This is why a majority of Americans do not want to give up their freedoms to a porky, socialist government that fails in the end when it runs out of money. I feel sorry for you even though it’s “free” hair removal on their terms.
Don’t start me to talking political, but come on, the government never runs out of money. They just run out of room in the arbitrarily funded budget. It is like when you tell your kid you don’t have any money for that new $60 video game. You have $500 in your pocket, but even if you have already paid all your bills, you are not willing to budget $60 for that useless waste of funds. The kid seethes in his seat as he watches you buy some $100 item that HE thinks is unnecessary (like concert tickets) and wonders how you can justify buying that but not “his” video game.
Governments operate by taking more and more from you, while giving as little as they can back.
Dee, they have the option to pay out of their pocket in the UK just like Americans do. Americans wouldn’t be giving anything up. They’d simply be gaining an option on top of the one they already have.
And James, government doesn’t have any stake in keeping more of anything. Corporations are the ones who have to show profit every quarter to their shareholders. Insurance companies can’t show profit unless they don’t pay for some of your expenses or raise your premiums.
The stake that governments have in taking more from you, and giving you less in return is in service to the betterment of the corporations whose boards of directors, and stake holders control both. When ever corporations want something they should not have, they simply have government mandate it. If you want to know who controls the government, just find out who controls the banks (and cross reference that list with who controls the corporations for overlap).
The new governor elect of New York State ran on his record as attorney general. He said he had spent his time fighting fraud. Strange thing he did nothing about banks beginning the policy of charging check cashing fees up to $20 to people looking to cash checks drawn on their bank, even though this is technically breech of promise to the account holder who wrote the check. Things that make you go, “hmmm.”
Do yourself a favor LAgirl and go see “Inside Job”. Hopefully, it is still playing in NYC. This is a big boys world with government, academia (Columbia and Harvard especially) and bankers screwing all of us “little people” and we taxpayers are expected to bail them out while they walk away richer with no accountability or stain.
Socialism eventually fails because you run out of other peoples money. When freebies or subsidies are cut, then you have anarchy. Charles and Camilla got a taste of that yesterday.
May I ask the poster why she has to go to an NHS approved hospital. Why can’t you just pay out of pocket for any or as many electrologists you want to???
OK so I am going for my weekly appointment today and intend to discuss this with her as diplomatically as possible. If the issue is down to the fact the settings are too low I will ask her to increase them as she sees fit (there shouldn’t be an issue in trying this as I haven’t had a bad reaction on the current settings). If I’m feeling brave enough I may explain that those insertions which are deeper/held in longer seem to work best, although I do think this may come across as patronising and would be nervous about telling her how to do her own job! (James for this reason although I am grateful for your kind offer to potentially help her with my case I don’t think this is something she herself would appreciate).
The machine she uses is a silhouette but I’m not sure which model (will have a nosey today) in conjunction with a large magnifying glass with light.
I won’t get in to the debate about healthcare provision in the US/UK except to say I am glad there is at least a ‘free’ option there for me as I do not earn enough (currently studying and working only part time) to be able to fund this myself from a private provider.
I shall report back later on how this session went. Fingers crossed for an improvement…
Noted and well said. Just hope that austerity measures being taken now does not find it’s way into the NHS to cut electrolysis care for patients like you who need care, but can not afford it at this time. I see the students are not happy about the tuition increases, but I don’t think electrolysis clients would be in the streets jabbing Charles and Camilla if their benefits were taken away. Electrolysis clients are much more kinder than students. (Just a light-hearted joke everyone - calm down)
If she has a Silhouet-Tone VMC model, that is awesome, but any epilator will affect hair growing tissue if used correctly and skillfully. Good luck to you cheshirecat.
James, banks are private corporations too who also have to show a profit. What you’re really talking about is lobbiests (those people are who paid by these corporations to schmooze government members to vote in those corporations’ favor), which is a separate issue altogether. What you should really be promoting is getting rid of the entire lobbying system, not the government, and I would be with you on that front. The purpose of the government as it stands in the US is to act on behalf and in the interest of the people, not corporations. The fact that lobbies exist doesn’t take away from that intended purpose. And banks that were partly responsible for getting us into this mess did so because lobbiest prevented the government from establishing rules that they had to play by. You should be FOR the government restricting banks from playing the betting game without any rules.
