Unicorn Society of Today

My Recent Posts

Most Americans want the impossible. Politicians in both parties have lied about the issues so much, that this creates confusion. They simply cannot give the American people what they want, because they want the impossible. Politicians created the situation by telling us that we can have it all when the numbers say it is impossible. If we had an honest population the people would vote out these politicians and vote in politicians that would tell us the truth. We the people as a group have become as dishonest as the politicians.

 

Fundamentally Leftists fund the Democrats. Leftist committed to socialism, the end game North Korea the epitome of socialist state. Too big to fail corporations fund Republicans. Crony Capitalist committed to a guaranteed market outcomes/bailouts. When the bubble fails both leftist and corporations expect government to print money to get them out of problems. The German people are still reacting to the hyperinflation a century ago. It has only ease a little after all the children that live through it, and most of their children have passed away.

 

You think 2008 collapse of the Democrats and Republican created housing bubble was bad. That was the roller coaster that accepted 30 inch 75 cm riders. The bubble being created now will be the mega tall and fast roller coaster. Neither side funded by people with a vested interest will stop it, not the bureaucrats, nor the business cartel. They want to inhabited the swamp as long as possible. The Civil War was the last mega roller coaster this nation experienced, cause by a similar cabal. That should give us pause to think.

 

One hill of the mega coaster we will experience is Obamacare or swamp care if the GOP ever passes a bill into law. We get government regulated service and coverage policies. Premiums that only the rich can afford for the government regulated health care coverage and no choices. The rest of us get government regulated health care coverage for the poor with effective lesser coverage and poorer services. Since bailouts are now not guaranteed which may change back again, the law of economics apply, as price increases more people drop out by choice or forced out by price.

 

So long as federal (Obamacare) or state (GOPcare) create a government regulated monopoly that can not fail, the price of health care will not decrease. We will have a two tier system of those that are wealth and can pay get concierge health care or those that can not pay get state funded health care with rationing or some sort be it waiting lines or exclusion from services since the state determined your value to society as worth the cost or not. No recourse except paying upper tier prices, impossible.

Comments

George N Romey Added Sep 27, 2017 - 1:29pm
They could give people some of what they wanted if they stood up to the Deep State and cut off corporate and military welfare. In 2001 the Pentagon was called for task for a missing $2.3 trillion which was never found. Some think that today more than $5 trillion is missing. That would buy lots for the American people.
Thomas Sutrina Added Sep 27, 2017 - 1:38pm
George what incentive does the Deep State have to do double entry accounting and be accurate?   Deep State is built on a lie.  So missing money for dark project or bribery are but small venial lies in the big picture.  
 
This is not a trade of the people getting a little by ignoring a little.  The trade happens daily already.  Those gifts are welfare, food stamps, open borders, medicaid, Social security, medicare, etc..  And they are not free gifts they expect votes in return.
Lazy Haze Added Sep 27, 2017 - 3:04pm
I agree! Our government represents us. Only thing to do is to improve ourselves.
Dave Volek Added Sep 27, 2017 - 3:23pm
Thomas
Back in my political days, our local Member of Parliament visited a cultural gathering I was attending in a non-election year. He was quite busy going from table to table, meeting as many people as he could. When he got to our table, he more than a few requests that I can summarize as follows:
 
1) Our school system needs more money.
2) Our health care system needs more money.
3) Our taxes are too high.
 
The MP had to be nice to everyone at the table, while I wanted to shake some of my tablemates for being so silly. That was the night I figured out that I could not be an elected politician. 
 
It is a strange system indeed when it caters to such fundamentally opposing objectives. It's time for a new system of goverance!
John G Added Sep 27, 2017 - 3:55pm
You've fallen for the lies and misinformation.
John G Added Sep 27, 2017 - 3:57pm
A currency issuing government is obviously self funding. When a politician says there is no money for something, he or she is lying.
There is always money for weapons and wars and bank bailouts.
Wake the F up will you?
Thomas Sutrina Added Sep 27, 2017 - 4:16pm
Laze Haze and Dave V., Ameritopia, the government we now have in America is as old as written history.  A government of mostly man's laws. 
 
We only have to return to the American covenant  that the founders made with our creator.   The Declaration of Independents states the covenant clearly: unalienable rights of life, liberty and we own the fruits of our labor, pursuit of happyness.   The Declaration of Independents talking about the covenant includes our part of following Gods Laws or Natures Laws. (all religions and philosophies that are not integral with government share the foundation of these common set of laws)  This is far different then laws created by a man or group of men no matter how successful or smart they may be.  Compared to God they are as dumb as a slug.   One can only keep this covenant if a government contains virtuous representatives.   The people must freely choose to follow the Gods laws what the Blacks law books define as common law.  The citizens must be virtuous also and that only comes from learning morals.
 
How many people in nations birth by the English parliamentary system understand about the covenant they made with God.  The English covenant did not come in one document but is basically identical.  That is why American for all practical purposes is still part of the British Empire.  The empire taught this covenant up until England itself was invaded by Socialism in particular Fabian Socialism in the late 1800's.  The teach as diminished steadily.
 
Bring back morals and the virtue it teaches and the people will return to a government of virtuous representatives. 
 
John G I this this is an appropriate quote for your: The way you treat others is a reflection of the way you treat yourself. In your case, you keep on lying to people, then you probably keep on lying to yourself too. It's sad because you end up believing the lies you tell yourself.

Read more: http://www.searchquotes.com/search/People_Believing_Lies/#ixzz4tudjApOc
John G Added Sep 27, 2017 - 4:20pm
Where do $US come from, Sutrina?
Dave Volek Added Sep 27, 2017 - 6:53pm
Thomas:
 
I have to admire your tenacity for bringing up the point that the American system of government has for its foundation as the British model. The Americans added a few more interesting features, which haven't proven detrimental in any way (in my opinion).
 
Contemporary American history tends to teach that the founding fathers created something totally from scratch, totally ignoring the British influence.
 
However, I believe the American system was corrupted early on. Its mistreatment of its slaves and aboriginals meant it was not applying the principles of its primary documents very well right from the start. 
 
John G.
I am probably wasting my time trying to explain my position to you (again). But Thomas threw you a bone to think about, and maybe I can throw another one.
 
I took a macroeconomics course 20 years ago, and a good part of it was monetarist economics. I found this subject rather fascinating and perplexing at the same time. I really didn't catch on macroeconomics, and I barely passed the course. However, I did learn that governments have debt-taking tools that even the world's biggest corporations don't have. And by shifting various aspects of the money supply, governments can manipulate their economy. It is on my academic bucket list to revisit this topic to gain a better understanding it, but life has other priorities.
 
