my connection with the tea party

[FireIceTalon]

This applies to almost your entire post, but the quoted text is exceptionally mind shattering.

Perhaps you could enlighten me?

I would think common sense would be enough for you to realize why your statements are completely moronic, but I guess not. The fact I even have to explain this, is indeed, a very scary thing.

To put it simply, your way of thinking would take us back to the friggin Dark Ages, or at least to a time when society was desolate. I guess pre-French Revolution Paris (and post revolution for some time as well) would be a good example, when the city was so infested with poverty, no clean water supply, and the streets (if you could call them that) were filled with so much garbage, feces and urine, and just filth in general that one could smell the city before they even got within a few miles of it.

Lets get rid of all drinking water, electricity, paved roads, and housing. In fact, lets just cut every social service under the sun while we're at it and go back to hunting and gathering, drinking out of cesspools, living in caves, and throwing ourselves off the nearest cliff if we get a toothache. This is why I hate Republicans and Tea Baggers. If they had it their way, we'd still be living like cave men, and civil society would fail to advance or even cease to exist altogether. No offense man, but your ideas and way of thinking are total bullshit and unrealistic.

[kandrathe]

The Democrat and Republican split in core values in the US really sucks. There just isn't anything completely appealing about either party to the majority of the citizens. The super-rich love the Republicans for low taxes, but the really poor want Democrats for social programs. Everyone else is stuck between the two, and they have people from both sides yelling at them that their system is better.

Well, that is the soap they are trying to sell. Democrats demogogue the Republicans as "for the rich", and Republicans demogogue the Democrats as "peddling more unfunded social programs". They are sometimes right, and mostly wrong. In the end, both sides get painted with their negative brush.

Income taxes are too high, and way too high depending on where you live. The worst is probably NYC, with high local, county, and state taxes -- on top of the federal taxes. Middle class people cannot afford to live and work there anymore. On Manhattan, the average weekly wage is $1453, whereas the average in Sioux City, Iowa is $720.

Generally, tax money is mismanaged and services end up duplicated at every level creating a maze for program participants to navigate, and additional overhead costs at every level. Couple that with the propensity of our elected officials to consider tax money as free to spend on whatever tickles their fancy, pays off their contributors, or influences their re-election chances. I'm offended when they take my money and spend it, or waste it frivolously. I worked hard to earn it, and they didn't. So, they should at least respect the hard working people who paid the taxes. In spirit, I think the Tea Party represents a reclaiming of the American Revolutionary goals of creating a place different from one dominated by the tyranny of oppressive controls over their lives and livelihoods. They wanted to be "free" to engage in business with King George taking away all the profits or regulating who could and could not participate.

I'm not sure why people obsess about the top 2%, or millionaire taxes. If they earned the money legitimately, what is the difference between the hard working farmer, the hard working lawyer, or the hard working investor/entrepreneur? Mostly, they probably used their brain power, took some risks with their own money, and beat the odds to come out pretty well off. I've said this before, but I feel our government has reduced social mobility and made it more difficult for "anyone" to grab that brass ring. We need to make it easier for people to improve their station, and we can only do it by creating more opportunities and allowing people more control over their income. I want the US to house the most number of billionaires, and this should be the place where entrepreneurs should be looking to begin their enterprises. We should encourage growth of the size of the entire economic pie, allowing each person a larger slice. But, also we should discourage exploitation of people and the environment, both by corporate and colluding government interests.

Another problem is that the higher in the system hierarchy tax rates are set, the more unfair they become (federal > state > county > local). Why? Because our economies are so very different depending on where you live. A bank guard living on Long Island can hardly make it on $150,000 per year salary, but in a very rural town $150,000 might be the bank managers salary, and the guard gets $40,000. Yet, we set a federal tax rate based on income regardless of that persons cost of living.

My planks for fixing the federal level;

1. Draw down the size of the standing military, rely more on reserves, and state national guards. Turn over most of the world policing to the regional allies who have a larger stake. Collapse the empire.
   
2. Repeal the "Patriot Act" or modify it to not authorize spying on citizens and de-facto data collection.
   
3. I'd like to eliminate income tax entirely, and implement a flat tax on capital gains. I feel strongly that income taxes curtail a persons ability to better their lives. People need need to have the ability to accumulate their earnings if they are going to "invest" in their future. Taxes are better places upon consumption of manufactured items which also curbs consumerism, and an economy built upon a pyramid of excessive living.
   
4. Eliminate government subsides, and implement a fair low tariff on all imported goods to cover port and border security.
   
5. Poverty levels are set by Zip code, or census tract. Something small enough to capture the differences in local economies. The "poor" register at their county, and if below the poverty level do not pay sales tax, those within 2x poverty line pay a reduced rate. Their "discount" status could be encoded in their ID cards.
   
6. For non-poverty government services, costs need to be calculated and charged back to those who use the services.
   
7. Base road usage taxes on odometer readings. Tampering with an odometer is illegal already, so just allow people to report their odometers at purchase, sale, scrap and periodically (quarterly or yearly).
   
8. Corporate taxes would be set as the average corporate taxes of the worlds lowest 10 nations.
   
9. Each person would be required to have an tax free savings account (similar to an IRA, 10-15% of payroll) that the individual sets up with their bank when they begin working.
   
10. Peg the value of the dollar to the average price of a basket of precious commodities. This is not a volatile as a gold standard, yet eliminates the Federal Reserve and Treasury departments fiat currency shenanigans.
    
11. The Social Security retirement age would be the national average life expectancy minus 10 years, adjusted every 3 years. Transition Social Security to draw from the individuals tax free "Life account". Limit outlay payments to local cost of living, as some multiplier based on local poverty rate (e.g. 1.5x, or 2x). Whatever is unused at death goes into the pool to help underfunded retirees, after $250K (or whatever) goes to each of your dependents accounts.
    
12. Medicare would be a voucher system, and would draw from the individuals tax free "Life account".
    
13. College costs would drawn from the tax free "Life account", and allowed to go negative up to 4x national average yearly tuition, room, and board.
    
14. Eliminate at the federal level departments that are administered at the state level such as; Education, Housing, Energy, Agriculture, etc.
    
15. Privatize municipal airports, and turn over security to the airlines. Eliminate the failed TSA, and allow the airlines to determine the best methods for preventing terrorism.
    
16. End the war on drugs, the war of poverty, and all the other losing battles against concepts. Treat all drugs equally, and tax them according to their level of societal harm.
    
17. Eliminate inheritance taxes. The negative effects of disrupting family owned businesses are not worth the administrative hassles of trying to fine tune who gets tapped. Social mobility occurs over generations, therefore by restricting inheritance obviously limits generational social mobility.

I'm sure I could think of more, but that is just off the top of my head. The gist of the plan is that entitlements are self funded, and the minority of "poor" and long-lived elderly get taken care of by the spill over from the larger pool of "normal" people. The government is *really* bad at managing our individual medical and retirement affairs. They end up giving us poorer choices at far higher costs.

