Re: POLITICS - Bailout Reader was: Secretary of Treasury becomes financial dictator if we let him

[Guest guest]

> If the gov't should borrow, it should be from private individuals, and

> there should be some strict timeline to pay it all back.

Except, as I noted earlier, they would be robbing to pay .

> However, I'm

> leery that's a slippery slope, because once borrowing is allowed, any

> timelines will be pushed back and any debt celings will be pushed

> higher. The world would not fall apart if there were a balanced

> budget amendment passed, but the debt-mongers would.

Given the ability of governments to fund items they desire off-budget,

and the many expenses in our current government that do not appear on

budget, a balance budget amendment would be useless. This is the same

logic behind the idea that constitutions limit government.

Right.

--

Buffalo too, has beautiful summers but not this year. Cool and rainy.

For the first time in ten years, we never installed the air

conditioners. My line on all this is, somebody better do something

about global warming before I freeze to death. - Ostrowski

" If you're not on somebody's watch list, you're not doing your job " -

Dave Von Kleist

[Guest guest]

,

> -

>

>> While I guess hope springs eternal, I doubt it will make any

>> difference. It certainly hasn't made any difference thus far in his

>> policy proclamations.The nature of the political process is such that

>> Goldman Sachs and company will have far more influence than a whole

>> bunch of small time donors.

>

> I don't think we can measure the impact of the horde of small-dollar

> donors yet because he's in the campaign phase which requires securing

> the votes of people who *haven't* donated.

It seems you are suggesting that his policy proclamations don't

already favor the well heeled big donors who are primarily responsible

for his funding. I think his actions and pronouncements while a

candidate certainly did reflect that influence and more so as the

election drew nearer. Can anyone say Goldman Sachs and the bailout? Or

his vote on FISA? or........

> Just as with other types

> of campaign contributions, most of the impact (if there is a

> significant one in this case) will come during actual governance.

You think there is a possibility that his **major** campaign

contributors will NOT have a significant impact in his coming term as

POTUS? As I said, hope springs eternal.

>> Not at all. It wasn't clear above but thanks for giving me a chance to

>> clarify. I think it is ridiculous and hypocritical for McCain to

>> charge Obama with being a socialist, ***as defined by McCain.***

>> Claiming Obama is a socialist because he is a redistributionist is

>> silly when McCain himself does the same thing, which on McCain's

>> definition means he is also a socialist.

>>

>> McCain's understanding of Obama has no logical connection to the

>> conclusions I have drawn about both men and the end of my post.

>

> I see, so you conclude that Obama is a real socialist while McCain

> isn't?

I think they are both anti-liberty as a matter of public record, and

that Obama leans toward socialism and McCain leans toward fascism, and

I think this is not borne out of any real ideological differences, but

more towards personality differences, the crazed warrior versus the

smooth stable soft spoken operator.

Having said that, I think the office of POTUS and the direction that

emanates from it is essentially socialist, and whoever occupies that

office will continue those policies.

I think says it best:

" The Republicans fear presidential power in the hands of Obama, but

they should have seen it coming. They defended the power of the

president to wage war on any nation, torture and detain anyone on

earth. They favored total power, absolutism, and now they finally

realize someone they don't like might have that power one day?

" But they need not fear a major upset. All modern presidents have

supported warfare, welfare, corporatism, cronyism, economic

collectivism, police statism, militarism, and an imperial executive

abroad. No modern Republican has ratcheted back social security,

public schooling, industrial regulation, central banking, and

subsidies for medicine and agriculture. Why is socialism all of a

sudden a problem?

" Obama's " socialism " is very American: Empire abroad, spying at home,

handouts for the rich and poor. It is a sort of rightwing socialism –

too pragmatic and pro-profit to be Marxist at all, but central

planning nevertheless. lin Roosevelt engaged in this kind of

thing with the New Deal, which was in reality no more leftwing than

rightwing. A case can be made it was the same quasi-fascism practiced

by " conservative " Republicans like Abe Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt and

Herbert Hoover, just on a larger scale.

