Re: Don't Vote!

On Jul 15, 9:19 am, Alan Lichtenstein <a...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Werner wrote:
...

What good does this do, Alan? Do I need Democrats to take care of
me?

Yes, you do, when it costs far too much for you to do it yourself.  .....  Stupidity and refusal to acknowledge circumstances as
they exist?



The circumstances, Alen, is that the country is broke. The money is
gone. The goose has been consumed. There is nothing left but debt.

....

Well, Alan, the simplistic mantra of a benevolent government that is
accountable to The People seems to hitting single digit approval
ratings as well as debt.

Hardly.  the fact that Democrats are going to increase their majorities
says otherwise.



Polling should not be denied.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/congressional_performance/congressional_performance
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/archive/?poll_id=18





 Democrats depend on this behavior to buy

votes.

Actually, Democrats depend on THINKING people who understand that the
come-on frequently costs them more in the long run, a fact that escapes
you simplistic Libertarians.

Yes, they THINK they can force someone else to take care of them.

Absolutely.  Because that's the concept of society.  A group of people
aggregating with common cultural goals.  You would do well to understand
that as opposed to throwing around loaded terms, which you misuse for
your emotional well-being.



your concept of society perhaps.
http://www.capitaldistrict-lp.org/Myth.shtml




Those who have to foot the bills THINK they have had enough and vote
with their feet for other locations.

Those of us who foot the bills understand what the bill costs.  And we
understand that when we pay it as individuals, it benefits us if we can
pay less, because the cost is spread around a larger group.  You
Libertarians are just too dumb to understand that.



The cost is spread around so that some pay less while most pay more.
It seems you are too dumb to understand the spreading has caused
national bankruptcy.


It's called the bottom line.  IOW, if I have to pay X dollars for
service, but government increases my taxes by X-Y dollars, and pays for
the service, I come out ahead, because I'm getting the service for less
than I was paying.  You're just too damn dumb to understand that.



I understand you pay less as long as you can make someone else pay for
you. You are too self centered to understand this is morally
corrupting.



...

Under tax and spend you wind up with people who work more jobs to pay
taxes so millions don't have to work to pay bills.

Same thing as under borrow and spend.  Instead of paying taxes for
service, they can pay the private sector MORE for the same service.
But if we collect the taxes to pay for the outlay, there is no
government debt, which has to be repaid, resulting in even higher taxes
over the long term with NO increase in services.

You think THAT is preferable?  If you do, I have a bridge to sell you,
cheap.



There are limits to paying taxes. There are no limits to wanting
benefits that others pay for.


....

The biggest reason for the decline in the dollar is that there are too
many dollars being created.

Incorrect.  The Federal Reserve has been doing a fairly good job at
controlling the money supply and keeping inflation under control, which
would result in the condition you stated.  You need to make assertions
from a point of knowledge, rather than throwing around slogans which you
use as loaded terms, which are patently WRONG.



http://forecasts.org/data/m1trnd.htm
http://www.sirchartsalot.com/article.php?id=61
http://www.nowandfutures.com/key_stats.html

  They are created because there are not

enough rich folks to tax, and not enough suckers to extend more
credit.  Printing is the only remaining alternative.

There are more than enough wealthy to tax.  All we need to do is rescind
the Bush tax cuts for individuals and some corporations.  Remember, we
had a surplus under Clinton.



we had a dotcom bubble which burst in 2000.


...
You know genius, if you were given a choice of YOUR plan of MY plan,
even the stupidest Libertarian would be forced to see the bottom line.

Well, if I were given a choice between having someone else pay my
bills instead of me I'd probably give the bills to someone else.

good to see that you finally see that you understand which side of the
bread the butter is on.  but nobody said anything about giving away
anyone's bills.  All that was said is that keeping the need on a
collective basis and requiring everyone to pay their fair share of the
collective need.



what is the fair share?



  In

the long run this doesn't work out because those who are made to pay
my bills will not like it.

