a question for you Ron Paul fans

[callmeslick]

You act like these guys have some inherent claim to rule this country

why not? They own it, well, most of it, at least. Further, the same folks have essentially been running the show for over 200 years and it's worked ok, for the most part. Sure, they let a few folks into the club, once in a great while they boot some out, but pretty much a consistent pool.of talent.

.

It's no wonder the noose is closing around our necks with people like you thinking you have some kind of God-given right to rule the masses in whatever manner you choose. The difference from now and then, is then they were doing everything they could for the good of the country, now they are just whoring us out.

always were, if the price was right......now, to a great extent, please understand that I am writing what I am here, and above, partly out of sense of playing Devil's Advocate, coupled with giving the unvarnished reality. Of course, if you could wake the collection of dolts which currently comprise the vast bulk of American society to your great revelation, you might get somewhere. Otherwise, it will be business as usual. Meet for drinks at the Yacht Club in Onancock and I'll gladly fill you in on the gory details.

Seriously, though, you make some seemingly viable points, but they just don't jive with reality. The controlling elite, or whatever one wishes to call that class, act in the 'public' interest when it dovetails with their long-term interest. And frankly, the vibe I get at the moment is that a lot of that group has given up on the 'public' as a bunch of over-entitled whiners focused on goofball religious trends, mass consumption lowbrow culture and a celebration of the coarse, uneducated and obscene. Can you fault that line of thinking? How long have we watched the denigration of higher education, the diminishment of what used to be(as recently as the 1970's) the pinnacle of the world art scene, the reduction of serious political discourse into 'sound bites'?

This world has 7 billion people on it now, good luck!!

so? If, say, 200 million of them live really well and the others alternately scrape for a meager existence, kill one another through crime or war, and starve to death in large clumps, what is the difference to the planet? Hell, that could well help out with the whole environmental mess, when such a small fraction consume significant energy or food. Ever study population biology, or population dynamics? Fascinating stuff. It applies to homo sapiens as well as any other species, by the way.

[flip]

Hey, I'm just saying..... All the things you just said wasn't said so easily years ago;) but I had an advantage, an outline if you will, so I will not be unaware or surprised. It's dead on so far.

[callmeslick]

interesting stat on TV tonight.....the 400 wealthiest Americans have more assets than the 150,000,000 poorest, combined.
Or, as I put it above, they DO own it.

[flip]

To him who much has been given, much will be required. Going on that premise, I would say it's more accurate to say they covet and hoard more than they actually "own." If that's the case, they have a certain responsibility and accountability to make it work for all. Unless of course you are right, then get your dancing shoes on .

[Sergeant Thorne]

I appreciate your perspective on that, callmeslick, and I tend to agree with your logic with two main exceptions: we don't need them to run our country--this is something that has been done for their benefit--for their gain--for their purposes, with concessions made to the ignorant (and actively deceived) majority. The everyday citizen has suffered from this rule. To portray it any other way is disingenuous. Secondly, can you tell me, where has their right to rule derived from?

[callmeslick]

Secondly, can you tell me, where has their right to rule derived from?

can't really add much to your first part, but this one? Heck, the 'right' to rule isn't so much a right as a privilege granted to those that :
1. were financially benefitted by us winning the revolution(big boost to certain large landowning families, and certain northern
businessment).
2. were, due to 1, the folks looked up to in their local societies, and thus put into office at the founding
3. set up the rules looking to their own class or group being the 'prime' beneficiaries. Bear in mind, to the Jeffersons, Adams'
and all, they and their peers were the 'people' they spoke of. Heck, they accepted the wholesale ownership of some segment
of their fellow men......what more does one need to know?