My concept is that we create a system where everyone funds their own education, their own medical costs, and their own retirement. Those things that we need at the federal level are paid for by a combination of tariffs, low (competitive) corporate taxes, flat tax on capital gains, and a national sales tax (exempt for those who are below the poverty line, and perhaps reduced for those within 2x the poverty level). We really *do* want to tax consumption rather than income, because for the planets sake, we need to discourage consumption and encourage income (and savings).

The fact of the matter is that the government is made up of really rich people and is lobbied by really rich people. I have a hard time believing that "governing" is their first priority.

So, then if we make government a very slim slice of the pie and get the money and power out of government it will be less attractive to the rich and power hungry. Ah, but then you might wonder that without government hindering corporations, and watch dogging the rich people they would get away with all manner of harms. I'd say that often they are doing it now, only with the aid of the state apparatus which adds the coercion of government force. Such as, mandating everyone buy certain types of products. The way to keep government power in check is to eliminate it wherever possible, and relinquish the power back to the populace.

[--Pete]

Hi,

... why your statements are completely moronic, ...

To put it simply, your way of thinking would take us back to the friggin Dark Ages, ...

... I hate Republicans and Tea Baggers. ... your ideas and way of thinking are total bullshit and unrealistic.

Another "A" paper.

--Pete

[--Pete]

Hi,

Income taxes are too high, ...

Lowest of almost all the industrial nations.

On Manhattan, the average weekly wage is $1453, whereas the average in Sioux City, Iowa is $720.

What is it in Bombay? In Monaco?

Generally, tax money is mismanaged ...

No. Generally tax money is well managed. The media doesn't report on the millions of programs and projects that come in under budget and on time. People, in general, are too stupid to work that out for themselves. All they hear about is the relatively small number of boondoggles and assume that all government programs are boondoggles. Just like they assume all boaters will drown because of a handful of stories each year about boating accidents.

So, they should at least respect the hard working people who paid the taxes.

Vote them out of office, and they will (at least) listen to you even if they don't respect you. The problem isn't with the politicians, they are just playing by the rules that are in effect. The problem is with the rules.

I'm not sure why people obsess about the top 2%, or millionaire taxes.

Because that is a nice, easy to understand, trivial, unimportant factoid that captures the imagination of the numerically illiterate and logically barren -- i.e., the vast majority of voters. I suspect that if asked to convert that 2% to a number of people in the USA, many of those voters couldn't get the number right within a factor of 10.

Another problem is that the higher in the system hierarchy tax rates are set, the more unfair they become (federal > state > county > local). Why?

Because armies are more expensive than police forces?



Addressing just some of your points:

• ... Collapse the empire.
  Rhetoric. There is no "empire". Indeed, there should be one. If we're really doing good for the people of Iraq or Afghanistan, then they should be paying us plus a bit extra.
  
  

• Repeal the "Patriot Act" or modify it to not authorize spying on citizens and de-facto data collection.
  I agree, but I suspect this is small potatoes in a budget debate.
  
  

• Poverty levels are set by Zip code, ...
  This is, IMO, a brilliant idea. I know you don't like a graduated income tax, but consider an income tax that is based on the local poverty level. Of course, there would be problems. I'll need to think about this some more, but at first blush, I think this might be the best new idea I've heard on this topic in years.
  
  

• Base road usage taxes on odometer readings. Tampering with an odometer is illegal already, so just allow people to report their odometers at purchase, sale, scrap and periodically (quarterly or yearly).
  The problem with odometer readings is that it is very easy to disconnect an odometer. There are better solutions based on available technology. They can even be used to adjust the rates for type of road (surface as opposed to limited access, for instance) and time of travel (cheaper in the wee hours or on weekends, max cost during the daily commute).
  
  

• Corporate taxes would be set as the average corporate taxes of the worlds lowest 10 nations.
  That would be zero, or nearly so. Might as well just eliminate them completely, especially since the corporations just pas those taxes on.
  
  

• Each person would be required to have an tax free savings account (similar to an IRA, 10-15% of payroll) that the individual sets up with their bank when they begin working.
  A good bad idea. If simply passing such a requirement into law were sufficient, then it would be a great idea. However, it would have to be enforced, and I suspect the enforcement of such a law would require an agency that would dwarf the SSA.
  
  

• Peg the value of the dollar to the average price of a basket of precious commodities. This is not a volatile as a gold standard, yet eliminates the Federal Reserve and Treasury departments fiat currency shenanigans.
  Right, cure the patient's cold by giving him a healthy shot of Ebola. If the Federal Reserve and Treasury Departments are indeed engaging in shenanigans, then address that (those?) issue. Monetary value linked to a commodity is not a solution -- history shows that it has plenty of troubles of its own, not the least of which is hording (although, it we link the dollar to a pound of salmon, hoarding might not be a problem for long).
  
  

• The Social Security retirement age would be the national average life expectancy minus 10 years, adjusted every 3 years. Transition Social Security to draw from the individuals tax free "Life account". Limit outlay payments to local cost of living, as some multiplier based on local poverty rate (e.g. 1.5x, or 2x). Whatever is unused at death goes into the pool to help underfunded retirees, after $250K (or whatever) goes to each of your dependents accounts.
  Let's see if I understand: you want to give me the freedom to have a government mandated "life account" rather than forcing me to pay into a social security pool. That account, which supposedly is my property, is not available to me until I reach some relatively arbitrary age (why not 5 years less than life expectancy? or 5 more than life expectancy for that matter?). Even when it is available, I'm still restricted in how much I can draw at any given time. And the "surplus" goes into some vague, heretofore unmentioned, pool. Minus, of course, some survivor benefits.
  
  Well, it might not be Social Security, but it sure smells like social security to me. The only plus I see is using the local poverty level as an index. The big minus is that it would take a huge government staff to administer and verify.
  
  

• Medicare would be a voucher system, and would draw from the individuals tax free "Life account".
  OK. What about health insurance? Do we just roll the dice and hope no one in our immediate family comes down with a major problem? Do we get the freedom of having some kind of government mandated health insurance? Do we keep the present system under which your health insurance depends on your luck in getting a job that gives you coverage? Do we just let the unfortunate die? Do we have some kind of nationalized health plan for everything more life threatening than a common cold or paper cut?
  
  Start to finish (well, to present -- it's not over yet), my little bout of leukemia has cost nearly two million dollars. That represents well over my total net worth, including investments, retirement accounts, and the value of my house. Would you expect every individual to set aside that much? It happened to me when I was nearly 60. I might, just possibly, have been able to put that much aside if you include the SS "tax". What do you do if the patient is 20 and going to med school at the time? Tell him to work for the next 40 years to get the money he needs before you'll give him the treatment that will extend his life expectancy from a few weeks to that 40 more years?
  