Dee, there is only one group that’s out to “screw the little people” as you put it - the Republican Party that stands for corporate interests. The opposite that you claim is just a bunch of Fox News propoganda to rally people to think that trickle-down economics works (that entire channel was created for this purpose and it’s been working well for Murdoch). The fact that it hasn’t worked in the last 10 years should tell you that much. The entire goal of the Republican Party has been to convince those “little people” that giving tax breaks and other benefits to corporations is in the “little people’s” best interests.
Throwing out that “scary” word “socialism” like it’s some type of a bad thing that US has avoided thus far is another one of Fox News illogical tricks. Socialism is quite prevalent in the US already - unless you’re against and want to abolish all of Social Security, Medicare, FDA, all organizations in charge or transportation and roads, the police force, firefighters, public schools, and thousands of other government-funded and managed operations, it’s ridiculous to even bring it up.
The poster doesn’t HAVE to go anywhere. They have a choice to go somewhere free and somewhere not free, and they’re choosing the free option given their circumstances. Americans in that situation have to live with their hair.
Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals: Rule #13 Isolate and demonize. Fox News must be getting too close to the truth because rule #13 is used quite vociferously against Fox News and their ratings keep soaring. Hmm, interesting.
Edit: And don’t be ridiculous and dramatic about abolishing police and fire fighters and such. That shows your anger and everyone knows that is too draconian. Yes, we have socialism here in many forms, thus the push back from people like me. It doesn’t work because it is not sustainable.
I’m not angry - you probably know my straightforward writing style by now. Fox News is entertaining, actually. Glenn Beck is quite a riot after a few drinks. And I brought it up because you are quoting them. Does that make me a radical? What am I radical about? Being radical is proposing to abolish the government altogether as James seems to suggest. All I did is demonstrate that your statements are not logical.
I brought up fire fighters and police to make an obvious point. There is no logical or rational reason to claim that that type of socialism is fine and the one concerning healthcare isn’t. The way our system is set up currently is to encourage insurance companies to get out of paying as many claims as possible so they can make the most profit (their goal and commitment to shareholders as publicly traded corporations). I’ve worked for publicly traded companies all of my life so far. I know what we’re being asked to do. Working for yourselves may have isolated you from that.
We’re out of money. The stimulus didn’t work. Jobs are not being created and the bloated government wants to keep spending on entitlements when there are fewer people and businesses paying taxes. I can add and subtract. This isn’t working. I can observe the boarded up businesses and houses. States are bankrupt. I don’t need Fox News or Glenn Beck to point out the obvious. Blaming corporations makes you feel good, but it won’t solve the debt and deficit. I can’t be indoctrinated and you seem to suggest that I have been. Little do you know. I feel sorry for Obama because this job is too big for him. He didn’t have a deep resume to begin with. He looks sick and thin. I hope Papa Clinton can help him through this difficult time. We need a leader with sound principles on how businesses work to create jobs and how government creates an environment so a business can thrive to sustain those jobs or will look like Europe very soon. That about sums it up. If you would care to take this outside and spare the posters here, I’m happy to do this in private. 
Edit: please go see “Inside Job”. You, too, James. I am not isolated because I work for myself. Please don’t be condescending. My personal hobby is all about gathering information and then the hard part is trying to decide if the information is true.
LYATANYCDAI! (Love ya, and there ain’t nothing you can do about it!) Mmmmmm!!
Actually, economists who actually have the tools to calculate these things indicated that the stimulus did work: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/17/business/economy/17leonhardt.html
Also “the government” is not some singular person who “wants” to do things. In the US, it’s comprised of two parties: one with mostly corporate interests (under the pretense of being for “freedom” and other big meaningless words) and one with mostly people’s interests (with faults, but nevertheless). So, what “the government” gets done depends on who has a majority when both parties are voting. And what issues get to voting point depends on what lobbiests schmoozed who the hardest - see my problem with lobbying above.
We got into this deficit mess by things that the Republican Party and corporations did (1. wars 2. banks betting without restrictions 3. Bush tax cuts.) You seem to ignore that part and still want to follow their “solutions” to the mess they created.
Are you also supporting the extension of Bush tax cuts given your worry about the deficit? That’s what the Republicans are busy passing right now - they even refused the 9/11 health bill to achieve this. Is worrying about giving 3% tax cuts for the richest and addiing estate tax cuts on top of those the right thing to do given this deficit you’re talking about?
I’m not playing the blame game. I’m pointing out that the people you’re aligning your views with got you into this mess in the first place and they don’t seem to be worried about fixing things given their actions (not words). The only thing the other side has been trying to do is get us out of it. Some things have worked, others haven’t. Obama is giving in way too much to make a difference. It’s laughable at this point. One thing is clear though - the side that got us into this deficit mess is still only worrying about tax breaks for the richest as seen from their latest demands.