Therefore, it is easy to trace a huge chunk of today's wealth and especially influence, which is far different, to folks who either go directly back to Colonial wealth, or those who developed familial wealth in the first 75 years of the nation's existence. Most of those
in the influential class who don't fall into that category have direct networked ties to institutiuons that cater to the elites(Ivys, north and south, certain banks and certain organizations(Union league, for example, or the DAR/SAR, or FFV or Masons, to name but a few. So, not some sort of given 'right', just an assumed mantle, a nobless oblige, if you will. The problem, in modern times, is a distinct lack of interest among that class in social justice. As I stated above, I have detected for a couple decades a growing dismissal of the common American as disdainful of education, work, culture or any nobility of character. Right or wrong, that assessment carries a lot of weight today, if one travels in certain circles, and it has become difficult to sell the concept of maintaining a society which maintains some balance between the haves and have-nots.

[Spidey]

I really hate to break this to you but…all of those people are DEAD, and now you are stuck with explaining to a person who doesn’t believe in original sin (the passing of things from generation to generation, such as rights or guilt, property not withstanding) how the descendents of these DEAD people inherit said rights.

Now if you wish to simply concede wealth = power…then we can agree.

[callmeslick]

I really hate to break this to you but…all of those people are DEAD, and now you are stuck with explaining to a person who doesn’t believe in original sin (the passing of things from generation to generation, such as rights or guilt, property not withstanding) how the descendents of these DEAD people inherit said rights.

Now if you wish to simply concede wealth = power…then we can agree.

no, in no way does it work as simply as wealth equals power. To give you an example, JayZ and Beyonce are fabulously wealthy,
probably to the tune of a half-billion dollars. Do they have anywhere near the effective power of some of the minor DuPonts, for example? No way. Not even close, if one defines power as the ability to influence governmental or financial decision making.
Now, I am sorry if you read me as fully serious when I said those descendants had the right to their power and influence, but the fact remains they HAVE it, and here, as in many things in life, possession is at least nine tenths of the law.

[callmeslick]

let me put it to you differently, Spidey. As I am trying to say, this isn't a matter of some conferred, agreed-upon right. View it, if you will, as a matter of upbringing and networking. Folks from certain families are raised with the expectation of a certain level of influence. The children are well educated, often in the exclusive company of others of the same class. More importantly, they are exposed, from what may seem an early age to folks in positions of political power. Dinner with the governor's family, a lunch meeting with a Senator, sharing the box at a football game with a Congressman. They get sent away to higher education, build more networks and emerge with a far greater entree to the halls of power than the average citizen can ever hope to have. And, so long as this little network holds the reins, that pathway continues to be the primary source of each succeeding generation of 'power elite' or whatever one wishes to call them. We, in America, always avoided the trappings and pomp of a nobility or peerage, but, trust me, we have one, it has carried on it's business since Day 1 of the nation, and, to ignore that reality is to forever fall short of understanding how things need to change, or how things need to get done. One rather small group provides the overwhelming majority of the people who run every aspect of the nation. It's neither as organized, nor as insidious as ary of the goofy conspiracies one can read about(Freemasons, various One-World groups, Trilateralists, take your pick). Still it is the unseen part of the organizational chart.

[flip]

It's the part that is hidden and has no accountability. They self-rule and dictate what is supposed to be and always remain a democratic republic. It's kind of insidious but as you say, I doubt you could point the finger at any one individual. It's the idea that because of some fortunate timing on their ancestors part, they are entltled to dictate politics in what is supposed to be a democratic republic. A government by the people and for the people, one that took the common good into account at every juncture. By becoming what they have and by showing disdain for the principals that this nation was built on, they are at complete odds with the idea of what our society would become. You say this was always intended by the architects. I say they should have been forthright about it then.

[flip]

LOL. Imagine the waterboy saying.

"Well, y,ya,yall just a bunch of lieing mofo's then"

[Sergeant Thorne]

It may well boil down to what callmeslick has described, but I guarantee that every one of the folks who wields power and influence over a people ignorant of it, to take advantage of or defraud them, has not gotten to that point without making decisions that were very wrong. And inasmuch as they wield power or influence to ends contrary to the ideals of individual liberty and our constitution, they are guilty, and can must be held morally accountable regardless of right to rule.

The idea that the founders of our nation had a legitimate hand in the power/influence structures of our day is easily seen for what it is when you consider how they divided up power, and is just as effectively refuted by the fact that present-day elites have no use, conceptually, for the governmental constructs authored by the founders. These systems were not designed to accommodate the interests of the kind of ruling elite we find ourselves under today.