I don't buy the concept that governments can continue to issue more money to fund whatever projects it feels will keep the voters happy. If this were true, more governments would be doing this. And if I recall my course correctly, the "G" has an optimal value in any society. And it has an upper limit. But that was 20 years ago,
 
And money is--and always has been--an abstract value. This is true of most forms of money:  gold, coins & bills, factoring, and e-money have little intrinsic value in themselves, but the citizens have developed a common understanding of that value in terms of goods and services. When they no longer have that common understanding, transactions become too unpredictable to make wise short and long term decisions--and the invisible hand of the marketplace no longer serves the people. In other words, the economy destabilizes.
 
If the government increases its G too quickly or gives it a too high proportion of the total economy, the citizens start losing its confidence in the currency. This leads to inflation and destabilization. 
 
And most G spending still must produce a benefit for society. For example, the government can spend $10,000 a year to educate a child for the next 12 years. If the education is of reasonable quality, the society should see that person become a more productive worker for the next 40 years. 
 
If there is no societal benefit necessary, then we can pay 6-year olds $10,000 a year to move rocks from one part of the field to another part. They can take that money back to their families, who will then spend it to stimulate the economy in other ways than teacher salaries and big buildings for education.
 
Even though I am a progressive thinker, I believe we have to choose between the better progressive causes to put our societal resources into (schools are one of the better investments). If we chased every progressive cause down because there were no financial consequences, we would have a lot of people moving rocks from one part of the field to the other--and then doing it again. All components of societal spending--G, C, L, I, etc.--must be reasonably efficient and produce something of value to society.
 
I have tried my best to ignore your contributions on WB for you are so insulting to others. But I do take a peak now and then, for you do have some out-of-box perspectives. You have the ability to teach others.
 
I am currently in adult education. I help bring adults who had a shaky high school experience into getting credentials to go somewhere higher in life. My colleagues comment me on my approachability, and many students (not all) value my services. But I took my struggling math student and told her "Don't be so F###G stupid" I would not be effective in moving people forward. But that is the kind of teacher you are.
 
And if you are so smart about macroeconomics, why aren't you somewhere that can use your talents instead of hanging around on WB?
 
 
John G Added Sep 27, 2017 - 7:07pm
I have tried my best to ignore your contributions on WB for you are so insulting to others. 
I give as good as I get Dave. I don't think much of posters who practise tone policing. It is disingenuous censorship.
You right wingers don't seem to understand that the sort of condescension that is integral to your posts to proggessive thinkers is insulting in and of itself.
But thanks for the life lesson.
And if you are so smart about macroeconomics, why aren't you somewhere that can use your talents instead of hanging around on WB?
What a fantastic argument.
John G Added Sep 27, 2017 - 7:09pm
I took a macroeconomics course 20 years ago, and a good part of it was monetarist economics
Well you need to forget everything the monetarists taught you. It is disinformation, outmoded theory and gold standard era gobbledegook.
 
Thomas Sutrina Added Sep 27, 2017 - 10:30pm
Dave V., Franklin spent years as did other colonist in London trying to get things from parliament. The colonies were considered second class citizens. From this experience and the experience of the Articles of Confederation and the use of conventions the colonies called to draft The Declaration of Independence and also solve other problems, they did not want a pure democratic government. Popular vote can end unalienable rights. History is full of man's ruled governments abuses. They saw cities and large population areas  ignoring the needs of rural communities like the colonies in their time.  City states include Rome, Istanbul, and Venice are examples.
 
Hillary only won 16% of the counties in the nation, won the popular vote 48.5% to 46.4%, but the only results that counted is electoral votes 232 to 306. The electoral method requires a candidate to campaign in any state that he or she may win because states are winner take all. This is called Federalism. Thus the issues of cities and rural areas must be balanced by a candidate and congress have members that are represent a region of the nation and initially the state governments.
 
I do not think the system in America was corrupted earlier by slavery. It was corrupted for the same reason today's American government is corrupted, factions. That was one issue that Madison said was not solved by all the effort to create checks and balances.   It could only be dampened.  Congressmen can conspire because they have face to face communications during the election sessions. A common results maybe used as a tool to achieve other interest in other regions. Thus slavery was extended into the Louisiana Purchase Territory short term interest were more important then long term effects for the northern representatives.
 
Today leftist issues of the Democrat funders and to big to fail business interest that fund the GOP have a common interest to grow the government. The loss of freedom, increase costs, loss jobs, etc. problems of the people fall by the way side.  Because the money provided by the funders put a high bar for opponents.
Thomas Sutrina Added Sep 27, 2017 - 10:43pm
Dave V. you need only look at Germany.  Only after the people that experienced the hyper inflation after WWI  and there children died has Germany slightly eased up on the importance of having stable currency.  We can look at the problems of Greece, Argentina, and Venezuela to see the effect of spending more then is taken in.    Countries do this at their own or rather the risk of their people.  Rome fell because of welfare over spending siphoned money out of defense.   And freebies also destroy overall citizen morals and virtue.
John G Added Sep 27, 2017 - 11:06pm
Where do $US come from, Sutrina?
wsucram15 Added Sep 28, 2017 - 4:55am
Tom..
You can rationalize this all you want, all day everyday. People are mad so society makes no sense.
I think you will find, at the end of the day, (all partisanship aside) that Independant, Republican and Democratic voters would like the corruption to stop. They no longer want the lobbyists doing the legislating.  In fact, if the DNC does not figure this out quickly..they will lose the opportunity of a lifetime with voters.  I hope this time out, people do not vote for anyone..just to get out the republican or democrat.   Money in an election MAY not be the ticket anymore, people are paying attention.
 
While each political party may disagree on the issues, smaller government vs larger, federal vs state, whatever... A MAJORITY NOW AGREES ON TWO THINGS, (and this comes from my own polling in multiple states of Trump supporters and multiple polls done by professionals, HEALTHCARE and CORRUPTION.
PPL are addressing spending..where its happening and its going to get worse before it gets better like it always does.
Thomas Sutrina Added Sep 28, 2017 - 8:13am
I am not rationalizing I am analyzing.  Problems can be fixed by attacking the symptoms but often the effort needed is endless.  Not a great solution.  Another approach is to fix the underlying problems, but then you need to determine what they are and check to verify that fixing what you think is an underlying problem actually effect the problem you desire to solve. 
 