I don’t have to be an economist to know that numbers can mean whatever you want them to mean. My neighbors and friends have no jobs and the last source of information about such that I would trust is THE NEW YORK TIMES. Thanks anyway.
We have a spending problem - not a tax problem. There are no Bush tax cuts. The rates are staying the same as they have been for 10 years. The government spends too much. They are wasteful and corrupt with our hard earned money. Guess what? You can tax every “rich” person 100%, take away their homes, cars, businesses, shoes, toothpaste, flat screen TV, dog, cat, jewelry, etc. and that still would not pay down the deficient and debt. It is really that bad. Do you know that we really owe more than 13 trillion dollars? With unfunded promises made for pensions, social security, Medicaid and Medicare alone, the number is believed to be more like 60 trillion dollars, plus or minus. In the state of Ohio alone, the State Teachers Retirement System is 40 BILLION dollars underfunded and the state is in debt 8 Billion dollars. Better than California, Illinois and New York, but still dismal. This can not be fixed by taxing the “rich” only. When you tax the “rich” job creation is affected.
The democratic party has become the party of class warfare - a very, very dangerous way to govern. Can you define who the “rich” are? I heard there are 375,000 millionaires in the United States. If you have a million dollars, do you feel rich if you live in New York City with a small business and you are filing on an individual tax form? Do you think it is fair to tax a dead person after they already paid taxes on that money while they were still alive? Do you pay more taxes than is asked of you, LA girl? Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, Obama, Barbara Boxer, Charlie Rangel (whoops, he’s a tax cheat), Tim Geitner (whoops, he’s another tax cheat, too), you and all the other “rich” people in Congress and Hollywood can give the government more of their own money by going to www.treasury.gov . I say, let’s just have a website with all the people like you and them clamoring that the “rich” should pay more, showing that they have indeed paid more. Let’s see a list, with proof, that they have written checks beyond what is required. It has to be at least 3% more of their income or more! Come on now! They won’t miss it!
I don’t align with only one group of politicians or TV news entities - I align with principles that support the freedoms outlined to us in The Constitution and if the talking heads or politicians, no matter if they are “D’s” or “R’s” support the principles of The Constitution that protect individual property rights, labor and such, they have my loyalty.
Okay, so who do you define as the “rich” and do you donate more money to the US government than is required of you? Let me be clear, I’m not talking about “donating” a lousy $15 bucks extra. I’m taking percentages. Do you know the percentage of Americans that are not required to pay federal income taxes? Do you know what percentage of taxes the top 10% of income tax payers pay? People should be thanking them everyday for their contributions. Where do you think money comes from to fund government? I am curious to understand your disdain for the “rich”, however that may be defined.
You can private message me with your thoughts.
You should actually read the article. From your response, it’s obvious you haven’t. You did indicate a desire for knowledge. It’s not done by Fox News, so it’s not one-sided by any means.
If rates are staying the same as they have been for 10 years when Bush was in office and implemented them, then they’re Bush cuts. They didn’t help our economy in the last 10 years. Why should they be extended when we have a deficit? And overall, our taxes are at an all-time low anyway, which may not be the best idea when we have a huge deficit, don’t you think?
The Republican Party is always talking about cutting spending. They just have a hard time actually pointing out where exactly we should cut. What specific items do you propose we cut from the budget? No politician can ever answer that question.
To fund that “underfunded retirement system” you mentioned, they’d need to take away some of your income too. That’s how those “socialist” programs get “funded”. And those unemployed teachers in Ohio who you may know also get paid by those taxes others pay to the government. If they take away some of that “spending”, they’ll take away some of those other government jobs your luckier friends are still enjoying a paycheck from.
No one is wasteful with your money. I’m assuming you’re not in the top 3% that’s benefitting from these cuts (that’s who’s getting breaks right now, so obviously I’m talking about them), so it’s not your money. Your interests should lie with your income bracket. It can’t be both since financial benefits for those 3% have nothing to do with your personal financial well-being.
And I never said we should take away money from the rich so I have no idea why you’re attacking me for it. I make good money, so it’s not in my best interests either. What I don’t agree with is extending these cuts in our current economic situation when there is no indication they helped the economy in the last 10 years.