[callmeslick]

It may well boil down to what callmeslick has described, but I guarantee that every one of the folks who wields power and influence over a people ignorant of it, to take advantage of or defraud them, has not gotten to that point without making decisions that were very wrong. And inasmuch as they wield power or influence to ends contrary to the ideals of individual liberty and our constitution, they are guilty, and can must be held morally accountable regardless of right to rule.

these thoughts, plus 89 cents, will get you any size coffee at McDonalds, if I heard the ads correctly. Beyond that, they are meaningless.

The idea that the founders of our nation had a legitimate hand in the power/influence structures of our day is easily seen for what it is when you consider how they divided up power, and is just as effectively refuted by the fact that present-day elites have no use, conceptually, for the governmental constructs authored by the founders. These systems were not designed to accommodate the interests of the kind of ruling elite we find ourselves under today.

of course they were. In fact, precisely so. The powerful families of the time can be roughly seen as from the Northeastern urban centers(Philly, New York, Boston, a few others) or from the plantation states (Virginia south). The setup of the House and Senate, along with the electoral college were designed SPECIFICALLY to make a union wherein neither of those groups could run roughshod over one another, and that both could coexist happily and control their regions(um, State's Rights?). And, since I am contending that, for all intents and purposes, you have the same ruling elite you had in 1784, give or take a few branches and regional developments, that system still works in the same way. Now, I'll grant you that the founders probably didn't envision the absolute travesty we have seen many levels of politics sink to, but, then again, wasn't it Jeffereson who linked the education and involvement of the population to the functionality of the system they set up?

[callmeslick]

Thorne, I don't agree with the malicious view you take. When one succeeds, and succeeding generations snowball the initial success via thrift and sound investment, that isn't taking unfair advantage. When the current generations are the upshot of, literally, 7 or 8 or more generations of upbringing to lead, the fact that they are the controlling elite, to my mind, is largely benign. In other words, they run the show because:
1. They own the most stuff
2. They have been raised to understand politics, economics and other more subtle factors FAR more than most kids,
and the gap here is getting more pronounced over the past couple of generations.
3. The rest of the populace has chosen(conspiracy theorists might suggest they have been led) to focus on such
drivel as pop culture, showy materialism and sensationalist demagogues(notably on the right, see Glenn Beck or Rush
Limbaugh as prime examples).

it's all a matter of competetive advantage, coupled with the set of rules that was designed to benefit them. Is it somehow malicious that these folks aren't rushing to change a system the rest of the people aren't clamoring to see changed?

[Sergeant Thorne]

When one succeeds, and succeeding generations snowball the initial success via thrift and sound investment, that isn't taking unfair advantage.

Looking good so far.

When the current generations are the upshot of, literally, 7 or 8 or more generations of upbringing to lead, the fact that they are the controlling elite, to my mind, is largely benign. In other words, they run the show because:
1. They own the most stuff
2. They have been raised to understand politics, economics and other more subtle factors FAR more than most kids,
and the gap here is getting more pronounced over the past couple of generations.
3. The rest of the populace has chosen(conspiracy theorists might suggest they have been led) to focus on such
drivel as pop culture, showy materialism and sensationalist demagogues(notably on the right, see Glenn Beck or Rush
Limbaugh as prime examples).

I don't care what the percentage of "benign" is. There are a lot of very unbenign things being perpetrated in this country, and these things are clearly happening with their consent. If you're not a patriot and you have no influence, then you're a fool. If you're not a patriot and you have power and influence... woe is you.

it's all a matter of competetive advantage, coupled with the set of rules that was designed to benefit them. Is it somehow malicious that these folks aren't rushing to change a system the rest of the people aren't clamoring to see changed?

Frame it how you will. See above. A convenient inaction can be just as wrong as an action. Moses chose to suffer with the people of God rather than enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season, that in spite of the fact that we could easily draw the conclusion that he was benign in his role as Egyptian upper-class by the fact that he defended the Israelite who was wronged.