  

• College costs would drawn from the tax free "Life account", and allowed to go negative up to 4x national average yearly tuition, room, and board.
  In-state public college or university, tuition, room, board, and books should be covered through advanced degree subject to certain conditions. The first condition is an adequate rate and level of progress. The second is a field of study for which there is a demand (if you want to learn to paint or play an instrument, then good for you -- do it on your nickle).
  
  

• Eliminate at the federal level departments that are administered at the state level such as; Education, Housing, Energy, Agriculture, etc.
  Let's see:
  Energy -- hydroelectric dams and nuclear plants supply energy to multiple state areas (indeed, some energy is exchanged between Canada and the USA). So, yeah, it makes sense to administer that at the hamlet level.
  Agriculture -- sure. After all, the requirements of a corn stalk vary widely from county to county in the corn belt. And destructive farming practices in one county are perfectly reasonable in another. Not to mention that the runoff from the farms respect county and state lines, so the regions down stream don't need some higher authority to help keep things under control.
  Education -- on this I sort of agree with you. However, I feel that we need some national (not necessarily federal) authority to ensure that a high school diploma represents a certain level of knowledge. Perhaps the city, county, and state educational boards throughout the country need to unite and generate their own governing organization. The institutions of higher learning could support this by not accepting candidates graduating from non-accredited schools. Some alternative would have to be available for the home schooled and similar cases.
  Housing -- well, we agree on about 1 1/2 out of 4 -- about par for our discussions.
  
  

• End the war on drugs, the war of poverty, and all the other losing battles against concepts. Treat all drugs equally, and tax them according to their level of societal harm.
  This is a hodgepodge. First, there is the lexical nonsense of "war" on drugs, on poverty, on terrorism. Because of the muddled thinking this terminology leads to, we are involved in real wars that have no real effect on terrorism; the drug situation has escalated to almost guerrilla war proportions; and poverty is continued to be ignored.
  
  Terrorism is a crime, often an international crime. Treat it as such.
  
  Poverty cannot be eradicated. Hunger can. Homelessness can. However, no matter what is done, there will always be some percentage at the bottom of the economic scale (and anyone who doesn't understand that should go back to watching Survivor and leave these issues for adults). Up to some arbitrary point, these are "the poor". Whether that means they don't have enough to eat or that they have to drive a Ford instead of a Ferrari is the only really important question.
  
  Drugs? Alcohol, nicotine, caffeine are legal and yet they already cause problems with legislation that restricts what can be made, what can be sold and to whom, what taxes need to be payed to what authority. Recreational drugs? The world was going to come to an end if something wasn't done about demon rum. Something was done -- epic fail as they say nowadays. It would seem that intelligent people would learn the lesson. And they have. But the other 90% of the voters keep progress from being made.
  
  

• Eliminate inheritance taxes.
  I've mixed feelings. However, this is mostly an academic point. The present level is sufficiently high that it doesn't effect much of anyone. Those whom it does effect are mostly smart enough to incorporate themselves or set up limited partnerships so that there is no inheritance in the legal sense. The few who are both rich enough to be effected and stupid enough not to take advantage of the many loopholes deserve to pay. Call it a stupidity tax.
  

--Pete

[Jester]

[*]Peg the value of the dollar to the average price of a basket of precious commodities. This is not a volatile as a gold standard, yet eliminates the Federal Reserve and Treasury departments fiat currency shenanigans.

Could you explain how this works? How do you "peg" the value of the dollar at an average value of commodities? When I went to the treasury with my dollar and said "give me what this is worth," what would they give me? Under a gold standard, that would be a fixed quantity of gold. But under this system, what?

(Nevermind. I suppose they could just give you the fixed basket itself, and that would do the same thing.)

-Jester

[--Pete]

Hi,

How do you "peg" the value of the dollar at an average value of commodities?

Well, the new treasury would be a 7-11. A dollar would get you 1/100th of {a tank of gas, two Twinkies, a pack of Marlboroughs, a Super Gulp, and two scratch tickets}. Tax not included.

--Pete

[kandrathe]

Income taxes are too high, ...

Lowest of almost all the industrial nations.

Not really. Generally, the EU is also too high. I'm looking at "total tax rate", and not just the federal portion. But, the nations who are "eating our lunch" are well below us in total tax rate.

Here is some world bank research by Price Waterhouse Coopers.

http://www.pwc.com/gx/en/paying-taxes/data-tables.jhtml

On Manhattan, the average weekly wage is $1453, whereas the average in Sioux City, Iowa is $720.

What is it in Bombay? In Monaco?

I understand your point, but I don't care for the purposes of determining what is optimum within the US system of laws. I would leave it up to India, and Monaco to develop a scheme that is right for their citizens.

Generally, tax money is mismanaged ...

No. Generally tax money is well managed. The media doesn't report on the millions of programs and projects that come in under budget and on time. People, in general, are too stupid to work that out for themselves. All they hear about is the relatively small number of boondoggles and assume that all government programs are boondoggles. Just like they assume all boaters will drown because of a handful of stories each year about boating accidents.

Well, boondoggles aside --

I don't need to point to particulars, we can analyze this in general and ask ourselves some crucial questions. As of June 2011 numbers the US labor force was about 153.7M of which 139M are currently employed;

Based on the 2010 census...
http://www.census.gov/govs/apes/

Federal and military employment
-- 2.8 million federal employees

State and local government
-- 5.3 million state employees
-- 14.5 million local government employees

22.6M / 153.7M is about 14.7% of the workforce is employed in some government capacity. So there is one government employee for every 7 workers. I would call that inefficient. This is an employee who's wages and benefits must be taken from the taxed earnings of the other 6 workers.

So, they should at least respect the hard working people who paid the taxes.

Vote them out of office, and they will (at least) listen to you even if they don't respect you. The problem isn't with the politicians, they are just playing by the rules that are in effect. The problem is with the rules.

I do, and maybe you try to as well, but not enough of my fellow citizens can get past emotional issue politics to vote for boring people who understand leadership and management.

I'm not sure why people obsess about the top 2%, or millionaire taxes.

Because that is a nice, easy to understand, trivial, unimportant factoid that captures the imagination of the numerically illiterate and logically barren -- i.e., the vast majority of voters. I suspect that if asked to convert that 2% to a number of people in the USA, many of those voters couldn't get the number right within a factor of 10.

It's a good sound bite. Yeah! Let's get our torches and pitchforks and make old Ebenezer Scrooge pay for everything, or we'll ransack his house and take the pot of gold he's got buried in his cellar. What a mean old man, you know him not paying for tiny Tim's operation.

Another problem is that the higher in the system hierarchy tax rates are set, the more unfair they become (federal > state > county > local). Why?

Because armies are more expensive than police forces?

No, more due to differences in local economies, and the distribution of who pays taxes as opposed to those that get services. Is it fair for citizens of NYC to pay for improvements in Nome?