People with your views were screaming for no regulations on the banks because trickle-down economics works so well and big bad government is trying to stop it. If there was gov’t regulation, we would have saved a lot of money that’s now part of that deficit. Then they rallied for Bush tax cuts, which took away spending money, but they forgot to cut spending to compensate for it. Instead, they started two wars to add to the spending. And here we are asking to extend the cuts even though we still haven’t cut any spending to compensate. that should show you that your people aren’t interested in the well-being of this country. They’re only concerned with the paybacks to the interests they have alignments with (banks, corporations and their owners who are of course in the top 3%, oil and weapons companies, etc).
I did read the article. I said I don’t trust the NY Times. I have good reasons for saying that.
Tax cuts have worked every time they have been tried. The Bush cuts brought 15% more revenue into the IRS. I can source that for you, too. The problem is government spending. They just can’t control themselves, dems and repubs alike, when they get that money. The tax cuts helped the economy grow by 4% and then the crooks in congress spend 8% more. How much of my money do they want? Let’s see. I pay federal taxes, state taxes, county taxes, city taxes, school tax, social security taxes, medicare/medicaid taxes, alternative minimum taxes, property taxes, sales tax, gas tax, cell phone tax, telephone federal excise tax, telephone federal universal service fee tax, telephone federal, state and local surcharge tax, telephone minimum usage surcharge tax,vehicle license registration tax, vehicle sales tax, workers compensation tax, utility taxes, cable taxes, blow my nose taxes, dog license tax, inventory tax, liquor tax, and I will have to pay taxes on money I leave after I’m dead for which I already paid taxes on when I was alive. That’s not all! I then have to pay an accountant because the tax codes and forms are too overwhelming to understand. Now, I am told that they need more money when I already pay over 50% of the money I earned honestly, by removing hair. How much do they want from me?
I don’t know what country you think you live in, but I can tell you that the government does waste and corrupt just about everything they touch. California’s pensions are unfunded by 59 Billion dollars. Illinois pension’s unfunded by 54 billion dollars. Cities are barely holding all - running out of money. Big government, big labor and big business and the poor get the money and then keep telling me to get my wallet out because I am lucky or just plain greedy. The harder I work, the luckier I get! It’s unfair, it’s unsustainable and it will all crash. I guarantee you that if they got even 3% more of my money, it would not go to pay down the deficit and debt.
Spending cuts: Here’s a solution - Cutting 10% across the board - no exceptions and a national sales tax is one of the better ideas that I have heard.
All the pension funds are underfunded and ALL will have to take a hit meaning big governemnt,big labor and teachers. No exemptions. No sacred cows. I did nothing to screw that up, but I will have to pay the price.
You say,
“No one is wasteful with your money. I’m assuming you’re not in the top 3% that’s benefitting from these cuts (that’s who’s getting breaks right now, so obviously I’m talking about them), so it’s not your money. Your interests should lie with your income bracket. It can’t be both since financial benefits for those 3% have nothing to do with your personal financial well-being.”
The people above me are the job creators, small businesses and the givers to charity. They should not be demonized and weakened. We clearly need them. I do care about their financial well-being and their incentive to keep productive because we need them to work and pay taxes.
You said, "Is worrying about giving 3% tax cuts for the richest and addiing estate tax cuts on top of those the right thing to do given this deficit you’re talking about? "
And now you say,
“And I never said we should take away money from the rich so I have no idea why you’re attacking me for it. I make good money, so it’s not in my best interests either. What I don’t agree with is extending these cuts in our current economic situation when there is no indication they helped the economy in the last 10 years”.
[size:14pt]Hey![/size] You don’t tax people in a severe recession on any level. I didn’t go to Harvard or Columbia like our genius president, but I know this economic concept well. I graduated from the University of Common Sense. “O” reluctantly NOW understands the same concept and that is why there is tax cut chaos with his dems who want to let the tax “cuts” expire for the “rich”. Oh, and thanks for not answering my questions on just who the rich are? Convenient.
You said, “People with your views were screaming for no regulations on the banks because trickle-down economics works so well and big bad government is trying to stop it. If there was gov’t regulation, we would have saved a lot of money that’s now part of that deficit. Th they rallied for Bush tax cuts, which took away spending money, but they forgot to cut spending to compensate for it. Instead, they started two wars to add to the spending. And here we are asking to extend the cuts even though we still haven’t cut any spending to compensate. that should show you that your people aren’t interested in the well-being of this country. They’re only concerned with the paybacks to the interests they have alignments with (banks, corporations and their owners who are of course in the top 3%, oil and weapons companies, etc).”