I'm not being malicious. I don't hate rich people. I'm the dolt that believes that the only difference between them and us is discipline, etc, remember? I'm all for inheritance, and any and all privileges and conveniences which that brings with it. That's not at all the problem here. The problem, on a miriad of different levels is simple: money and power over principle and freedom. You said it yourself, you and your friends will vote Obama in because... he upholds the constitution? Defends the Bill of Rights? Secures the borders? Works to bring sound money back? How about tells the truth, even? Which one of these was it?

[flip]

Slick you have a very narrow and one-sided view of things. Thorne is absolutely right. Take the duress that Woodrow Wilson was under for instance. These changes and the design that we see now was not at it's very inception, with the very old money. It was by force and coercion of vast wealth made at the beginning of the industrial revolution. As these "current families" started amassing great wealth and control over natural resources, they started bending the path of this country to suit themselves. Thugs.

[callmeslick]

I can cite you dozens, maybe hundreds, of influential familites who both predated, and had nothing to do with the Industrial Age for their economic foundations. Sure, many invested and stil do, in major industrial concerns, but the foundations of their wealth are purely agricultural.

[callmeslick]

we've gotten well off the Ron Paul topic,but some worthwhile tangents, IMHO. For those unclear of where I'm going here, or why, it is this(and it's a point that has been both missed and rejected elsewhere, so I have few illusions):

until the general public learns to unify for their self interest, they will continue to be used and abused by the powers-that-be. Given the current state of disinterest in the 'public good' by most of the ruling elite, that level of abuse will continue to grow. How long are people going to be dumb enough to keep accepting such crap as 'don't tax job creators' and 'we can't have a still inheritance tax because someday you might be wealthy' and, of course, 'rich person envy drives Progressive politics'? What has happened for over 40 years is that political forces drove a wedge between various groups and instead of self-interest, we see the politics of
black vs. white vs. hispanic, 'liberals' vs. 'conservatives', North vs. South, rural vs. urban. It's all a smokescreen, and just as with major economic downturns, when the dust settles, the same people always win out. As, IIRC, Warren Buffett noted, the class war is long over, and our side won.........

And, to return to original topic, NOTHING, but NOTHING in the message of Ron Paul addresses this issue. If anything, his policies would solidify the inequities and growth in the gap between rich and poor, as if such were needed.

[Sergeant Thorne]

What has happened for over 40 years is that political forces drove a wedge between various groups and instead of self-interest, we see the politics of
black vs. white vs. hispanic, 'liberals' vs. 'conservatives', North vs. South, rural vs. urban. It's all a smokescreen, and just as with major economic downturns, when the dust settles, the same people always win out.

Now that I can see.

I can't reconcile taxation with class warfare, and your post isn't helping me out there. There's nothing inherently bad for poor people in the fact that rich people are rich, in my mind. I could come up with problems, but they all either boil down to a governmental imbalance or a lack of laws preventing big business running rough-shod over and infringing on the rights of the little guy. All of these boil down to common sense and individual rights, never spilling into a consideration of whether or not someone is too rich. Going to have to strike that one at a different angle if you have a point to gain.

EDIT: I believe I have heard that certain groups pay NO taxes, and that is wrong. Someone who makes more money than I do, and presumably engages in more business--more purchasing should be paying more taxes, but in my mind there is still no justification for a higher percentage rate.

[flip]

I would also argue that most of the early founders also thought of themselves as nobility, and framed our constitution as such. A feeling that obviously diminished over time.

[callmeslick]

saw an interesting list today(source: Forbes)- they listed the 10 wealthiest men, at time of election, to serve as President.
#1--Washington
#3--Jefferson

It's essentially irrelevent to anything I said directly, but I did find it interesting. Just never considered that to be the case.


