On 10/22/2013 10:26 AM, Shay wrote:
> On 10/21/2013 11:33 PM, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>>
>> Because, of course, in your universe, no one that has a government job
>> goes fishing either, but.. the economy works so much better if 4 people
>> who buy their bait from the Coch Bros Bait and Yachts, the same week
>> they fire 1,000 people, because they figured out that they could save a
>> few million by doing so, and pocket it (possibly to buy one of the
>> yachts, to put the bait on, is doing us "so" much good, by contrast.
>
> In *our* universe, pushing money upwards benefits the government *and*
> the billionaires. I don't know what kind of Batman president you're
> waiting for to reverse this trend, but I haven't seen him in my lifetime.
>
But, funneling the money down to cities, districts, counties, and 
states.. that will solve it. We will just ignore the fact that the 
closer you get to the town level, the more likely it is that the people 
"in" the government are the ones that own everything in sight, and have 
all the money. Which is a real big reason towns often get screwed by the 
neighboring towns, who actually see a profit in allowing new businesses. 
The one being screwed.. usually is protecting the interests of the "down 
town", which is owned, entirely, by everyone from the mayor, to the town 
council. If you go up one level, to the county.. odds are that more than 
half of the people working on that level either own big businesses, 
stock in them, or have close friends that do. The state level.. oh hell, 
that one is really fun. You know that, by the latest estimates, Texas, 
whose leaders claim "we are America", but which one seceded from the 
union, and had to be dragged back in, is likely to see insurance rates 
sky rocket, precisely because they refuse to accept the expansions to 
government programs, and they are fighting tooth and nail against 
everything else, including exchanges. Meanwhile, even with the federal 
website having suffered a meltdown, Oregon has insured 10% of the people 
they know don't have it, purely through the expanded medicaid, and 
California is making even them look like idiots.

But, we have good old fox trotting out the three dimwits as evidence of 
failure - Moe - whose business is too small to be effected, Larry - who 
refuses to look at the exchange program, "on principle", even though 
someone else did for them, and it would end up costing them less money, 
and Curley - who is from Texas, where they have refused to implement any 
of it, and thus ***all*** of the increases they see coming are due to 
the refusal to participate.

And that is just the most blatant idiocy you can see with "state level" 
government. There is a reason that some things where taking out of their 
hands. Though.. I never have understood the idiocy of letting people 
elect, without having to have qualifications, training, understanding 
of, experience in, or even the ability to pass a 6th grade history, 
math, or science, exam, run school boards, instead of setting a bloody 
federal standard for it. Its like.. we think we need central government 
for shit that *isn't* necessary, some times, or where keeping an eye on 
things, without interfering much is a better solution, we need total 
control, but things that have a direct, obvious, and critical, impact on 
people.. well, those either are not, will not be, or, are being argued, 
quite vehemently, including by people like you, we should just leave to 
get fucked up in any inventive way the "locals" see fit.

>> Hint: Most of the money that elects Democrats is
>> "union",
>
> With this kind of misinformation, it's no wonder you've got your
> political head on backwards.
>
No, its reality. Yes, they have "some" big political donations, from the 
corporate sector, but its no where near the same as the other side. The 
attack on unions all over the country 100% of it by Republicans, and Tea 
Party people, doesn't make a shit load of sense, unless their motivation 
is to cut the legs out from under their opponents. Maybe you need to do 
some research.

>> Also, if you think, for one damn moment, that, should one of yours get
>> elected, or worse, that already have (since the big lie told by everyone
>> one of them, to get elected) are actually interested in cutting one
>> single cent from funding to mega-corporations,
>
> One of mine? Let's see, there's Ron Paul. If you aren't familiar with
> Ron Paul's position and record on corporate welfare, look it up while
> you're clearing up that "union" thing.
>
Yeah, heard of the guy. He is the one that can't stop lying all the 
time, right? See, that is his problem. Even if he had new ideas, and he 
doesn't, and had a clue how the economy really works, and you won't find 
an economist on the planet that says he does, he keeps lying about 
things, ranging from his own website claiming that Egypt was some sort 
of plot by Obama, to remove their "elected" dictator, to claims that a 
company he was heavily involved with, and personally signed off on the 
pamphlets for, he had no involvement with (well, being as the pamphlets 
where racist... I can see why he would say so..), to lying about 
"increases in defense spending", which where not increases, to news 
letters claiming that, ""I uncovered the New Money plans in my last term 
in the US Congress, and I held the ugly new bills in my hands. I can 
tell you - they made my skin crawl! These totalitarian bills were tinted 
pink and blue and brown, and blighted with holograms, diffraction 
gratings, metal and plastic threads, and chemical alarms. It wasn't 
money for a free people. It was a portable inquisition, a paper 'third 
degree' to allow the feds to keep track of American cash, and American 
citizens.", in his news letters, to a long list of other things that 
range from racist, to paranoid, to delusional, to just flat out plane, 
and simply **incorrect**.

The guy is a kook. That you, or anyone else, can admit to *any* of the 
absurd things he has said, or done, over the years, and not at least 
want to see real numbers, instead of assertions, about his supposed, 
"understanding of economics and how the government should work 
(obviously.. the first thing would be to get rid of that new colored 
money, being used to secretly track the populous...)", well..

Though, having looked some of this stuff up, to see what kind of things 
I could find on him (note, the newsletter, and its contents, along with 
interviews he claims he never had, after the fact, are all talked about 
on "multiple" news sites, and, in many cases, archived on his own bloody 
website(s), so..., it leaves me with a disturbing picture of what you 
think the government really is doing, and why you fear it, or any 
solution that doesn't involve dismantling it, so badly.

Post a reply to this message