I have put forth a hypothesis of the underlying problem.  Your part of the check and if it is a good hypothesis that appears to also be checked by our rational thinking.  Then I hope you will tell others.
George N Romey Added Sep 28, 2017 - 8:42am
We have something like $5 trillion missing from the Pentagon yet we're suppose to be worried about personal welfare instead. Did anyone go back to the tapes from 2001 when Rumsfeld just blew off the Congressional hearing? It's on YouTube. I can assure that if the Department of Social Services was missing over $2 trillion we'd never hear the end of it. Remember most of what the military gets isn't even in the official budget.
Dino Manalis Added Sep 28, 2017 - 9:15am
Money has to be respected by everyone, including politicians, because it has to be earned, not printed.  Honesty and truthfulness are the foundation of good policymaking.  Face the nation and face reality!
Thomas Sutrina Added Sep 28, 2017 - 11:31am
George R your throwing up a red herring.  I really could care less about the results of the fund raisers getting paid back.  The question is how do we recover the country and going after the resulting corruption is as we have seen over decades and never ending effort that yields no fruit.  
Dave Volek Added Sep 28, 2017 - 11:42am
Thomas
Your analysis of the 2016 election is missing the point. Both combatants (after they eliminated much of the competion) had fairly even mandates from the electorate. Either one could have won, and I would say the D's put themselves in a position where the electorate tossed a coin and the other side won. Trying to justify that rural voters are somehow more valuable than urban voters is moot point.
 
Had the US had more of a Westminster system like Canada, it still would have been a close race. Had the US had a PR system like much of Europe, it would have been a close race. The point is that both candidates had a significant approval (or lesser of two evils) from the electorate. The winner (or even loser) was not necessarily the best person to assume the office.
 
Factionalism has indeed a problem with American and world politics. But the source of factionalism comes from the quest for power and influence. Those who have lesser talents for governance can band together to electorally defeat those of greater talents but work independently. Hence joining a party and working one's way up the ranks is part of joining viable faction to gain that power and influence.
 
My TDG has to be built without this factionalism, and it will take conscious effort of the early builders to cast aside this negative part of human nature--and build a culture that deplores factionalism. In other words, no political parties in the TDG.   
 
I think it's too simple to say that "too much welfare" was the ultimate reason for failed states. Haiti is a failed state. If anything, it is the most libertarian state in the world. As for Argentina, I have a friend who belongs to the lower middle class and her assessment of this country's economic strife is that the rich have robbed the country and moved their wealth overseas. The poor are no better off than they were 20 years ago. And Greece has a problem that nobody wants to pay taxes: last I heard, about 60% of the economy is underground and not paying taxes so the government has a rather meager revenue source. Venezuela might still be doing OK if oil prices were at $100/bbl.
 
Rome fell because it was rotten to the core. It was a culture where everybody used everybody else for their own personal gain. This selfishness went from the Emperor to the slaves: everyone looking for an advantage to move ahead of anyone else. Those receiving whatever welfare the state was providing were only playing the same game as everyone else.
 
Going back to the rural/urban splits, I was in Czechoslovakia when it split up into two nations. The complaint from the Slovak side was that parliament favored the majority Czechs during the communist rule and the new democratic rule. The Czechs complained they bent over backwards to help their Slavic cousins. After the split, the Slovaks set up their new capital in Bratislava, in the west. Soon after the political agitators in the east were complaining that Bratislava was dominating politics instead of Prague. Slovakia is a very small country. It seems there is no end the polarization of the rural/urban and capital/outer region politics.
 
Thomas Sutrina Added Sep 28, 2017 - 12:18pm
Dave V., a coin toss was the impression the media wanted.  The Democrats had it in the bag they thought.  But the real polls showed Trump would win.  That is what his data analyses was telling him and direction his actions.   Trump put in the energy and as an expert in branding did his part.  Rural vote is not more important then the city and some urban vote.   Obama won because to win a candidate needs a some from both interest and Hillary couldn't get any rural votes by trashing flyover country.   Trump got the urban votes from the states normally taken by Democrats.  That is what the data analyst determined.  
 
Dave V., the election vote is also not the issue it is also a red herring.   It makes great conversation but does not address the underlying problems.   The only thing that the vote tells us is that virtue, morals is still important to many Americans.
 
You hit factionalism on the head almost.  You accept may reason why they work together to grow government?  Factionalism will never go away but term limits, a smaller federal government, and strong state parties with different interest is a way to decrease the build up.   That was the hope when the founders wrote the Constitution.  Power is a great aphrodisiac.
Thomas Sutrina Added Sep 28, 2017 - 12:21pm
Dave V., the loss of virtue in government is the reason Rome was rotten to the core and this government is not much different.  Welfare is a tool to have non-virtuous people elected.
Dave Volek Added Sep 28, 2017 - 1:22pm
Thomas:
 
You might be right, and the example of Rome should be taken seriously. But if the rulers are corrupt, it's hard for the masses not to want--and demand--a little piece of the action. This will delay the eventual fall, but it is only a delay. 
 
It's unfair to put most of the blame on the welfare classes when the upper classes are enhancing their economic situation on nefarious schemes.
George N Romey Added Sep 28, 2017 - 1:29pm
This whole the poor ruined our country stupidity is finally dying a rightful death. Why? Because sadly more and more of the middle class are now the working poor and come to understand whom is actually doing the rigging. 
Thomas Sutrina Added Sep 28, 2017 - 3:09pm
Your right George R..  I hope WB can be more then a place to say Woe is me (Bible, Job 10:15).
 
Dave V.,  I think it is fair to blame the welfare state because it did not come about by accident.  The Romans, Europe socialist governments, or the USA socialist.  They knew full well what it would do to society and who would gain in government. 
 
The loss of a 1000 seats by the Democrats since 2010 after Obamacare passed in December of 2009.  The win of Trump that ran on essentially  Ronald Reagan campaign.  These give me hope.  The mask of the GOP congress has been removed as fully as Obamacare removed the mask of the Democrats.   The politicians has no cloths.   Yes, Trump to is not achieving his campaign promises and appears to have never attended to keep them. 
 
Obamacare repeal was just a campaign promise that he has put zero effort into and told congress this is a problem I want no part in a lies to give the American people, the impossible image of having everything and costing nothing.  Trump lied to us the voters by not telling us that all those promises do not fit into a ten pound bag.  He had other lies also that will make the voters distrust them but health care and money are personnel.   Not a place for a lie.  Taxes, jobs, immigration, and security are still being review by us.
 
Trump
Thomas Sutrina Added Sep 28, 2017 - 4:57pm
The victory of Judge Moore in the Alabama GOP Senate primary run off against the hand picked replacement for Sessions.  Out spend about 25 to 1.  Only thing Moore had going for him is state width name recognition so the money couldn't undue what people already new for the past two state wide elections and uncompromising stands.  Judge Moore ran not against his opponent but against Mitch McConnell and blew him out by double digits. 
 