On and to Sgt. Thorne--where it comes in on taxation is that taxation is a part of the whole budgetary thing. And, as with most
Progressive policies, the source of the policy is to soften the harshness of life for those least fortunate under the social contract we call the USA. Given that sense, to my mind, justifies social security, welfare, educational assistance, medicare, medicaid and unemployment insurance, we either collect ample revenue to fund them or run a deficit. The past route, we all can agree, cannot continue indefinitely. Thus, taxation, which to alleviate massive harm to a consumer economy, should, sensibly, target disproportionately those who can best afford it. Further, and this is the problem at the current time, the least fair option is to give a 50% discount to the beneficiaries of inherited wealth and run a flood of red ink.

[Sergeant Thorne]

The earliest founders of our government did not consider it their right to distribute the wealth of the people, and I am of the same mind. "Legal robbery," as Frederich Bastiat called it. Taxation is for the purpose of funding the costs of the society we SHARE and use to varying degrees, not for the purpose of funding other members of that society. I am not for "progressive"/socialist government. It's not right, and it doesn't work. I will never lend my support to the unequal/unjust taxation of members of our society, no matter how affluent, on no grounds other than that we deem them able to bear it. There must be a more sound reason for taxation. They buy more, they spend more, they use the roads more, etc, etc. To that degree let them be taxed and no further. To do more than that is un-American.

[callmeslick]

Thorne, realize that I really have more concern and sympathy than the words below indicate, but the following were my
initial to thoughts to your last post.

heh-heh-heh.......keep drinking the kool-aid. My grandchildren will love you all for it. I hope the best for yours, in the structure
we have in place now. It's going to get really harsh, with your view of a fair society for about 90% of the populace if the trends
(income disparity, wealth disparity, massive advantage to non-wage income) of the present continue. And, my grim view really goes past the fate of the poor, when we essentially evolve into a society with little or no 'middle class'. Take a look at Mexico and see how fun it is being one of the rich in a nation gone to lawless crap. Some life, behind walls and bodyguards.

.

[Sergeant Thorne]

I'm afraid your focus on fixing real problems is plainly in subservience to too great a degree to your progressive ideals, which themselves are indisputably furthered at the expense of constitutional government consistent with individual liberty, and that puts you at odds with any real solutions in this case. You present a problem and then jump right over what would seem are more obvious possible solutions in order to push these things. Taxation need not be unjust to prevent the injustice of a system biased toward a certain class. Two wrongs cannot make a right, as the saying goes. You need only deal with the injustice itself. Furthermore your treatment of this topic implies that the existence of a middle-class is predicated on a system of government which leans unequally on the wealthy. That, in my mind, is absurd.

Question: wouldn't it go a long way toward fixing the problem you present if the loopholes were closed and the wealthy and businesses paid an equal percentage of taxes?

Thorne, realize that I really have more concern and sympathy than the words below indicate, but the following were my
initial to thoughts to your last post.

Hehe. I appreciate that. Just so you know I'm trying my best not to just shut the whole discussion down. The above underwent a good 45-60 minutes of editing in order to preserve my initial thoughts in a less combative form (I possess an evil genius for scathing denunciations). I appreciate your perspective on this, even if I think you're approaching the wrong conclusion wrong. I expect that you have a much better grasp of the economic aspect of all of this than I do, but I believe that you don't give adequate consideration to the ideal of individual liberty which this country certainly was founded on--the general affluence of the founders notwithstanding. They got it right, basically, despite a great deal of self-interested resistance and even a few cultural shortcomings (slavery). That hasn't changed for all of the things gone wrong with the U.S.A--liberty is still the answer for humanity and economy, the constitution is still the best answer for government, and educated argument is still the answer to public ignorance and gullibility (we're fighting quite the uphill battle because there is a virtual flood of deliberate deception and misinformation in this age of media).

.

Heh, I caught that.