... Collapse the empire.

Rhetoric. There is no "empire". Indeed, there should be one. If we're really doing good for the people of Iraq or Afghanistan, then they should be paying us plus a bit extra.

I mean close down or turn over most of our foreign bases to the locals. They should deal with their own issues, and we should disentangle ourselves from every brush fire in the world.

Repeal the "Patriot Act" or modify it to not authorize spying on citizens and de-facto data collection.

I agree, but I suspect this is small potatoes in a budget debate.

It's not so much of a budget problem as a "freedom" problem. I aim to de-fang the beast, and starve it until its not a threat to its own citizens.

Poverty levels are set by Zip code, ...

This is, IMO, a brilliant idea. I know you don't like a graduated income tax, but consider an income tax that is based on the local poverty level. Of course, there would be problems. I'll need to think about this some more, but at first blush, I think this might be the best new idea I've heard on this topic in years.

Thanks. I'm trying to address inequalities.

[*]Base road usage taxes on odometer readings. Tampering with an odometer is illegal already, so just allow people to report their odometers at purchase, sale, scrap and periodically (quarterly or yearly).

The problem with odometer readings is that it is very easy to disconnect an odometer. There are better solutions based on available technology. They can even be used to adjust the rates for type of road (surface as opposed to limited access, for instance) and time of travel (cheaper in the wee hours or on weekends, max cost during the daily commute).

I think we are on the same page. I'm just a little hesitant to allow big brother access to everyone's movements and current locations. It would be too easy for the jack booted thugs to kick down the doors ala the movie "Brazil".

Corporate taxes would be set as the average corporate taxes of the worlds lowest 10 nations.

That would be zero, or nearly so. Might as well just eliminate them completely, especially since the corporations just pass those taxes on.

Well, no. If corporations are going to be treated as quasi people, with freedom of speech, and etc. then they should be willing to contribute enough to cover the costs of those government functions that they use. It just shouldn't be 35% while the Asian rim remains at 5-10%.

Each person would be required to have an tax free savings account (similar to an IRA, 10-15% of payroll) that the individual sets up with their bank when they begin working.

A good bad idea. If simply passing such a requirement into law were sufficient, then it would be a great idea. However, it would have to be enforced, and I suspect the enforcement of such a law would require an agency that would dwarf the SSA.

Actually, it's not much different than it is now. When an employer's payroll processor withholds FICA, they send the money to an electronic account. In this case, the account would be the tax payers account, rather than a big pool of money that congress people go swimming in and spend at their whim. Power (money) to the people.

[*]Peg the value of the dollar to the average price of a basket of precious commodities. This is not a volatile as a gold standard, yet eliminates the Federal Reserve and Treasury departments fiat currency shenanigans.

Right, cure the patient's cold by giving him a healthy shot of Ebola. If the Federal Reserve and Treasury Departments are indeed engaging in shenanigans, then address that (those?) issue. Monetary value linked to a commodity is not a solution -- history shows that it has plenty of troubles of its own, not the least of which is hording (although, it we link the dollar to a pound of salmon, hoarding might not be a problem for long).

I wouldn't want it pegged to something like gold, because you are right in that it can be manipulated. It's pretty much impossible to manipulate a broad range of hard asset commodities.

The Social Security retirement age would be the national average life expectancy minus 10 years, adjusted every 3 years. Transition Social Security to draw from the individuals tax free "Life account". Limit outlay payments to local cost of living, as some multiplier based on local poverty rate (e.g. 1.5x, or 2x). Whatever is unused at death goes into the pool to help underfunded retirees, after $250K (or whatever) goes to each of your dependents accounts.

Let's see if I understand: you want to give me the freedom to have a government mandated "life account" rather than forcing me to pay into a social security pool. That account, which supposedly is my property, is not available to me until I reach some relatively arbitrary age (why not 5 years less than life expectancy? or 5 more than life expectancy for that matter?). Even when it is available, I'm still restricted in how much I can draw at any given time. And the "surplus" goes into some vague, heretofore unmentioned, pool. Minus, of course, some survivor benefits.

Well, it might not be Social Security, but it sure smells like social security to me. The only plus I see is using the local poverty level as an index. The big minus is that it would take a huge government staff to administer and verify.

I'm willing to enable "social security", so long as the money is out of the governments hands. You are right that 10 years is arbitrary, but so is setting the age at 65, or 70. You might make it flexible, so long as the draw down on the account didn't expend the accumulated assets before the average life expectancy age were reached. So, if you want to retire at 50, you might, but at a reduced payout amount. The goal of a social security program is to help everyone to help themselves where possible, and help the very small number of those that cannot help themselves in the process.

Medicare would be a voucher system, and would draw from the individuals tax free "Life account".

OK. What about health insurance? Do we just roll the dice and hope no one in our immediate family comes down with a major problem? Do we get the freedom of having some kind of government mandated health insurance? Do we keep the present system under which your health insurance depends on your luck in getting a job that gives you coverage? Do we just let the unfortunate die? Do we have some kind of nationalized health plan for everything more life threatening than a common cold or paper cut?

Start to finish (well, to present -- it's not over yet), my little bout of leukemia has cost nearly two million dollars. That represents well over my total net worth, including investments, retirement accounts, and the value of my house. Would you expect every individual to set aside that much? It happened to me when I was nearly 60. I might, just possibly, have been able to put that much aside if you include the SS "tax". What do you do if the patient is 20 and going to med school at the time? Tell him to work for the next 40 years to get the money he needs before you'll give him the treatment that will extend his life expectancy from a few weeks to that 40 more years?

Yes, the vouchers would be to acquire basic comprehensive health insurance, and catastrophic coverage. I'm just re-privatizing the health insurance market and removing the impetus for inflation by creating a reasonable fixed price that the government will pay.

College costs would drawn from the tax free "Life account", and allowed to go negative up to 4x national average yearly tuition, room, and board.

In-state public college or university, tuition, room, board, and books should be covered through advanced degree subject to certain conditions. The first condition is an adequate rate and level of progress. The second is a field of study for which there is a demand (if you want to learn to paint or play an instrument, then good for you -- do it on your nickel).

I agree and disagree. We need musicians and artists, and I'm torn by the same issue griping classical education in every university and college. Is the purpose of college to pursue a vocation? Is there a value in just studying English literature, as opposed to studying to be an English teacher?

Eliminate at the federal level departments that are administered at the state level such as; Education, Housing, Energy, Agriculture, etc.