" Obama will not abolish corporations, do away with churches or abolish

the other social authority centers anathema to Marxist thought. He

will only attempt to co-opt them, as all corporatist social

nationalists in today's political climate try to do. He will not turn

America toward the path toward socialism; it already is on its way.

" Is Obama a socialist? Of course he is. But so are they all. "

http://www.lewrockwell.com/gregory/gregory169.html

--

Buffalo too, has beautiful summers but not this year. Cool and rainy.

For the first time in ten years, we never installed the air

conditioners. My line on all this is, somebody better do something

about global warming before I freeze to death. - Ostrowski

" If you're not on somebody's watch list, you're not doing your job " -

Dave Von Kleist

[Guest guest]

> The government is parasitic in nature, surviving on the production of

> the society it supposedly serves. Government is the ONLY institution

> in society that gains its revenue by force or fraud.

That should be force and fraud.

--

Buffalo too, has beautiful summers but not this year. Cool and rainy.

For the first time in ten years, we never installed the air

conditioners. My line on all this is, somebody better do something

about global warming before I freeze to death. - Ostrowski

" If you're not on somebody's watch list, you're not doing your job " -

Dave Von Kleist

[Guest guest]

-

> Except, as I noted earlier, they would be robbing to pay .

Given the present circumstances, I'd be happy if ANYONE would pay me,

even if they had to rob to do it. <g>

-

[Guest guest]

Hilarious advertisement but unfortunately true:

http://www.wendymcelroy.com/news.php?extend.2134

--

In the religious perspective, none of us " owns " his own body. Rather,

we are the stewards of them, and God is the ultimate " owner " of each

of us. But this concerns only the relation between man and Deity. As

far as the relationship between man and man, however, the secular

statement that we own our own bodies has an entirely different

meaning. It refers to the claim that we each have free will; that no

one person may take it upon himself to enslave another, even for the

latter's " own good. " - Walter Block

[Guest guest]

On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 5:45 AM, Idol <paul.idol@...> wrote:

> -

>

>> Except, as I noted earlier, they would be robbing to pay .

>

> Given the present circumstances, I'd be happy if ANYONE would pay me,

> even if they had to rob to do it. <g>

Hey ,

That was pretty funny when I first read it, but on a more serious note

I do hope things are going better than what your response seems to

suggest.

--

In the religious perspective, none of us " owns " his own body. Rather,

we are the stewards of them, and God is the ultimate " owner " of each

of us. But this concerns only the relation between man and Deity. As

far as the relationship between man and man, however, the secular

statement that we own our own bodies has an entirely different

meaning. It refers to the claim that we each have free will; that no

one person may take it upon himself to enslave another, even for the

latter's " own good. " - Walter Block

[Guest guest]

,

> The government produces nothing. It either gets its revenue by

> creating money out of thin air (ultimately) or forcibly taking it from

> others.

It still produces some things. It produces arbitration and legal

enforcement and so on, even though it may do an awfully poor job of it

since people do not have the choice to abstain from purchasing its

products. It is fairly efficient at destroying things though,

especially people from other countries.

> It is subject neither to the incentives or pressures of the

> marketplace that families and businesses must face when borrowing

> money, and when it does borrow it can only pay back what it owes

> through forcible takings or fraudulent money creation.

There is some incentive. For example, during periods of fear and

crisis, the political will to give government more money and power

increases. So the government has a strong incentive to manufacture

fear and crisis.

Chris

[Guest guest]

,

> The problem is that in paying back the money they borrowed, the

> government must do so with money that other people earned, since

> government lives not off its own production, but on the fruits of

> other people's labor.

Right, but that's why I said I was putting aside the criticism of

(forcible) government per se. This is a problem you have with

taxation rather than borrowing.

Chris

[Guest guest]

On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 12:23 PM, Masterjohn

<chrismasterjohn@...> wrote:

> ,

>

>> The problem is that in paying back the money they borrowed, the

>> government must do so with money that other people earned, since

>> government lives not off its own production, but on the fruits of

>> other people's labor.