[Sergeant Thorne]

I need to ask, what "kool-aid" am I supposedly drinking? Is it drinking the kool-aid to believe in justice--to believe that individuals should be taxed proportionately to the degree that they enjoy the benefits of society, whether they're poor, middle-class, or rich. I don't know. The suggestion that we need to tax the rich because the gap between them and the poor is growing seems to me first to be absolutely impertinent, and then, as I said, kind of ridiculous. They're getting too rich! Tax them! Gee, you know if this government were as it should be it shouldn't matter who makes what--it should have no impact on government. They're still only an individual! Rule of Law. You'd get further with "The country is in financial straights, we're not taking in enough tax revenue! Tax them!" To which I would reply that we obviously need to look first at cutting spending, since there are no special, declared, extenuating circumstances. Sorry, the answers just aren't matching the questions here. Of course part of that is that you feel the need to include things like government run welfare as necessities in the calculations, which is an automatic fail in my book, but also another argument altogether (although inseparably tied to the ideal of individual liberty, which includes responsibility for oneself, not to exclude a moral responsibility to aid one's neighbor in time of need).

[Sergeant Thorne]

And another thing, enough with this bull****:

My grandchildren will love you all for it.

Why do you think this should trouble me? And it's at once disingenuous and contradictory for you to suggest that you have no personal interest in the repairing of the American economy. You want, as do I, for your descendants to grow up in a good country (and what if they should lose their fortune?). The positives and negatives may be different for the two of us, but they are there all the same, as you go on to suggest with talk of walls and bodyguards. This might work on people who ride the other side of the class-warfare see-saw with you, but the only reaction it will provoke from me is annoyance.

[vision]

It's funny and sad to watch poor people defend rich people, people who would just as soon ★■◆● on them as look at them.

[Sergeant Thorne]

It's not sad for me. It's sad for them. In my defense of the rights of wealthy Americans I do not defend "rich people" per se.

[Heretic]

I think he is protecting the right of the wealthy to be wealthy. I think it's funny that the wealthy are crying take my money where they would just as soon as ★■◆● on you than anything else.

[callmeslick]

lots of blanket generalizations above. Especially about 'rich people', who, truth be told, are as variable a lot as poor people.
Thorne, I still disagree about your idea that individual liberty is fundamental over all other societal needs. Unrestrained 'liberty' as a concept worked when there was(for all practical purposes) unlimited land to move into and establish oneself and one's family.
That started to fade once industrialization took strong hold, and the nation was settled sea to sea(roughly 125 or more years ago).
From that point forward, you have to start thinking at a social contract which allows much in the way of personal freedom, but with some regulation and social structures in place to even out the harsh results of pure Darwinistic capitalism. The other option is a nation of oligarchs and sweatshops, with labor going to the lowest bidders. Not a pleasant reality for most. Now, I'm not talking, in any sense about doing away with free speech, free assembly, freedom of religion or the like. It's just this quaint notion that some hold which puts liberty as the exclusive factor in maintaining a society dedicated toward the 'pursuit of happiness' for all doesn't work. The world, the nation, and life itself has gotten more complicated. So too, must out system of governence.

[Top Gun]

I think that's one point that gets lost far too much in people who cite the Founders and what they intended this nation to be or not be. They were a very intelligent group of men, and they collectively generated an amazing system of government which has largely stood the test of time very well. That being said...they weren't omniscient. They couldn't see how history would progress, or how the march of time and technological advancement would change the very face of American society. I don't advocate treating the Constitution as merely a bunch of words on a piece of paper, but at the same time, treating it as a completely rigid and inflexible object does no better. Hell, the concept of judicial review alone (which was instituted when this country was still very young) illustrates how interpretation of its words can change the realities of government, often for the better.

[Spidey]

What the founders envisioned for this country other than the system of government was…at least one place on this earth where a human being can live with freedom and liberties, instead of cattle in some gilded cage.

I prefer freedom over comfort any day of the week, and twice on weekends. I also believe there should be at least one place on this earth where people can live free.

Therefore these things must be considered above all else.

I also believe some people's vision for this country are based more in fear and guilt than compassion.

[Top Gun]

"Free" can mean any number of things, though. Obviously none of us are free to do whatever crosses our minds; "My freedom to swing my fist stops at your face" and all that. So what does that word mean to you?

[Spidey]

To chart the course of my life, with the least interference.

No, I don’t take the absolutely stupid point of view that “free” means you can do anything you want…lol, only a total retard can apply that meaning.