This is the first time Trump when back and deleted tweets supporting Judge Moore's opponent.  Trump learned he only has a small drone following.  The rest of his base which this time included the conservative leaning media, he fired advisors, and political conservative supports are not drones, "never Hillary" is not a suicide pack.  They did not follow trump into the arms of the  McConnell and the GOP leadership.  The made up their own mind.    This morning as he was deleting the tweets he was not leading but catching up to his base.  He has a choice since he can not lead his base as if they were children then he can follow them or continue to get nothing done by following the GOP congressional and party leadership.  
 
wsucram15 Added Sep 28, 2017 - 5:32pm
Moore is one of the things I was talking about.  People are angry.  Its going to get much more out of hand in the Senate and House before this is over.
The only reason they did that with Moore is the people felt the other guy (dont remember his name) was gerrymandered in..they wanted him out by any means.
So we will see what happens. 
John G Added Sep 28, 2017 - 5:46pm
Where do $US come from, Sutrina?
Thomas Sutrina Added Sep 28, 2017 - 6:10pm
I do not know if it is going to get out of hand or not in the House and Senate.  I can not read the mind of the law makers. 
 
The candidate took Sessions seat until this election, a few months, was chosen by the governor that was soon after kicked out of office.  No underhanded things happened other then the governor listened to McConnell.  I have no idea how corrupt the Alabama legislature is.
 
Gerrymandering is the common practice of in every county in the nation before the Civil War, both parties.  Gerrymandering creates a community that can create a consensus.  That overall for the nation is not bad.   I happen to be an election judge and my polling place that handled two precincts must have a mixture of Democrats and Republicans because  we had a lot of pole watchers, candidates show up etc..  This was for the state representative elections only.  Town elections, no one showed up,  US house seats no one showed up.  So gerrymandering is a mix issue.  I dislike the fact that the US house seat district I am in.  It is a shoe in for a Democrat.  I am not represented, but the state representative is a Republican and the state senate is a Democrat.  Illinois Senators have mostly been Democrats but a McConnell drone won the seat for one term.   He represented the swamp and not the Democrat or Republican base and the Democrats easily beat him.  All the money in the world from McConnell's war chest as in the Moore race did not hid the facts.   All politics are local seems to not be learned by that senator.
John G Added Sep 28, 2017 - 7:27pm
Where do $US come from, Sutrina?
Thomas Sutrina Added Sep 28, 2017 - 7:59pm
John G. no one responded to  $US come from the first time.  I have no idea what your talking about and it seem no one else does either.  I left the first time you put this here.  We do not need more copies or something not understood.
John G Added Sep 28, 2017 - 11:24pm
Deleting posts like a coward now Sutrina.
Answer the question.
Dave Volek Added Sep 29, 2017 - 12:45am
Thomas
When top echelon of society seem to be getting privileges, they stave off the scorn of the masses by putting the masses in the trough. If we had enough leaders of virtue, the masses wouldn't be so inclined to be bribed.
 
That's a bit simplistic, but the welfare state is more than a one-way street.
 
And besides, I think the social assistance programs in Canada are working reasonably well. Most people I know on welfare really aren't capable of holding on to a regular job. It's cheaper to keep them on welfare than put them in prison. Its more humane than letting their kids starve.
 
 
Thomas Sutrina Added Sep 29, 2017 - 8:02am
John G. I can not answer a question that I or no one understands.
Thomas Sutrina Added Sep 29, 2017 - 8:13am
Dave V., welfare existed in colonial America but it was done by local communities.    The actions of people in natural disasters shows that welfare, people helping people is natural.  Welfare in itself in not bad.  but welfare to get votes also occurs.  One attribute  of welfare for votes is an ever increasing amount of welfare.  The welfare recipients get use to a level so to assure getting their vote the state increases it a little.  That happened in Rome.  It is happening in America.  The percentage of government spending towards welfare increases and the numbers of people receiving welfare increase.  Now wouldn't a government that was not purchasing votes find a way to reduce the number of people on welfare?  Then number of people not capable of holding down a job does not increase and only increase.  
Ray Joseph Cormier Added Sep 29, 2017 - 9:13am
Thomas, the FACTS are, after 8 years of Bush Tax cuts for the rich "job creators," while fighting 2 wars on credit so far from the US, the Global Financial meltdown-Economic Pearl Harbour happened in the last months of the Republican Bush Administration before Obama was even sworn in.
Trump’s reversal of Wall Street regulations risks another Lehman Brothers but 'on a larger scale’
 
Neil Barofsky, the former regulator tasked with policing banker bailouts in the Bush administration’s Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) told talk show host Bill Moyers another major banking crash is now “inevitable” because neither of the political parties have the stomach to end “too big to fail.”
 
Barofsky added that the consolidation of over-leveraged banks like Merrill Lynch into somewhat more healthy institutions like Bank of America ultimately put the markets on a more dangerous path than the nation’s top financial regulators realize. That’s because “you have institutions now that are just monstrous in size, over $2 trillion in assets by certain measures, close to $4 trillion by other measures,” he said, calling the reality in today’s markets “terrifying.”
“The idea that any of these institutions could ever be allowed to fail is pure fantasy, at this point,” Barofsky lamented.
That’s when Moyers cut right to the chase: “Are you suggesting that we could have another crash?”
“I think it’s inevitable,” he replied.
 
 
Dr. Rupert Green Added Sep 29, 2017 - 9:30am
@ Thomas. "... with effective lesser coverage and poorer services. Since bailouts are now not guaranteed which may change back again, the law of economics apply, as price increases more people drop out by choice or forced out by price."
 
Is the implication that the storming of the Bastille would be a better approach than a second civil war? Naturally, the defender of the fort are heavily armed. Would that be mitigated by the fact  Bastille Stormers are equally armed by way of their Second?  Would the protector of the fort  be divided enough to have brothers  killing brothers to offset the effect of the bigger guns the defender of the fort has?
Thomas Sutrina Added Sep 29, 2017 - 9:42am
Ray J. C., the housing bubble was not built by Bush.  It took years to create the conditions for the bubble and then create the bubble.  You need to look back more then a decade to I believe the Carter Administration when the Democratic congressional candidates choose to use fair housing and thus bank lack of loans to African Americans in the Ghettos.  They strong armed the banks with the threat of putting regulators at their doors and going through their books.  Banking is a highly regulated business.   So the Banks started to give our junk loans and those loans turned into junk bundled securities which fueled the housing bubble. 
 