Let's see:
Energy -- hydroelectric dams and nuclear plants supply energy to multiple state areas (indeed, some energy is exchanged between Canada and the USA). So, yeah, it makes sense to administer that at the hamlet level.
Agriculture -- sure. After all, the requirements of a corn stalk vary widely from county to county in the corn belt. And destructive farming practices in one county are perfectly reasonable in another. Not to mention that the runoff from the farms respect county and state lines, so the regions down stream don't need some higher authority to help keep things under control.
Education -- on this I sort of agree with you. However, I feel that we need some national (not necessarily federal) authority to ensure that a high school diploma represents a certain level of knowledge. Perhaps the city, county, and state educational boards throughout the country need to unite and generate their own governing organization. The institutions of higher learning could support this by not accepting candidates graduating from non-accredited schools. Some alternative would have to be available for the home schooled and similar cases.
Housing -- well, we agree on about 1 1/2 out of 4 -- about par for our discussions.

I realize there are some endeavors that cross state or national boundaries, but mostly there are already non-federal regional based management groups that meet and determine policies. There are some agencies, such as Interior, which already cover federal lands and waterways.

End the war on drugs, the war of poverty, and all the other losing battles against concepts. Treat all drugs equally, and tax them according to their level of societal harm.

This is a hodgepodge. First, there is the lexical nonsense of "war" on drugs, on poverty, on terrorism. Because of the muddled thinking this terminology leads to, we are involved in real wars that have no real effect on terrorism; the drug situation has escalated to almost guerrilla war proportions; and poverty is continued to be ignored.

Terrorism is a crime, often an international crime. Treat it as such.

Poverty cannot be eradicated. Hunger can. Homelessness can. However, no matter what is done, there will always be some percentage at the bottom of the economic scale (and anyone who doesn't understand that should go back to watching Survivor and leave these issues for adults). Up to some arbitrary point, these are "the poor". Whether that means they don't have enough to eat or that they have to drive a Ford instead of a Ferrari is the only really important question.

Drugs? Alcohol, nicotine, caffeine are legal and yet they already cause problems with legislation that restricts what can be made, what can be sold and to whom, what taxes need to be payed to what authority. Recreational drugs? The world was going to come to an end if something wasn't done about demon rum. Something was done -- epic fail as they say nowadays. It would seem that intelligent people would learn the lesson. And they have. But the other 90% of the voters keep progress from being made.

I think we agree. I'm just acknowledging that there are limits to what government can eradicate.

Eliminate inheritance taxes.

I've mixed feelings. However, this is mostly an academic point. The present level is sufficiently high that it doesn't effect much of anyone. Those whom it does effect are mostly smart enough to incorporate themselves or set up limited partnerships so that there is no inheritance in the legal sense. The few who are both rich enough to be effected and stupid enough not to take advantage of the many loopholes deserve to pay. Call it a stupidity tax.

More like an honesty tax. If you play by the book, you get burned. If you manipulate and finagle the system, you can avoid getting burned. So, in general, I oppose systems where people need to lie or cheat as a matter of course. Such as, with financial aid in declaring your degree/major just to get aid. Or, when people on welfare actually earn less money if they get a job and tell the truth. It just screams for people to defraud and deceive, and that is just a bad design.

[kandrathe]

[*]Peg the value of the dollar to the average price of a basket of precious commodities. This is not a volatile as a gold standard, yet eliminates the Federal Reserve and Treasury departments fiat currency shenanigans.

Could you explain how this works? How do you "peg" the value of the dollar at an average value of commodities? When I went to the treasury with my dollar and said "give me what this is worth," what would they give me? Under a gold standard, that would be a fixed quantity of gold. But under this system, what?

(Nevermind. I suppose they could just give you the fixed basket itself, and that would do the same thing.)

It would need to be a composite index that correlated strongly to hedge inflation. The purpose of pegging the dollar to a standard is to protect savings from eroding. In a bad economy, a gold standard is more heavily influenced by passion and fear. That is what makes it unreliable as a standard. It's just morally wrong that the US is resolving it's debt problem by printing the money.

[Jester]

It would need to be a composite index that correlated strongly to hedge inflation. The purpose of pegging the dollar to a standard is to protect savings from eroding. In a bad economy, a gold standard is more heavily influenced by passion and fear. That is what makes it unreliable as a standard. It's just morally wrong that the US is resolving it's debt problem by printing the money.

First off, I don't see how it's morally wrong. It's a business transaction, no different from any other. Lending money in sovereign currency leads to sovereign risk, and investors price that into their purchases. The market determines the price, and each investor decides for themselves if they want to take that risk. If they do, then they took their chances; caveat emptor.

Second, you don't need an index - indeed, I was having a dickens of a time figuring out how such a thing would work. But the solution is as I said - simply make the dollar exchangeable for the basket of commodities itself. Pete had it right, although presumably you would use fixed quantities of uranium, platinum, oil, etc... rather than a pack 'o smokes and some lottery tickets. Want to trade your dollars in? The fed gives you your picnic basket of metals and whatnot. It would make the dollar somewhat illiquid, since nobody wants to sell off a bunch of separate commodities after converting their dollars, but it would be slightly less vulnerable to gold shocks.

It's worth noting, however, that gold shocks are highly correlated with other commodity shocks. It's not like platinum, silver, chromium, etc... move independently of gold. For every bit of correlation, you lose some of the hedging benefit. Correlation is bad, not good - otherwise, why not just use gold itself?

However, I seriously doubt the benefits of such a currency overcome the severe downsides of being unable to print debt in your own sovereign currency, or the ability to make macroeconomic adjustments. Were the US dollar hooked up to a basket of commodities, debt deflation would have broken the backs of every debtor in the US during the 2008 crisis. Is that really what we want? I think it would have been a new great depression, with US states going the way of Ireland and Greece, and homeowners completely wrecked.

-Jester

[--Pete]

Hi,

Here is some world bank research by Price Waterhouse Coopers.

http://www.pwc.com/gx/en/paying-taxes/data-tables.jhtml

Thanks, that will come in handy later. Note that that is business tax data, not personal income tax data.

So there is one government employee for every 7 workers. I would call that inefficient.

That is nonsense. It might indicate that too much is being done by the government, and even that would need additional support. It shows absolutely nothing about efficiency. For that, you would have to determine what all those people are doing and show that it could be done by fewer people in the private sector.

I do, and maybe you try to as well, but not enough of my fellow citizens can get past emotional issue politics to vote for boring people who understand leadership and management.

...

It's a good sound bite. Yeah! Let's get our torches and pitchforks and make old Ebenezer Scrooge pay for everything, or we'll ransack his house and take the pot of gold he's got buried in his cellar. What a mean old man, you know him not paying for tiny Tim's operation.

I joined these two because in a sense they belong together. They both point out the basic fallacy of democracy: “A system in which opinions are counted, not weighed.”

I mean close down or turn over most of our foreign bases to the locals. They should deal with their own issues, and we should disentangle ourselves from every brush fire in the world.

Oh, I agree with that. However, I would like to see at least seven carrier groups deployed around the world at all times and another three being refitted and prepared for rotation. Plus a healthy air force, army, and Marine corps.