I’ve heard those talking points many times. Big yawn. You sound desperate now. How do you know what my views are on regulations and trickle down? I never told you. I think you are out of control and grappling for anything to yap on about. I think you are profiling me. I think I would like to hear you say you are going to write a big fat check to the IRS to help pay down the deficit because you have a great job with big money and you can afford to give up 3% more of your income. Come on, you can start a revolution here, maybe get your own website, get on Chris Matthews Show and send a tingle down his leg for paying more than you have to to the federal government.
LAgirl, you can private message me if you want for further discussion. I never run out of words.
Since I missed a lot of this discussion, I want to clarify somethings. I know this has been total thread jacking, but before we end this, I figure I should say this, since my position has been misunderstood.
LAgirl:
Being radical is proposing to abolish the government altogether as James seems to suggest. All I did is demonstrate that your statements are not logical.
I brought up fire fighters and police to make an obvious point. There is no logical or rational reason to claim that that type of socialism is fine and the one concerning healthcare isn’t. The way our system is set up currently is to encourage insurance companies to get out of paying as many claims as possible so they can make the most profit (their goal and commitment to shareholders as publicly traded corporations). I’ve worked for publicly traded companies all of my life so far. I know what we’re being asked to do. Working for yourselves may have isolated you from that.
James:
Mr. Walker may appear to be radical, and depending upon one’s definition of the word, he is just that, while other definitions leave him to be not radical at all. Although it may appear that James is an Anarchist, the truth is closer to Jeffersonian limited government powers. The nation founded by the Articles of Association, Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation, and The Constitution is one where the sovereignty of the individual is sacred, as is that of the cities, the states, and finally, the place of the federal government is that of agent for the previously mentioned entities. To have a strong centralized government debilitating the powers of the people, the cities and the states and rationing out services, benefits, and projecting power both internally and externally is diametrically opposed to the idea of what this nation was founded upon. Both Jefferson and Franklin cautioned that it may be necessary to rebel against the government about every 20 years, in order to halt the typical march towards totalitarianism that magnetically draws governments to seize more power, and enfeeble its citizens.
The so-called two party system in the US is a Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dumber system designed to fraction the voters, while keeping new parties incapable of competing with the establishment. Don’t believe it, just run for a position, any position, and see how the system cheats you out of your just position on the ballot.
Although I would love to talk about how the the Democratic-Republicans (often called Republicans for short at the time), fractured leaving the Democratic Party on one side and The Whig Party on the other. I would also like to dig into history to discuss how the opposition having abandoned the term Republican, The Republican Party of today was founded in 1854 to continue the policies of the Whig party, but I will shut up on that too. I will only say that when I say that the so-called two party system is really two parts of the same coin, there is more than one historically accurate way to argue that point, and the funniest to me is that they really were once, by all accounts, a single party.
As for the national debt, President Andrew Jackson solved it, and we could do the same solution with just $144,000,000 and about six weeks worth of paperwork to revert to the constitutionally and financially sound monetary policy of that time, which had lasted up until the end of the administration of Pres. James Buchanan
To avoid a long twisting discussion on things, I will say that when discussing government, follow the money, and follow the power. If you find the direction the money is flowing, you will also find the source of the power, and the targets for enfeeblement, and destruction.
The founding fathers of the US believed that the government should fear the people, not the people fearing the government. While the governemt is supposed to be the contractual agent of the collective will of the people, this government is serving the interests of the enemies of the people it is honor bound to represent. This is one reason that strong federal government was discouraged, because while it is easy to know if a local law represents the collective will and interests of the people, this nation is too vast for the average person to have a feel for the collective will of the population, even if it is easier to see where the best service of the national interests may be. The more self sufficient we are, the more sovereign we can be, and that is why the government pushes a web of evern more complex interconnectivity, so that it can remotely fluctuate access, and output, and the prices of the same, and all without the people being able to see the sources of these mechinations.
I hope this clears things up a bit.
Yes, IT IS BETTER FOR THE GOVERNMENT TO FEAR THE PEOPLE THAN THE PEOPLE TO FEAR THE GOVERNMENT.
Yes, FOLLOW THE MONEY TRAIL - ALWAYS. GO see “Inside Job”.
NO, to creeping SOCIALISM. We are not Europe and we do not want to be like Europe, but it may be too late.
No, TO THIS MASSIVE GOVERNMENT SPENDING. I agree with the people who say this administration is following the Cloward-Piven strategy of overburdening the entitlement system to collapse the economy.