So Ray that brings us back to the first sentences of my article. This is another example, "Most Americans want the impossible. Politicians in both parties have lied about the issues so much, that this creates confusion. They simply cannot give the American people what they want, because they want the impossible. "  The banks did not loan money to the ghetto dwellers because they were poor risks.  They didn't loan money to white with the same financial risks.   The dream of owning your own home that kept up with the Jones was WANTING THE IMPOSSIBLE.  It didn't take long for all candidates to promise a home for every voter.  Politicians lied and they twisted arms to make the lie real.  They built a city on sand.  As Mexico City knows any earth quake will result in building falling down.  The earth quake just happened to happen on Bush's watch.
Dave Volek Added Sep 29, 2017 - 10:31am
Thomas
 
You and other WB contributors bring up America's messy welfare system. It seems that there is something inherently wrong in America.
 
Go up north, the welfare system is run pretty well in my opinion. It is not easy to be on welfare. Basic shelter and food are provided for. We have regarded a cellphone, TV and cable, and laptop as essential, so the stipend covers those features. There is some discretionary income.  If the recipient wants cigarettes and booze, that cuts into their discretionary income. The agents know which recipients are spending money too foolishly. There may be intervention, may be not.
 
For sure, owning a car in difficult on welfare. There are few restaurant meals. Taking a normal vacation on Canadian welfare is out of the question. It is a subsistence income. I figure a single person might get about $1200 a month at best. 
 
Most of the people I know on welfare would be marginal employees. Mental illness, lack of fortitude and self-discipline, lack of life skills, etc. means that they would find it difficult to hold on to a job. I pity the employer who may hire these people, only to let them go after some investment in their recruiting and training.
 
Some of the welfare people I know could probably handle a 20-hour week. If such a person makes $300 a week in part-time employment, the benefits get cut by $300. So the welfare person makes a rational decision of not taking on that part-time job--and stays full-time on welfare. In this sense, the Canadian welfare system is not working well. 
 
I know a lot a people who have used welfare for a short time. It got them through some tough times, and when things were sorted out, they moved off social assistance.
 
Going to a government office that has some checks and balances is more consistent in helping than banging on church doors.
 
Is Canadian welfare abused? Yes, but the abuse is far from rampant. There are few people desiring to be on welfare.
 
And I say keeping poor performers out of the job market is helping the economy.
 
Stone-Eater Friedli Added Sep 29, 2017 - 10:39am
Ray
 
http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-wall-street-deregulation-risks-another-lehman-crisis-2017-6
 
That's for sure. And it will fuck up all Western societies, at least teh ones who follow the neoliberal model.
 
Why does the US damn "socialist" countries ? Because they all have the tendency to use that -ism to get independent of Western economic slavery.
 
What they DO internally is another thing. But it's their business, after all, or should be.
Thomas Sutrina Added Sep 29, 2017 - 11:15am
Dave V., I understand the Europe welfare is worse, but I do not present details that I can not back up.  I do not talk about Canada for the same reason.
Stone-Eater Friedli Added Sep 29, 2017 - 11:20am
Thomas
 
I understand the Europe welfare is worse
 
LOOL !......Europe is not ONE country. WHICH country is worse ? Explain !
Stone-Eater Friedli Added Sep 29, 2017 - 11:31am
European countries are much more generous to the poor relative to the US level of generosity. Economic models suggest that redistribution is a function of the variance and skewness of the pre-tax income distribution, the volatility of income (perhaps because of trade shocks), the social costs of taxation and the expected income mobility of the median voter.
 
https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/glaeser/files/why_doesnt_the_u.s._have_a_european-style_welfare_state.pdf
 
Right. We're not yet enough neoliberal to have your system ;-)
Thomas Sutrina Added Sep 29, 2017 - 11:32am
Stone, the banking industry is approaching a government regulated monopoly that is to big to fail.  The Dodd-Frank law enacted in 2010 has increased regulations and the result is that local bank have been closing their doors, a tighter monopoly.  Regulators during the Carter Administration strong armed the banks to help Congressmen like Frank campaign on the myth that every person should own their own home.   Their target were black ghetto residents that could not get loans from banks because they were poor risks.   The banks issued "junk loans."   Then the 'private' Fanny May and Freddie Mac issued there own junk loans and purchase bank junk loans.  Finally the funnelled these junk loans into bundles to be sold as grad   'A' (government department responsible for regulating classifications) mortgages "bundled" together to be sold or made part of investment portfolios.  Here's an example: Bear Stearns came up with an investment package called "Bear Stearns Alt A Trust 2006-7."  
 
You do not get it but the government own the housing bubbles responsibility.
Stone-Eater Friedli Added Sep 29, 2017 - 11:45am
Thomas
 
You do not get it but the government own the housing bubbles responsibility.
 
Of course I know. Housing bubble = banks = economy = government. Same club !
 
Here in Switzerland the taxpayer had to bail out fucking UBS with 60 billion Swiss Francs because they were "too big to fail". Fuck it. Let them fail ! Did they produce more jobs ? Nope. It went abroad to Asia.
 
We Swiss are as stupid as you guys. Tell them "You will lose your job !!!" And they accept anything. Because they have been lured into credits by the same banks. Stupid idiots.
Stone-Eater Friedli Added Sep 29, 2017 - 11:53am
Recipe for today's society:
 
1. Get you kid good education in private school
2. In order to pay that, get a credit.
3. Buy an apartment or a house for your family.
4. In order to pay that, get a credit.
5. You need a car to go to work, because there's no work where you live ?
6. Get a car.
7. In order to pay that, get a credit.
8. You need to be up to date 24/7 and be presentable.
9. No problem. Get a credit for an overpaid iShit (because everyone has that) and two new suits.
10. In order to pay that, get a credit.
11. The boss says: "Sorry, business is slow, less pay."
12. You swallow, because YOU HAVE CREDITS going.
 
So, your life is on credit. And so they have YOU. Maybe you didn't notice how slowly that worked, because you didn't want to appear LESS to OTHERS, or simply wanted the best for your kids.
 
But you're trapped.
 
That's why the system still can go on.
Dave Volek Added Sep 29, 2017 - 12:58pm
I went to the paper Stone recommended. I'll just post the concluding paragraph:
 
Our bottom line is that Americans redistribute less than Europeans because (1) the majority believes that redistribution favors the racial minorities, (2) Americans believe that they live in an open and fair society and that if someone is poor it is their own fault, and (3) the political system is geared towards preventing redistribution.
 
How can we prove that one system is superior than the other?
 
According to a few WB contributors, the American welfare system is already too generous. If America cuts back on social assistance, would this make America a better country than it is now?



 
Thomas Sutrina Added Sep 29, 2017 - 1:56pm
Dave V. & Stone, the politicians do not care about the those receiving welfare except on election day, vote to keep me and my party in office.   They do not care about the amount of money taken from the tax payers and given out to get those votes.
 