My problem is with your use of “empire”. An empire is a source of wealth, not a drain on the economy. If we ran our occupations (such as they are) as traditional empires, we would be taxing the occupied peoples and taking their natural resources without compensation.

As I said, rhetoric. And bad rhetoric at that.

I think we are on the same page. I'm just a little hesitant to allow big brother access to everyone's movements and current locations. It would be too easy for the jack booted thugs to kick down the doors ala the movie "Brazil".

Ever look at the numbers for traffic and security cameras in mid to big cities? That horse is long out of the barn and has a herd of his own.

Corporate taxes would be set as the average corporate taxes of the worlds lowest 10 nations.

That would be zero, or nearly so. Might as well just eliminate them completely, especially since the corporations just pass those taxes on.

Well, no. If corporations are going to be treated as quasi people, with freedom of speech, and etc. then they should be willing to contribute enough to cover the costs of those government functions that they use. It just shouldn't be 35% while the Asian rim remains at 5-10%.

Well, first off, you’re conflating two issues that are really separate. The whole corporations as people issue – basically a way to get around the PAC limits and the campaign funding laws – is a whole different ball of snakes. But using the data you supplied above (see, I said it would be useful), the average of the 10 lowest is around 11% (according to that same information, the present USA tax rate is 47%). I suspect that data includes many things which aren’t normally considered “corporate taxes”.

I'm willing to enable "social security", so long as the money is out of the governments hands.

I know you have this obsession about keeping money out of the government’s hands; I just don’t understand it. What difference does it make where the money is between when you pay it and when you get it if it is all regulated the same way. IMO, the problem with SS as it is implemented is that the money paid in is not invested, it is immediately paid out in benefits. The only solutions to that are: ignore it; cease all withholding and benefits (and I’ll join those who are willing to test the concept behind the second amendment if this is done); set up the withholding so that they cover the expenditures plus some to be invested. The third case would, maybe, eventually, make SS a true retirement plan.

Yes, the vouchers would be to acquire basic comprehensive health insurance, and catastrophic coverage. I'm just re-privatizing the health insurance market and removing the impetus for inflation by creating a reasonable fixed price that the government will pay.

Failed the first time, but you want to try it again? Especially with a world full of examples of a better way to do it? Yeah, keep banging your head – one of these days the wall will give up.

I agree and disagree. We need musicians and artists, and I'm torn by the same issue griping classical education in every university and college. Is the purpose of college to pursue a vocation? Is there a value in just studying English literature, as opposed to studying to be an English teacher?

It is a complicated issue. It includes vocational schools as a substitute to high schools, two year junior college “training” programs, etc. I’d love to see a more challenging K-12 (especially 7-12) curriculum, stressing the humanities, math, and science. I’d love to see the undergraduate degree do the same; nothing but BAs in liberal arts (but brought up to date – a modern free man needs to understand science, technology, and math in addition to the traditional liberal arts).

Ultimately, we will have to compromise between the ideal and the real. At a minimum, we need educated people who can grasp the concepts necessary to make them informed voters and trained people who can do the jobs that need doing in a technological society. We have to do that within a reasonable budget.

Yes, we need musicians and artists. No, we do not need to pay for people who want to be musicians, artists, rock climbers, pro athletes, actors, etc. etc. etc. to go to college.

More like an honesty tax. If you play by the book, you get burned. If you manipulate and finagle the system, you can avoid getting burned. So, in general, I oppose systems where people need to lie or cheat as a matter of course. Such as, with financial aid in declaring your degree/major just to get aid. Or, when people on welfare actually earn less money if they get a job and tell the truth. It just screams for people to defraud and deceive, and that is just a bad design.

I consider this quite foolish. If people are lying or cheating, then they are breaking the law and should be punished accordingly. However, the examples you give don’t reflect the situation as far as inheritance tax is concerned. The people who are getting around it are using loopholes which are quite legal (that’s what a loophole is, after all). They are just gaming the system in a manner that is available to all.

Your attitude on this reminds me of the casino owners’ attitude toward card counting. In games where the history has no significance (like roulette and keno) they are more than happy to supply the suckers the information. However, in a game like blackjack where the history does have significance, they not only do not supply it, but accuse those who supply it for themselves of cheating. In both cases (inheritance tax and card counting) the solution is to play the game as it is or change the game to be what you want it to be. (It would be easy enough for the casinos to implement an alternate deck processes for blackjack where each deal is from a fresh deck. It would require better shufflers than are available now, but that’s no big issue.)

OK, I’m two hours late for lunch, so this it it for now.

--Pete

[kandrathe]

It would need to be a composite index that correlated strongly to hedge inflation. The purpose of pegging the dollar to a standard is to protect savings from eroding. In a bad economy, a gold standard is more heavily influenced by passion and fear. That is what makes it unreliable as a standard. It's just morally wrong that the US is resolving it's debt problem by printing the money.

First off, I don't see how it's morally wrong. It's a business transaction, no different from any other. Lending money in sovereign currency leads to sovereign risk, and investors price that into their purchases. The market determines the price, and each investor decides for themselves if they want to take that risk. If they do, then they took their chances; caveat emptor.

Can I borrow $10000 from you then. I promise to pay you back in fertilizer eventually. The good news is that people will think twice about buying our debt, making it harder for us to deficit spend.

Second, you don't need an index - indeed, I was having a dickens of a time figuring out how such a thing would work. But the solution is as I said - simply make the dollar exchangeable for the basket of commodities itself. Pete had it right, although presumably you would use fixed quantities of uranium, platinum, oil, etc... rather than a pack 'o smokes and some lottery tickets. Want to trade your dollars in? The fed gives you your picnic basket of metals and whatnot. It would make the dollar somewhat illiquid, since nobody wants to sell off a bunch of separate commodities after converting their dollars, but it would be slightly less vulnerable to gold shocks.

The index would need to be broad enough to avoid commodities that have spikes. Yes, you are right about the correlation. You would want something stable that holds a steady value independently. Rare commodities do this since there is a limited supply. The biggest problem with gold was that due to people like Cecil Rhodes, it ended up being less rare than previously supposed. It is odd that you would be adamantly against the US returning, at least partially to a standard, since the EU, and many other nations still have a standard or a partial standard.

However, I seriously doubt the benefits of such a currency overcome the severe downsides of being unable to print debt in your own sovereign currency, or the ability to make macroeconomic adjustments. Were the US dollar hooked up to a basket of commodities, debt deflation would have broken the backs of every debtor in the US during the 2008 crisis. Is that really what we want? I think it would have been a new great depression, with US states going the way of Ireland and Greece, and homeowners completely wrecked.