There is nothing in there to trust or not to trust. The article provides facts. You can take those facts and apply logic, and come up with a conclusion. You don’t have to take anyone else’s conclusion, though theirs is logical and makes sense. You’re biased before even opening it, so it prevents you from seeing that. Or you refuse to actually think things through due to your biases. It’s hard to tell.
Yes, let’s see a source on how the Bush tax cuts helped the economy. It doesn’t actually exist. You’re trying to speak in general. Unfortunately, real life doesn’t work like that. We had those cuts for 10 years and we’ve had the worst economy in dozens of years in those 10 years. Prior to the cuts we had a much better economy. That’s an undisputable fact, even by you. So by your logic, “enough tax money” is probably closer to those previous rates.
All other modern countries pay a lot more than we do. Public services cost a lot. Social Security and Medicare costs some. A huge portion of your tax dollars is supporting the wars that you probably supported. Everything else is miniscule in comparison, so cutting 10% there is going to have a huge impact on services and gov’t jobs without much return: http://www.warresisters.org/pages/piechart.htm
http://www.federalbudget.com/
No one is suggesting that all government institutions are run in the most efficient manner. In fact, pretty much everyone agrees that they’re not. But that doesn’t mean they have too much money. It mostly means it’s not allocated properly - why teachers get crap pay and there is a lack of them in general, especially good ones, for example (see Waiting for Superman documentary). That said, no one is asking for more of YOUR taxes. In fact, both of the last two presidents gave back taxes to people in your income bracket. So I don’t know what you’re complaining about when it comes to your hard-earned money.
That’s not a solution. I’m not asking for how much money to cut. I’m asking which specific PROGRAMS we should cut. Huge difference. Should we cut 10% of the police force in Columbus, Ohio in the worst neighborhood there? That would be a part of your current proposal. Or should we cut 10% of the Social Security budget, which means it will be even more underfunded for future generations? Coming up with abstract ideas is easy, but making practical decisions isn’t.
This is called trickle-down economics. So I’m not sure why you’re stating that I’m making up your opinions. You’re stating them yourself. I’m going by exactly what you yourself are saying.
Of course I did. I said it was top 3%. I wasn’t talkigng about “the rich” as a general term anyway. I was always talkign specifically about those who got the tax cuts because that was the topic.
This is all non-answers. What I provided aren’t “talking points”. I’m not a politician. I gave you facts and you choose to ignore them because it’s easier to just be mad at the entire “big government” like it’s some one big entity and a big bad bully with goals and desires to bankrupt you. It’s non-logic. And really elementary thinking in “good and bad” terms instead of facts. We’re not talking about a childen’s book here.
And once again, you sounds silly mentioning “socialism” unless you’re against all the government services we already have in place and want them all abolished. As I already explained, ALL of those services you enjoy are SOCIALISM.
You should really make it to Europe sometime. I’ve lived there and I can tell you that people are generally much happier, spend a lot more time with their families because they get more vacation time and consider it an important part of a balanced life (because it is), and aren’t constantly worried about being in debt for the rest of their lives if something unfortunate beyond their control happens to them (and interestingly enough, they’re still not living beyond their means on credit like many Americans). Oh yeah, and they can remove their hair for free as you can tell from the story of the person in this thread.
James, no rational people are fearing the government. It’s just the brainwashing the Tea Party, Fox News and other promoters of propoganda are putting forward. If you think you’re living in anything close to a totalitarian regime, you’re dillusional. The only people who believe that are those who haven’t been that many places or seen how other people live and how other places function, and just blindly listen to propoganda. Propoganda like that is what helped create and sustain communist, nationalistic and totalitarian regimes btw. So that’s who you should really fear.
And we actually agree on both the ridiculousness of a two-party system and lobbiests (what you really mean by “control of the government”). However, I am thinking practically on how to get positive things done given the current situation that’s not so easy to change, and both of you seem to want to just find abd demonize one entity of some sort to blame for all the problems.
Ok, once again, we have found common ground LAgirl. It is nice when that happens.
From the perspective of 1776, we are in a totalitarian utopia. From the perspective of the year 2010, we know it can get MUCH WORSE. It is a matter of perspective. How many government owned cameras photographed you today, while your cell phone both informed on your movements, via GPS, and your voice calls, text messages, and emails are monitored and stored? Jeffersonians would argue the government has no business having this information, or the power to do any of this.
I feel a song coming on.