This an observation of the facts on welfare in America, “[T]he welfare state has done to black Americans what slavery could not have done, the harshest Jim Crow laws and racism could not have done, namely break up the black family,” Williams [George Mason economist and author of “Race and Economics: How Much Can Be Blamed on Discrimination?”] said. “That is, today, just slightly over 30 percent of black kids live in two parent families. Historically, from 1870s on up to about 1940s, and depending on the city, 75 to 90 percent of black kids lived in two parent families. Illegitimacy rate is 70 percent among blacks where that is unprecedented in our history.”
 
Considering that this has been going on for about 80 years and the results is well know.  If they cared even the feeblest of mind politician could have done something positive?
Thomas Sutrina Added Sep 29, 2017 - 2:01pm
The politicians do not care if they are black, white, brown, citizens, immigrants, Christians, Jews, Muslims.  If they can identify a groups, brand them, and reach them with a message that causes the group to keep them in office; power and wealth.  None virtuous politicians will focus every minute of the day to achieve success.  They will gang together if need be and climb in bed with their enemies.
Thomas Sutrina Added Sep 29, 2017 - 2:07pm
The details of the welfare system.   How they shank us and how well is really not as important as understanding that they are not our friends and not doing thinks to help us but to help themselves.  We need more people to see this truth and then vote them out.  We will never have a period where politicians and public official well not turn to the dark side.  We need to be  vigilant to remove them as soon as possible.    We have let the vipers rule the roost.  It will be difficult to remove them and train our children about them considering that the vipers are telling them a different story.  We see how successful they are by the people that comment here on WB.
Dave Volek Added Sep 29, 2017 - 2:34pm
Thomas
It seems America is doing social assistance all wrong if what you are saying is true. Maybe America needs to learn from other nations. 
 
I suspect most welfare recipients don't bother to go to the polls on election day. However, if a political party promises to cut payments drastically, these votes might come to vote for the other party. 
 
A wise Roman Emperor said "Give the masses bread and circuses". Maybe welfare is the bread for those Americans with little ambition in life. Give them $1000 a month, and they won't cause trouble. Give the American workers their professional sports and reality shows to take their mind off the real problems. Hmmmmmm!
 
If you don't like how the politicians have created the welfare system, then you need to change the system, right?
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Rick Fontes Added Sep 29, 2017 - 3:05pm
I wish I had all the answers but I don't. If I did among them would be term limits for all elected officials, redefining "lobbying" as "bribery" and making it illegal, limiting members of the Supreme Court to their actuarial life span thereby fulfilling the lifetime appointment requirement while also avoiding some of the penalties of senility, and teaching civics with age appropriate material at all grade levels and then requiring everyone to have a basic understanding of how government works before allowing them to pull the lever. As it stands today being an elected official or lifetime bureaucrat are among the quickest pathways to immense wealth this country has to offer. With due respect to Gordon Gecko, greed is not good, merely pervasive and throughout government, highly rewarding.
George N Romey Added Sep 29, 2017 - 3:29pm
SEF you are right people are sucked into debt peonage and that's how they get you. People need to walk away from debt, it's held by crooks anyway. Want to really destroy the Deep State? Crash the credit system. The Deep State would be on their knees.
Thomas Sutrina Added Sep 29, 2017 - 3:46pm
Dave V., when it is planed and the plans gets results it is correct.   Why are we getting a knee from the NFL?  What those black foot ball players are protesting is what Walter Williams presented above but they were taught by the perpetrator an alternate reality.  Actual shooting by police of whites is higher then shooting of blacks, but shooting of black by blacks is an order of magnitude higher.  Not protesting that.   Police are where the crime is so black neighborhoods have more police presence so more black men are stopped then white men.  Police are just as worried about being shot by a white man as a black man.  They are treated the same, as potential criminals.  Now the street training comes into play.  Black men live with more criminals around them so they present more criminal like moves, street moves.  Thus it takes longer for the policeman to feel secure. 
 
NFL players when murders and crime decrease in black neighborhoods you will see less police and be stopped less.  You own that problem.  You have to solve it.  
 
Rick you have the pieces but without the citizens becoming more moral, and virtuous themselves then the pieces do not matter.   Virtue does not require full success in following morals but it does require a virtuous standard for yourself, a high moral standard, and effort to achieve a higher level.  Without this we will continue to replace on crook with another crook.
 
George, I think there is something in the old testament about a camel, a city doorway,and a rich man.
Dave Volek Added Sep 29, 2017 - 4:42pm
Thomas: I didn't fully understand the knee either. Or Blacks Lives Matter. But after reading The Sovereign Psyche, I get more of these movements. I can see these are signs of African Americans learning how to become more sovereign. Teenagers become a little rebellious for a reason.
Stone-Eater Friedli Added Sep 29, 2017 - 5:16pm
Dave
 
If America cuts back on social assistance,
 
The US can back social assistance when it gets jobs back to the US. Not the weapons industry, but cut back stuff like Monsanto (Bayer), McDonalds and other globals who either only provide poor people's bare survival and others who fill their own pockets. Give your people back a vision of future without regulations from corporations and put that cash into you own country instead of feeding hegemonic dreams of your MIC which is out of control.
 
Trump alone can't fight that. Wars are not a solution. But your society is built on that. Soldiers ! Patriotism ! Flags ! God is with us ! They're bad bad people ! No democracy ! Wrong religion !
 
WE ARE RIGHT  and the rest are "the axis of evil" !! Kill them !
 
And people believe that shit.
 
Have a nice weekend people with brains :-)
Stone-Eater Friedli Added Sep 29, 2017 - 5:18pm
BTW: Not against you, Dave. But that fucking ignorance....;-)
Thomas Sutrina Added Sep 29, 2017 - 5:50pm
I hope this explains the situation that has caused all the hours of fake news filling the American Air ways.  NFL taking a knee and Black Lives Matters.
 
The socialist, Democrat Party, has control of the media and the education system.  The people in the media came through the educations system.  Public school employees are bureaucrats, get payed the most by those that want to socialism taught.  95% of public teachers union campaign donations go to the Democratic Party.   The NFL players were educated in socialist.  The welfare system purchases votes for the Democratic Party.  They have controlled both Congress and the White House for 23 yrs v 4 yrs plus Trump 2yrs in the last 85 yrs. Thus controlled one house for all but 4 yrs plus Trump yrs.  Who's bidding does the Bureaucracy perform, socialism because they control administration and hiring for more time?   
 
The socialist are not going to teach what Walter William says see above but an alternate reality that is favorable to socialism.  The other guy did it.  
 
