OT: re US - rathole of dictatorship

Den tirsdag den 11. februar 2014 22.22.03 UTC+1 skrev Robert Baer:

That could easily be twisted in both directions, what people that don't want to work are you talking about, the rich or the poor?

-Lasse

Does not seem to be relevant, the Jefferson quote above stands valid in either case.

Dimiter

That was my point ;)

-Lasse

The quote is fake, Jefferson never said any such thing.

You don't anything, baboon.

I see now the have:

" This exact quotation has not been found in any of the writings of Thomas Jefferson. It bears a very vague resemblance to Jefferson's comment in a pr ospectus for his translation of Destutt de Tracy's Treatise on Political Ec onomy: "To take from one, because it is thought that his own industry and t hat of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violat e arbitrarily the first principle of association, --the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry, & the fruits acquired by it.'""

Which is as close as they can get and it has NOTHING to do with a welfare s tate. It hints of Jefferson's obsession with the tradition of primogeniture , but you wouldn't know much about that, or anything else historical, not a vailable in comic book form.

Oh, whatever you say, Einstein.

Dimiter

------------------------------------------------------ Dimiter Popoff, TGI

------------------------------------------------------

Oh, apparently I missed it :-).

Dimiter

There's the one bird there that looks like the red-bellied woodpecker

Never saw one of these here, the woodpeckers I was lucky enough to take a photo of were different. Like these:

Haven't seen any for years now. Must get a new camera toy to kick me out on more hunting walks I guess.

Dimiter

Slave pussy is mighty fine.

---Thomas Jefferson

"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not." -- Unproven!

-- This quote was not found in the Jeffersonian Cyclopedia but several people have attributed this to Jefferson. This is still under investigation.

It's a bit irritating that this pseudo-quote is being used to object to pol icies that take some tax money from those both willing to work and lucky en ough to have found jobs to work at, and spends it on keeping the unemployed health enough to work when they can find it, as well as on keeping their c hildren healthy enough to exploit any education going, and on providing qua lity education for those children.

Self-interest - properly understood - would persuade the well-off to make t his kind of long-term investment in their work force, but the Tea Party isn 't into thinking about the long term.

re

olicies that take some tax money from those both willing to work and lucky enough to have found jobs to work at, and spends it on keeping the unemploy ed health enough to work when they can find it, as well as on keeping their children healthy enough to exploit any education going, and on providing q uality education for those children.

this kind of long-term investment in their work force, but the Tea Party i sn't into thinking about the long term.

It's interesting that both Milton Friedman and Frederic Hayek believed in a guaranteed minimum income. You can't get more economically conservative th an those two, or at least Libertarian, if you want to split hairs.

It's also interesting that a majority of the common welfare money never mak es t out of D.C. I'm referring to welfare, food stamps, medicaid. I think w henever you have a layer of bureaucracy, or really any big organization, th e overhead is 150-300 percent. In the case of DC, that includes buildings, meeings, OH salaries of managers, benefits, retirement. There is one bureau cracy to collect the money (IRS), one bureaucracy to pass laws about it (Co ngress), and another to administer the give-away. (I believe that's HHS). T hat's a lot of overhead, and I have heard that 70-90% of welfare funds neve r make it out of Washington.

There is the debate about about welfare, one about socialism, and one about big government. A society can tolerate a great deal of welfare, a medium a mount of socialism, but not much big government.

Big government (BG) tends to kill the golden goose. I don't know how many U S industries I've seen shut down by regulations. The vitamin industry is an example. Today, 95% of the vitamins we take are made in China. The US regu lations have shut down the American companies, and Chinese companies have t aken over, usually with much less oversight than before.

I was part of a vitamin company strat-up, and I saw the regulations. For ex ample, we extracted ordinary grape seeds, but rules required them to be shi pped to a toxic waste dump in Nevada at high cost. And so on.

So I believe the argument isn't against welfare bums as much as the fact th at government eliminates jobs.

are

are

policies that take some tax money from those both willing to work and luck y enough to have found jobs to work at, and spends it on keeping the unempl oyed health enough to work when they can find it, as well as on keeping the ir children healthy enough to exploit any education going, and on providing quality education for those children.

ke this kind of long-term investment in their work force, but the Tea Party isn't into thinking about the long term.

a guaranteed minimum income. You can't get more economically conservative than those two, or at least Libertarian, if you want to split hairs.

akes t out of D.C. I'm referring to welfare, food stamps, medicaid. I think whenever you have a layer of bureaucracy, or really any big organization, the overhead is 150-300 percent. In the case of DC, that includes buildings , meeings, OH salaries of managers, benefits, retirement. There is one bure aucracy to collect the money (IRS), one bureaucracy to pass laws about it ( Congress), and another to administer the give-away. (I believe that's HHS). That's a lot of overhead, and I have heard that 70-90% of welfare funds ne ver make it out of Washington.

Well that's just it, the guaranteed minimum income eliminates all those par asitic trash.

ut big government. A society can tolerate a great deal of welfare, a medium amount of socialism, but not much big government.

US industries I've seen shut down by regulations. The vitamin industry is an example. Today, 95% of the vitamins we take are made in China. The US re gulations have shut down the American companies, and Chinese companies have taken over, usually with much less oversight than before.

You're out of touch on that one, maybe the herbal raw ingredients are mostl y imported from China, but the manufacture and test still happens here, and the industry is booming. There is little to none regulation of the industr y, they can sell anything they want with the disclaimer " these statements have not been verified by the FDA" blah blah blah. The FDA does spot check some products and every now and then discovers a regulated pharmaceutical a s part of the mix to enhance the effect, but all they do is issue a cease a nd desist warning to the manuacturer.

example, we extracted ordinary grape seeds, but rules required them to be s hipped to a toxic waste dump in Nevada at high cost. And so on.

that government eliminates jobs.

It's not the government so much as the people in it- a veritable cesspool o f low-lifes.

Seems those on welfare - - mostly poor.

the point was that it could just as easily be interpreted to mean taking from the working people giving it to the 1% super rich

-Lasse

You mean those who start businesses and invest their capital so others can have jobs? Those people who don't work?

Ne'er-do-wells always blame the guy who works his butt off to employ others. At first glance I thought Lasse to be an intelligent, working engineer... but it looks like he's just like our Obama voters... out for a free ride. ...Jim Thompson