stuff like that.
What is true, if said idiot had read his Machiavelli, is that property rights are far more respected in republics than they are in dictatorships; even before communism that was true. It's also far more true in the US/Canada/western Europe/Japan/Anzac/India (much to their sorrow when trying to put in the necessary infrastructure to make that country a little less of a hellhole) than it is elsewhere, like, say, China or Russia, precisely because China/Russia are still dictatorships (soft in the Russian case, but still a dictatorship) while all those others are republics.
In republics, it's mostly though not always true that what's yours is yours; in dictatorships, OTOH, what's yours is ALWAYS negotiable. As Machiavelli observed a long long time ago.
Really? Every gov't on the planet has a law that condemns properties for the public good, for putting up highways, forts, stuff like that.
What is true, if said idiot had read his Machiavelli, is that property rights are far more respected in republics than they are in dictatorships; even before communism that was true. It's also far more true in the US/Canada/western Europe/Japan/Anzac/India (much to their sorrow when trying to put in the necessary infrastructure to make that country a little less of a hellhole) than it is elsewhere, like, say, China or Russia, precisely because China/Russia are still dictatorships (soft in the Russian case, but still a dictatorship) while all those others are republics.
In republics, it's mostly though not always true that what's yours is yours; in dictatorships, OTOH, what's yours is ALWAYS negotiable. As Machiavelli observed a long long time ago.
it means we have laws supposedly written when we were of sound mind and body, and even when the the mob votes in their democracy to violate my constitutional rights, hopefully the governmnent (namely the Supreme Court) steps in and says no.Quote from trefoil:
My own contribution to self-righteousness: going over this thread I see by way of the quoting mechanism that a certain idiot (in the original sense of the word; look it up and you'll see what I mean) posted that in a republic, property rights take precedence over democracy, or something.
Really? Every gov't on the planet has a law that condemns properties for the public good, for putting up highways, forts, stuff like that.
What is true, if said idiot had read his Machiavelli, is that property rights are far more respected in republics than they are in dictatorships; even before communism that was true. It's also far more true in the US/Canada/western Europe/Japan/Anzac/India (much to their sorrow when trying to put in the necessary infrastructure to make that country a little less of a hellhole) than it is elsewhere, like, say, China or Russia, precisely because China/Russia are still dictatorships (soft in the Russian case, but still a dictatorship) while all those others are republics.
In republics, it's mostly though not always true that what's yours is yours; in dictatorships, OTOH, what's yours is ALWAYS negotiable. As Machiavelli observed a long long time ago.
Quote from oldtime:
it means we have laws supposedly written when we were of sound mind and body, and even when the the mob votes in their democracy to violate my constitutional rights, hopefully the governmnent (namely the Supreme Court) steps in and says no.
Not referring to you here, but to that other guy, the original definition of idiot, in Wikipedia, which got it right for this one (and yes, the SC's purpose is partially to ensure that individual flaming examples of same who can convince a mob don't thereby restrict or destroy the rights of the remaining citizenry):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiot
Idiot as a word derived from the Greek ἰδιώτης, idiōtēs ("person lacking professional skill", "a private citizen", "individual"), from ἴδιος, idios ("private", "one's own").[1] In Latin the word idiota ("ordinary person, layman") preceded the Late Latin meaning "uneducated or ignorant person."[2] Its modern meaning and form dates back to Middle English around the year 1300, from the Old French idiote ("uneducated or ignorant person"). The related word idiocy dates to 1487 and may have been analogously modeled on the words prophet[3] and prophecy.[4][5] The word has cognates in many other languages.
An idiot in Athenian democracy was someone who was characterized by self-centeredness and concerned almost exclusively with privateâas opposed to publicâaffairs.[6] Idiocy was the natural state of ignorance into which all persons were born and its opposite, citizenship, was effected through formalized education.[6] In Athenian democracy, idiots were born and citizens were made through education (although citizenship was also largely hereditary). "Idiot" originally referred to "layman, person lacking professional skill", "person so mentally deficient as to be incapable of ordinary reasoning". Declining to take part in public life, such as democratic government of the polis (city state), was considered dishonorable. "Idiots" were seen as having bad judgment in public and political matters. Over time, the term "idiot" shifted away from its original connotation of selfishness and came to refer to individuals with overall bad judgmentâindividuals who are "stupid".
yes, I know, but I'm happy to defend all idiots everywhere. We knd of stick together.Quote from trefoil:
Not referring to you here, but to that other guy, the original definition of idiot, in Wikipedia, which got it right for this one (and yes, the SC's purpose is partially to ensure that individual flaming examples of same who can convince a mob don't thereby restrict or destroy the rights of the remaining citizenry):
Quote from logic_man:
It's "self-righteous" to want the rule of law, not the rule of the whims of the crowd? In what universe?
In the universe where real people live, where laws are skewed in favor of the law writers and those who pay them.
On its own, the "rule of law" has no moral content whatsoever. It can be good, it can be middling, it can be down right evil and oppressive.
no kidding, there is a big gap between the Declaration of Independence, and about six years later a legal document written by lawyers to protect white land owners that they call the "Constitution."Quote from Random.Capital:
In the universe where real people live, where laws are skewed in favor of the law writers and those who pay them.
On its own, the "rule of law" has no moral content whatsoever. It can be good, it can be middling, it can be down right evil and oppressive.
hell, for a while that damn constitution wouldn't even let me buy beer.