>

> Right, but that's why I said I was putting aside the criticism of

> (forcible) government per se. This is a problem you have with

> taxation rather than borrowing.

If an entity is borrowing money that can **only** be paid back by the

use of force or fraud, then it is wrong to posit a scenario where it

would be legitimate for that entity to borrow money or other goods,

since the promise to pay back can only be made by taking through force

the fruit of the labor of others. So the problem I have is not only

with an entity that can only raise revenue through force or fraud, but

with an entity that can only pay back borrowed money through force or

fraud. Do you think anyone would loan money to the government if not

for the predictable results of taxation?

--

In the religious perspective, none of us " owns " his own body. Rather,

we are the stewards of them, and God is the ultimate " owner " of each

of us. But this concerns only the relation between man and Deity. As

far as the relationship between man and man, however, the secular

statement that we own our own bodies has an entirely different

meaning. It refers to the claim that we each have free will; that no

one person may take it upon himself to enslave another, even for the

latter's " own good. " - Walter Block

[Guest guest]

,

> Do you think anyone would loan money to the government if not

> for the predictable results of taxation?

I think the main reason is the " security " granted to " securities " by taxation.

Chris

[Guest guest]

> Even at that, one of the fastest growing industries in America is

> private arbitration, so people must find something that operates

> poorly, yet still find it more efficient and productive to use private

> means to resolve disputes.

That should read " so people must FUND something " rather than " find something. "

--

In the religious perspective, none of us " owns " his own body. Rather,

we are the stewards of them, and God is the ultimate " owner " of each

of us. But this concerns only the relation between man and Deity. As

far as the relationship between man and man, however, the secular

statement that we own our own bodies has an entirely different

meaning. It refers to the claim that we each have free will; that no

one person may take it upon himself to enslave another, even for the

latter's " own good. " - Walter Block

[Guest guest]

On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 2:57 PM, Masterjohn

<chrismasterjohn@...> wrote:

> ,

>

>> Do you think anyone would loan money to the government if not

>> for the predictable results of taxation?

>

> I think the main reason is the " security " granted to " securities " by

> taxation.

>

> Chris

Exactly.

--

In the religious perspective, none of us " owns " his own body. Rather,

we are the stewards of them, and God is the ultimate " owner " of each

of us. But this concerns only the relation between man and Deity. As

far as the relationship between man and man, however, the secular

statement that we own our own bodies has an entirely different

meaning. It refers to the claim that we each have free will; that no

one person may take it upon himself to enslave another, even for the

latter's " own good. " - Walter Block

[Guest guest]

On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 2:57 PM, Masterjohn

<chrismasterjohn@...> wrote:

> ,

>

>> Do you think anyone would loan money to the government if not

>> for the predictable results of taxation?

>

> I think the main reason is the " security " granted to " securities " by

> taxation.

>

> Chris

Exactly.

--

In the religious perspective, none of us " owns " his own body. Rather,

we are the stewards of them, and God is the ultimate " owner " of each

of us. But this concerns only the relation between man and Deity. As

far as the relationship between man and man, however, the secular

statement that we own our own bodies has an entirely different

meaning. It refers to the claim that we each have free will; that no

one person may take it upon himself to enslave another, even for the

latter's " own good. " - Walter Block

[Guest guest]

As I cleaned up my mailbox...

I checked this link. Good website, but the image was disabled.

LAURA

--- In , <slethnobotanist@...>

wrote:

>

> Hilarious advertisement but unfortunately true:

>

> http://www.wendymcelroy.com/news.php?extend.2134

>

>

[Guest guest]

,

> As I cleaned up my mailbox...

>

> I checked this link. Good website, but the image was disabled.

You can find the image here: http://buffalobeast.com/

Scroll down until you see the picture of the mini-van on the right

hand side. Hilarious, but sad. And here is something that is just as

hilarious (and sad):

I Want My Bailout Money

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dnT21hmlT4o & feature=related

--

" Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired

signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are

not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is

not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers,

the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children…. Under the

cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of

iron. "

~ Dwight Eisenhower