They never do.  But its the only way to make everyone in a society pay
their fair share.  Unless, of course, you want to advocate equality of
income, which IMHO, is a bad idea.



what is the fair share?


Besides, the who notion forcing other people to pay your bills is
morally bankrupt.

But the notion of collective payment for collective problems is not.
And your problem is that you don't understand that this is the set of
circumstances which exist, NOT having someone else pay your ENTIRE share.



There is no collective, Alan. There are only individuals who sometimes
choose to voluntarily work with other individuals.
http://www.capitaldistrict-lp.org/Myth.shtml


Are you saying that you AREN'T in favor of taking out Iran?

Speaking about stupid, that idea is the most stupid. I hope you don't
really advocate it.

Indeed I do.  These are not people who share our values and concepts
towards life.  They would not hesitate to use a nuclear weapon, knowing
that they themselves would be killed, just so long s they could take as
many of us as they could with them.  These are not rational people in
the way we understand being rational.  Perhaps some of it comes from an
irrational fundamentalist approach to their religion, but
never-the-less, it still creates a great difference in fundamental
values between them and us.

Many people make much of the circumstances which existed between the US
and the USSR during the cold war, but the one leveling factor was that
both we and they shared a common value towards life.  That makes the
compassion between that and Iran invalid.  Iran simply cannot be
permitted to get hold of a nuclear weapon.



You are scary. If your view prevails lots of people will suffer and
die.



....
It would be more in the interest of the US to take out Israel. Iran
has oil. Israel doesn't.

Your anti-semitism is showing.  FYI, aside from Great Britain, Israel is
the ONLY country which has consistently supported the US since its
creation in 1948.  A better ally, we don't have.

And Israel shares our values towards life, which is why they haven't
used their nuclear bomb on anyone.  But if Iran nukes them, and Iran
certainly will, if they get their hands on a nuclear bomb, then Israel
will certainly reply.  But the better way is to take them out first.



Fine. Let Israel take them out.


There is plenty of money in Arab countries. Iran is not necessary.

Saudi Arabia is not a state sponsor of terror.  Iran is.



That does not mean oil money from the Saudis or others will not be
made available.




Terror tactics are not expensive. Look at 9/11 for a classic example
of doing a lot with very little.

On the contrary.  It took a great deal of money to train those
terrorists, and support them for the months prior to their deed.
Eliminate Iran and you eliminate the financial conduits for funneling
money, as well as the money supply itself.



Preposterous!
The plot cost an estimated $400,000 to $500,000, not including the
hijackers' training in Afghanistan. The hijackers spent about $270,000
in the United States, mainly on flight training, travel, housing, and
vehicles.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/16/911.commission/index.html


for an idea of the many tens of $billions of US costs see:
http://www.ccc.nps.navy.mil/si/aug02/homeland.asp

  Or look at the USSR occupation of

Afghanistan.

The USSR was a sovereign nation occupying another country and paid for
it.  Are you claiming the USSR was a terrorist?  Or if you meant it to
apply to the mujahadeen, have you forgotten that our CIA spent tens of
millions of OUR tax dollars supporting them?  Take out Iran and you take
out the money supply.  You restrict them to minor terror brigades, such
as the Red Brigades in Germany.  Yes, they're there, but they can't do
much damage.  As I said, the criminal use of firearms in this country
will cause more harm than they will be capable of with a declawed Iran.



I'm claiming the cost to the USSR was immense compared to the cost to
Afghanis.


Action speaks louder than words. Why are you not there now?

For the same reason you're not in some fascist banana republic.

Any more stupidities?

You need to read more, Alan. Start with Commentary magazine. Socialism
in Israel has been largely abandoned by the new generation. American
Jews are moving out of Israel, not into it.

Jews have been moving out of Israel for years.  So? Your anti-semitism
is showing, and we have nothing further to discuss.


You may see anti-semitism, but it is not there. It is not in
Commentary either.
.

Loading