I'm not sure we're out of the woods yet. It feels like the tension from 2008 has been coiled up and needs to be relieved or something will snap again. The mathematician in me wants the equations to balance, and I don't sense that it's happened. By printing money, the US is relieving some of that pressure, to the detriment of bond holders, and especially onerous for our relationships with our foreign bond holders with $4.5 billion (China, OPEC, Japan, UK, Canada, Brazil, Taiwan, Russia, Switzerland, etc). I suspect at some point when and if the economy turns around, that we will see an unprecedented period of inflation to account for the rapid increase in dollars flooded into the market. If inflation is the result of too many dollars chasing too few goods, then we have half that equation covered. All we need is a return to 2008 demand. Currently, if you look at manufacturing inventory and sales charts, you'll see they are at <50% of 2008 levels.

Here is a good chart on M3, and linkage to inflation. http://nowandfutures.com/key_stats.html

Since 2008, the total money supply has increased from $3.5 trillion to over $11 trillion. You must expect the price of goods and services to quadruple in response. But, accordingly, wages will follow as people cannot afford goods and services. It all depends on how much money they print though. They've screwed debt holders out of 2/3rds of their money, that must have repercussions for the lenders (perhaps bankruptcy) and their willingness to lend more money in the face of such an eroding value.

Then, you get to the *real* problem with this scenario. Poor grandma Mildred, who's now 75 and worked at the aircraft plant for 40 years sees her pension and savings value reduced by 75%, and Congress will be paralyzed to raise her Social Security and other entitlements back to the 2008 values. Caveat emptor indeed.

[Jester]

Can I borrow $10000 from you then. I promise to pay you back in fertilizer eventually. The good news is that people will think twice about buying our debt, making it harder for us to deficit spend.

I will always lend you money, provided you pay me an interest rate commensurate with my risk, including sovereign risk. So, if you want to pay me back in fertilizer, I'm going to want a hell of a lot of fertilizer. But once I *have* lent you money, I have accepted the risks.

If investors think twice about buying your debt, that just raises the price of debt - the interest rate. It won't stop you from borrowing, it will only make it more crippling to service. There is no plausible scenario where literally nobody buys US debt at any price. People still traded old Tsarist debt into the 1930s, just at a very high premium. Bondholders are weird.

It is odd that you would be adamantly against the US returning, at least partially to a standard, since the EU, and many other nations still have a standard or a partial standard.

No. The Euro floats freely. To what is it pegged? Nothing. They hold reserves, some of which are in gold, but that is not the same thing at all. A gold standard fixes the *price* of a currency to gold, come what may. Gold reserves just mean that, if necessary, gold is one of the commodities than can be sold to cover obligations. Also, it would not be odd for me to oppose EU policy, or the policy of many nations. Why would it be?

I stand with the vast majority of economists and especially economic historians - a return to the gold standard would make the world once again vulnerable to a great depression, and that this should be avoided at almost any cost.

I'm not sure we're out of the woods yet. It feels like the tension from 2008 has been coiled up and needs to be relieved or something will snap again. The mathematician in me wants the equations to balance, and I don't sense that it's happened. By printing money, the US is relieving some of that pressure, to the detriment of bond holders, and especially onerous for our relationships with our foreign bond holders with $4.5 billion (China, OPEC, Japan, UK, Canada, Brazil, Taiwan, Russia, Switzerland, etc).

The "detriment to your bondholders" is entirely expressed in inflation - which has been notably absent from the current situation. The US dollar has weakened some internationally, but not critically, and probably not as much as it should, given the trade deficit.

Bondholders take their chances when they buy treasuries. And so far, they're still buying, and at amazing prices. Neither inflation risk nor sovereign default risk have lowered the price of US debt recently. Quite the contrary, the US can still borrow at historically low rates.

I suspect at some point when and if the economy turns around, that we will see an unprecedented period of inflation to account for the rapid increase in dollars flooded into the market. If inflation is the result of too many dollars chasing too few goods, then we have half that equation covered. All we need is a return to 2008 demand. Currently, if you look at manufacturing inventory and sales charts, you'll see they are at <50% of 2008 levels.

Manufacturing inventories *should* be lower than 2008. That's the whole naive model of a demand-side crash - sales drop while purchases do not, leading to an increase in inventories, a decline in profitability, and an end to new orders. Recovery happens when inventories are finally sold, and new orders start to go out again.

We'll see what happens in the future with inflation. But at present, and ever since the crisis, it has been shockingly mild, by historical standards. Not only are we (across almost all first world countries) not in an inflation crisis, we are in a period of abnormally low inflation.

Here is a good chart on M3, and linkage to inflation. http://nowandfutures.com/key_stats.html

I can't speak to their methodology, but the site itself is pretty nutty. Why on earth is a site about economic indicators telling me that chemotherapy doesn't work? These people sound like cranks.

Since 2008, the total money supply has increased from $3.5 trillion to over $11 trillion. You must expect the price of goods and services to quadruple in response.

First, read the chart, any chart. Even in your own link, M3 has only gone from about 12 trillion to about 14 trillion in the period you describe - nothing even close to tripling. From wikipedia, looking at M1, it's hardly moved the needle, and M2, while increasing constantly, has not tripled, unless you're measuring from Ronald Reagan's first term. QE and QE2 were big, but not THAT big.

Second, even if you're right (and the data say otherwise), it would be a little over triple (314%). Even then, no, because the whole point of "quantitative easing" is not just to change the denominator, but also the numerator - the economy grows, because a shortage of secure substitutes for cash is being fixed, freeing up liquid assets for new investment.

But, accordingly, wages will follow as people cannot afford goods and services. It all depends on how much money they print though. They've screwed debt holders out of 2/3rds of their money, that must have repercussions for the lenders (perhaps bankruptcy) and their willingness to lend more money in the face of such an eroding value.

Where are you getting this? Bondholders can still buy just about the same amount of US goods and services as they could buy at the beginning of the crisis - core inflation is low to very low. Their value in international currencies has dropped somewhat, but not critically, and not against its major competitors, the Euro or Renminbi. They *certainly* haven't lost 2/3 of their value, or else, why the hell are people still buying them at sky-high prices? (Unless, of course, you measure everything exclusively by the value of gold, in which case, the global economy itself shrunk about 2/3 in the same period!)

-Jester

[kandrathe]

Here is a good chart on M3, and linkage to inflation. http://nowandfutures.com/key_stats.html

I can't speak to their methodology, but the site itself is pretty nutty. Why on earth is a site about economic indicators telling me that chemotherapy doesn't work? These people sound like cranks.

-Jester

I'm not sure what you are seeing, but I saw nothing about chemotherapy. Lot's of stuff on investing, written by a gaggle of investors.

From their "about us" link -- "We're just a small group of middle aged and older investors who got fed up with the lack of straight and relatively simple data on investing and economics, and put up a web site to address our various concerns. See the statement of purposes on the home page - it's literally just that simple. " But, I don't find full names, and that is a bit disconcerting. I checked "bart's" methods against St. Louis Fed data. It seems that many other investor's (like BusinessInsider) look to John Williams site, and bart for more realistic charts that are not intentionally the government's rosy scenario ones. I guess Jester and Kandrathe can't blame people for desiring to remain anonymous on the internet.