The NFL players are protesting police stopping black men, including them, and the police shooting black men that is reported on the TV news while police shooting white men never makes the TV new and is the section of the paper at the bottom of the bird cage.   BLACK LIVES MATTERS is protesting the same thing.  Errors in reporting favoring the socialist view point are never corrected with equal fervor as the initial reporting if at all.    
Thomas Sutrina Added Sep 29, 2017 - 5:57pm
Socialism does not want to cut back on welfare until they get new voters that come from totalitarian countries.  That speak another language and do not have a clue what liberty means.  It takes effort to learn this and to be come naturalized.  Applicants are tested on having learned it.   Socialist want to people to become citizens without learning anything about liberty.  Thus they will vote for what they know socialism.   They want the power that the nations where these people came from have.  The immigrants will think they are moving to greener pastures but if the socialist have their way the grass may actually be worse.
John G Added Sep 29, 2017 - 6:32pm
Wow.
Saint George Added Sep 30, 2017 - 12:32am
skid-mark-g's usual commie sophistry.
John G Added Sep 30, 2017 - 2:16am
One word sophistry?
Wow indeed.
Dr. Rupert Green Added Sep 30, 2017 - 8:02am
Does any other senses the WB is not the fiery landscape with rhetorical and other grenades it used to be? Are we being slowly boiled into conformity? Where is Mr. Yoder?
Ray Joseph Cormier Added Sep 30, 2017 - 8:42am
I've noticed Dannl Yoder is MIA too!
His many comments in my article SIGNS OF THE TIMES disappeared as well.
Dr. Rupert Green Added Sep 30, 2017 - 10:22am
Autumn, is censorship afoot?
Glenn Verasco Added Oct 1, 2017 - 2:08am
It's certainly a choice between bad options on the economy. You can get earnest attempts at mathematically impossible goals from the Democrats, or you can get cynical attempts at politically impossible goals from Republicans.
 
The only thing you can do is make as much money as possible. Fight for decent politics, but don't let it take away from you creating your own safety net. Regardless of how many barriers government throws up, where there is a will, there is a way. That's what keeps me going after I read the news in the morning.
John G Added Oct 1, 2017 - 3:24am
 That's what keeps me going after I read the news in the morning.
The love of money is the root of all evil.
It's almost amusing how libertarians love money but don't understand it. Almost.
Dave Volek Added Oct 1, 2017 - 11:28am
Thomas
 
Would you have any statistics on how many people in the US are on social assistance? From the tone of your article, it seems maybe 40% of Americans would starve if the welfare checks stopped?
 
My few forays into the US saw lots of Americans working in hotels and restaurants. If social assistance were so generous, wouldn't it be better for Americans to be on social assistance rather than take those low-paying jobs, which (for most of these workers) is likely to be their highest societal position for the rest of their lives?
 
And if we were to cut off social assistance, what would happen to all those on social assistance? I have tried to tell you in different ways, many of those people on social assistance are not capable of a 40-hour work week--and employers who try them out usually have to fire them. They just don't have the fortitude to work. Should we let them starve?
 
And are there any statistics on how many people on social assistance actually vote? My anecdotal experience in Canada is that these people are quite apolitical and don't bother to make the effort--even for the more socialist parties.
 
And let's do some electoral math. Voting in America typically runs about 50% of eligible voters. If 40% of Americans are on social assistance and always vote Democrat, that would mean that R's get only 10% of the vote, giving the D's a handy victory each time. This would also mean that the 50% who don't vote (and likely not be on social assistance) can overturn this situation any time they wanted. The math just isn't adding up here.
 
 
 
 
George N Romey Added Oct 1, 2017 - 12:07pm
Dave I can most assure you those service workers want full time work but it’s not available. Since most part time employers want flexibility in scheduling it’s even difficult to string together a few part time jobs. No Americans just did not get lazy the content of jobs has changed.
John G Added Oct 1, 2017 - 3:52pm
What the right can never see is the macro.
You are always going to have a bottom (say) 10% of the ladder no matter what. Why those people are in that bottom 10% is immaterial.
And all the motivation and training in the world can't remove the bottom 10%.
So why do you want the bottom 10% to live in such poverty and with such dismal prospects. Why do you want to remove what remaining dignity they have.
The answer is not very flattering for the right wingers.
John G Added Oct 1, 2017 - 3:54pm
The real question is how you best improve the lives and prospects of those at the bottom and thus lift everyone.
That probably makes me a communist in these parts for even asking the question.
Thomas Sutrina Added Oct 1, 2017 - 4:12pm
Dave V. & George R., great question to a few minutes  21.2%  Sept 2016   with  whites 16.8%  blacks 39.6% hispanics 21.2% asian 18% leaving 4.4%  for a grant total of 67,888,000 people.  Since Medicare and Social Security are pay in systems I am not counting them but since the government spent the money instead of investing it this still comes out of the present taxes and debt.  They represent 70,500,000 people.  http://www.statisticbrain.com/welfare-statistics/
 
Dave you must realize that to talk a low paying job the person on welfare actually brings home less money.  A working single mother looses more money for child care and if they are married the government assumes the father can make money so they get less.  Basically the welfare system is designed to incentivize people to stay on welfare.   Work programs have actually reduced the number on people on welfare but when ever Democrats get in control of the system it ends.  Obama used executive power to not enforce work laws on the books.  So people when back to not even trying.    The portion that truly can not work is I guess way less then half if you gave child care for free or at a stepped cost.   You have to make working result in an improved life.   
 
And there has to be jobs for them to do.  Putting barriers like minimum wage  just means there are less jobs so more people stay on 100% welfare even with a work requirement.  Lower pay to learn how to work for teens and people with no skills in the long run will result in them moving up the pay ladder.   High taxes and tariff wars just result in less jobs.  Regulations results in less jobs.   If your goal is people that will keep you in office because you promise them welfare then why change?
Dave Volek Added Oct 2, 2017 - 12:23am
Thomas: As much as I hate to admit it, John G has something relevant to say about the bottom 10%. And I have been trying to say this in many ways: many of that bottom rung are unemployable.
 
Your 21.2% is an interesting figure. Basically 1 in 5 Americans is on welfare. This sounds unrealistic to me, as I can't figure out how to run an economy with this much dead weight.
 
I suspect that it entails those who are working, but are getting some kind of partial social assistance. And truth be told, I would be in this category in Canada. My job is an OK income for a single person, but for two kids and a stay-at-home wife. There's a program to supplement my income, based on number of kids and family income. I get about 20% of my pay from the government. I might be counted in similar statistics.
 
Your numbers by races is more a poverty issue. Grow up in a dysfunctional family in a dysfunctional neighborhood and get educated in a dysfunctional school, you probably don't have all the tools to do well in the working world. I think you should read "The Sovereign Psyche" to understand why too much of the African-American community ended up this way.
 