[Hammerskjold]

I'm not sure what you are seeing, but I saw nothing about chemotherapy. Lot's of stuff on investing, written by a gaggle of investors.

It's under here,
http://nowandfutures.com/false_data.html

Near the bottom of the page, or you know go hit 'find on page' or whatever.

You know just because you think someone is aligned with your cause, doesn't mean you should let your guard down and give them a free pass 100%.

While I think *Jester is a commie euro loving, Freedom hating wine sipping Soros apologist who burns the 'murken flag when he feels chilly, he might have a point about the 'crank' bit.

Looking at that site their lyric maybe more polished, visually the site itself looks very nice and presentable if a little dry. But listening to their tune is still...crank like. Soft sell crank, but still crank. (I have this gnawing urge to buy gold, in addition to standard 'beans and bullets' when the Owe-bama Socialist Thugs usursps the UN and turns it into their global Newbian Order which will trigger the new Ragnarok...)

*I have no actual facts to support all those allegations about Jester, or any other allegations above. I just have this strong belief. Where do I get that belief? Shut up you freedom hater that's where!

** For the hyperbole challenged. When preparing for a disaster whether it be Climate Change, Zombie apoc, or the Russian launched meteor attack related, the focus should IMO, be more on the preparation part. Less on what will bring that disaster about.

That sounds counterintuitive, but let me 'splain. There's no sure way to predict which apoc scenario will unfold. But the preparation for a disaster has many common elements, so it's much more productive and concrete to focus on that instead.

Another upside is, if more people prepare for a disaster, the more blunted the disaster damage can be. If more people act on the long term disaster planning, ie: more decentralized power generation, spread out the risk\target, more emergency preparedness, more critical thinking training etc.

By dog, there will be no need of wanking around 'my brand of utopia is better than your brand of utopia!111'. Because we will already be living in a truer more real utopia.

So I say, bring on the Zombie Apocalypse! I'm sure when the undead rises, they will only take: (please choose the following accordingly)

-Commietards
-Liberteabaggers
-People who put their toilet paper on the wrong side. You know which side I'm talking about.

And leave those who are worthy to survive and build a new and better world!

[kandrathe]

I'm not sure what you are seeing, but I saw nothing about chemotherapy. Lot's of stuff on investing, written by a gaggle of investors.

It's under here,
http://nowandfutures.com/false_data.html

Near the bottom of the page, or you know go hit 'find on page' or whatever.

You know just because you think someone is aligned with your cause, doesn't mean you should let your guard down and give them a free pass 100%.

Thanks. I didn't go fishing for fishiness either. Well, there is a blog part, and the virtual bubble wrap too. It's a less than "professional" site and seems to be more of a place for this guy and his cronies to post their stuff. That particular reference to Chemotherapy was just a quote of Ralph Moss, former assistant director of public affairs at the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) and author of the book The Cancer Industry. I also recently saw Suzanne Sommers (a cancer survivor) on some talk show making the same claim that generally chemotherapy can shrink tumors temporarily, and extend lifespan at the cost of having to deal with the effects of the chemotherapy.

In my quest for truths I try not to dispose of babies swimming in dirty bath water.

While I think *Jester is a commie euro loving, Freedom hating wine sipping Soros apologist who burns the 'murken flag when he feels chilly, he might have a point about the 'crank' bit.

Looking at that site their lyric maybe more polished, visually the site itself looks very nice and presentable if a little dry. But listening to their tune is still...crank like. Soft sell crank, but still crank. (I have this gnawing urge to buy gold, in addition to standard 'beans and bullets' when the Owe-bama Socialist Thugs usursps the UN and turns it into their global Newbian Order which will trigger the new Ragnarok...)

*I have no actual facts to support all those allegations about Jester, or any other allegations above. I just have this strong belief. Where do I get that belief? Shut up you freedom hater that's where!

** For the hyperbole challenged. When preparing for a disaster whether it be Climate Change, Zombie apoc, or the Russian launched meteor attack related, the focus should IMO, be more on the preparation part. Less on what will bring that disaster about.

Dry. Yes, this is my life. Bring on the Zombapocolypse, I just need the excitement. I refuse the speculate on Jester's communist party ties, or tea bagging.

That sounds counterintuitive, but let me 'splain. There's no sure way to predict which apoc scenario will unfold. But the preparation for a disaster has many common elements, so it's much more productive and concrete to focus on that instead.

Another upside is, if more people prepare for a disaster, the more blunted the disaster damage can be. If more people act on the long term disaster planning, ie: more decentralized power generation, spread out the risk\target, more emergency preparedness, more critical thinking training etc.

By dog, there will be no need of wanking around 'my brand of utopia is better than your brand of utopia!111'. Because we will already be living in a truer more real utopia.

So I say, bring on the Zombie Apocalypse! I'm sure when the undead rises, they will only take: (please choose the following accordingly)

-Commietards
-Liberteabaggers
-People who put their toilet paper on the wrong side. You know which side I'm talking about.

And leave those who are worthy to survive and build a new and better world!

Yes, yes. The wisdom of the eternal order of Boy Scouts. Always, always be prepared. How can you go wrong?

That reminds me.... Off to buy more ammo!

[DeeBye]

-People who put their toilet paper on the wrong side. You know which side I'm talking about.

Overside 4 lyfe!

Also, I really liked this part of that website "Charlton Heston is nothing but a gun nut". Yup, that's Commonly Held False Data by people everywhere.

[kandrathe]

-People who put their toilet paper on the wrong side. You know which side I'm talking about.

Overside 4 lyfe!

Also, I really liked this part of that website "Charlton Heston is nothing but a gun nut". Yup, that's Commonly Held False Data by people everywhere.

Git yer damn soylent green off me, you damned dirty ape and let my people go!

[Occhidiangela]

I leave for a few months, and come back to the same conversation, all over again.

Anyone for a Guinness while I can still afford a few?

[kandrathe]

I leave for a few months, and come back to the same conversation, all over again.

Anyone for a Guinness while I can still afford a few?

Welcome back!

Hey, I was shocked though that eppie found common ground with the tea party. I thought that it was a coincidence that Michelle Bachman, and eppie both got my blood boiling. But now I understand.

Same lurkers, same crappy economy, same inept government, different day.

My Mom moved to Houston, so some day when I'm down that way I'll take you up on it for *real*.

[eppie]

Same lurkers, same crappy economy, same inept government, different day.

Well, our economy is doing great. House prices have been going up for a while, and the government isn't so bad.
Only problem is that when Europe and the US will go down we will follow....no matter how good it is going now.


This tea party, so I read, is mainly backed by a group of billionaires..... they just try to have the ignorant masses work for them for a while and when the economy goes really down the drain the probably emigrate to the Caribbean or so.