And as I have said before, I don't see the welfare class getting out to vote. So I'm not believing that the Democrats have benefited from being so generous. Rather I believe liberal created a band-aid solution that made them feel good but really didn't solve anything.   
 
If 21.2% of Americans are an welfare, I would say--judging from WB contributors--more than that are opposed to welfare. The math says the welfare bashers should be more influential.
 
 
 
 
John G Added Oct 2, 2017 - 1:16am
Your problem is that you cling to the myth that taxpayers fund the government.
The reality is that government funds the taxpayers.
To believe otherwise is irrational.
Thomas Sutrina Added Oct 2, 2017 - 9:43am
My original first paragraph, "If we had an honest population the people would vote out these politicians and vote in politicians that would tell us the truth." How do we get an honest population?   First of all wealth and education have nothing to do with being honest, having virtue.  We saw virtue in the people of Huston.  It is actually in our nature to be virtuous.  Giving is better then receiving is virtue.
 
People have to not be afraid of someone taking what they have.  That means that people also have to own things.  Life liberty and property is in the Virginia bill of rights which Jefferson getting down a little closer to the human nature.  Changing it to Life liberty and pursuit of happiness.  Pursuing property bring happiness. 
 
Welfare destroys virtue because in artificially provides property without effort.  When virtue dies then respect for life and liberty die.  Virtue is the end result of effort and welfare requires almost no effort so creates little virtue.
 
The Mayflower brought MARXISM to America.  The core of Marx belief is in community ownership, Co-op.   This did not work for the Mayflower group and as ship after ship brought new members that believed in community ownership the grave yard grew bigger.  Winter after winter the community starved and many died.  A leader I think about five years into the colony change the rules.  Ended community ownership and said YOU EAT WHAT YOU GROW.  That focused the people because most lived through a starvation winter.  Starvation winters ended by this simple stoke.  
 
Welfare is designed to get people to not focus.  No need to focus on  providing for themselves.  But welfare does produce a product  it creates ganges, single parent house holds, robbery, failing school, etc..  The requirement that immigrants not receive welfare was a means of getting them to be members of the melting pot.  They became focus.  To survive they have to be active members of society.  The welfare recipient focuses on maintaining welfare which means voting in politicians that provide welfare.  But as the Romans learned welfare must continuously provide a higher standard of living  which increases recipients and in the end  impossible to maintain.
 
Universal health care is the golden goose of welfare since little in provided for health people with the promise that much can be provided to sustain life.   But we all know life will end so actually government only has to appear to provide a lot at the end.  Recipients focus on maintaining the system by voting in politicians.
 
We need people to pursue property that brings happiness and respect for life and liberty to freely choose their own path of pursuit.  The end result of effort in virtue.
Dave Volek Added Oct 2, 2017 - 11:40am
Thomas:
All good points indeed. Welfare has its negative side for sure.
 
We have a local welfare office. They just don't hand out money. They are monitoring these families, giving them advice (which may or may not be taken). Their kids are being monitored for health and school performance. If the agents cannot convince the parents to move forward with their lives, the kids are given a reasonable good chance to make more of their life than their parents. Sometimes it doesn't work; sometimes it does. 
 
This welfare office serves 25,000 people. I would doubt that they serve any more than 1,000 people at any one time. That is 4% of the total population. Compare that to your 21.2% figure and it seems to me that America does not manage welfare very well.  Maybe America needs to learn something from their neighbors up north.
 
Once again, I will bring up that people on social assistance are not very political. They usually do not vote.  They have little effect on the direction of policy. There is very little bribing of public money to get votes. 
 
 
Thomas Sutrina Added Oct 2, 2017 - 12:56pm
Dave actually they manage welfare very well.  They just do not have the same objective as your government.  FDR got the ball rolling for the welfare state we now have.  This is what he was willing to tell us.
 
FDR's last state of the nation speech January 1944, "a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all regardless of station, race, or creed.  { FDR segregated the army, interned Japanese American citizens, segregated housing programs, left Jim Crow laws in place, civil service was segregated by Wilson I believe still in place} 
Among these are:
• The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the Nation;

• The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

• The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;

• The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;

• The right of every family to a decent home;

• The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;

• The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

• The right to a good education.

All of these rights spell security.  {for who?}  The growth of government exploded during FDR's administration and continued ever since.  Who is in charge of citizens getting these rights and who determines how they are given?  
 
Good education when public paid professors take a knee in protest of the president and Universities and cities let Antifa destroy property and injure people.  They choose who which protests they allow and which they do not.  Free speech is so long as it is our free speech.  
 
Social security, medicare, medicaid and welfare in all its forms are "The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment."  No fear of unemployment if employment is not needed.   All under government control.
Obama Care is the health care goal almost achieved.  Single payer is full success.
 
"In ancient Rom social welfare support was introduced by Gajus Gracchus (158-122 BC), on a large scale. All citizens of Rome were entitled to buy a monthly ration of grain at a fixed price. The subsidized staple food of Rom became immediately the weapon of choice for the ruler to stay in high favor with the crowd and to maintain control over the political power. . . . The Romans did not only demand cheap basic food but also subsidized culture. The
emperors assumed the responsibility of providing the citizens with publicly funded entertainment and arts programs. One historian estimates the modem equiva-lent of $100 million a year was poured out in circuses and gladiator duels alone.

None of the emperors, not even Caesar or Augustus, dared to circumscribe the Roman's welfare privileges. Indeed they had access to the Praetorian Guard having power to crush any insurrection. However, they preferred to be generous and to keep the crowd in a good mood. . . . The development of Rom to an empire was created by an expensive military power and
plentiful of stupendous palaces and monumental buildings. Combined with immense costs for free food and entertainment the emperors need for incomes be-came insatiable. The expenditures grow fare above the tax revenues, a problem the government solved by reducing the value of the money value. By other words inflation was created. . . . Then came the redistribution of wealth, trans-forming Rom to a welfare state, with free bread and entertainment, as well as, with extensive government support for a place to live at, child support (due to the low nativity), and lots of jobs in the constantly expanding public sector. This development was not possible to slow down, as it created its own unstoppable
force. Oppression and extortion began early in the provinces outside Italy and reached later fantastic proportions. The mob of Rome and the palace favorites produced nothing, yet they continually demanded more free gifts."   http://www.articlesbase.com/economics-articles/will-us-repeat-the-welfare-death-of-the-roman-empire/
John G Added Oct 2, 2017 - 6:30pm
Volek: Your tone policing is just an excuse to hide behind. Best stick to debating Sutrina and his ilk. More your intellectual level.
John G Added Oct 3, 2017 - 4:26am

Recent Articles by Writers Thomas Sutrina follows.