Is history about to repeat itself?

Post Reply New Topic

There was one tea party leader who recently advocated only extending suffrage to property owners, because, as he said, "They have the most at stake."

Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness was originally...:

Life, Liberty, and the Right to Ownership of One's Own Property (i.e.: Absolutely no government has a right to dictate how you may use your own stuff through threats of fines or other forms of tax).

Obviously that changed, because those with nothing have the right to happiness, too.

In 1689, philosopher and physician John Locke argued in his Two Treatises of Government that political society existed for the sake of protecting "property", which he defined as a person's "life, liberty, and estate".

In 1776, Second Continental Congress Delegate Thomas Jefferson included a paraphrase of Locke (or possibly others) in his draft of the U.S. Declaration of Independence which provides that "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." This provision argued for the right to own property.

In 1789, U.S. Rep. James Madison more closely paraphrased Locke (or possibly others) in his draft of what would become the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution for the United States of America which provides that "No person shall be [...] deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law[.]" This provision protects the right to own property.

The reason that so many U.K. and U.S. citizens wanted their right to own property was because they had experienced a monarchy which ignored such a right and had their homes, farms and businesses (regardless of size or value) invaded militarily, seized and confiscated by their U.K. government. Without the right to own property, providing for one's self and family was meaningless.

No, this is completely wrong. The actual figure was 33.09%

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_fe ... ember_1932

Thanks for bringing up the facts of the situation. Plenty of Germans wouldn't have given Hitler the time of day, let alone vote for him.

Ike had a 95% top rate. He paid off WWII, Korea, The American Autobahn, and rebuilt Europe.

No one will pay 95% when they can reduce their tax burden by hiring, building, inventory.

Make paying as you go the rule, including paying down National Debt.

Taxes can only be reduced when debts are paid, and the cost of government is lower.

That war they would vote for today, and gladly pay for Tuesday, will be avoided if taxes are raised automatically to meet spending.

They will object, tell them the other choice is a tax on Capital.

Tax cuts have put trillions in the pockets of high earners. The goal was to grow the economy. That happened, now It is time to recover those trillions.

To reduce the cost of government, we need to double taxes. A tax income of six Trillion a year is needed to cover current costs, plus the National Debt which is the War Baby Social Security. Wars cost extra.

All personal income should be subject to Social Security. I pay 1% to withdraw my money from an ATM, all Securities could pay as much.

Half goes to war, half to Social Security, Medicare. It is an incentive to reduce war, and prepay Social Security.

Our employment does not need a $15 an hour minimum wage, It needs 10% more jobs, which a higher tax rate will produce. Those jobs will pay more than minimum. Leave a place for the workers on the bottom.

Debts covered, full employment, we could fix this place up. High Speed Rail has to happen someday. Getting the right of way is cheapest now. The best space is empty, and we could build new cities along the rails.

Some nice retirement for War Babies, get them out of the way, give them incentives to quit, sell out, and move.

They get a sweet retirement deal, everyone else gets a War Baby Free world, with great economic mobility.

We are not in an impossible situation, we just need a plan and follow it.

This is why I love high mountains. Kind people congregate in such places, because unkind people see the world as they are, and mountains for all their beauty are not forgiving. As much as I love the intricacy of cities, I don't really belong in one.

Remove interest rates and you also remove the incentive to lend. Without lending, investment stalls and growth is slow.

Yes, we'd have economic stability, no recessions and no debt bubbles, but overall we'd be worse off.

How would "we" be worse off ? If anything I know I'd be better off.
Although I most-certainly do value having freedom more than I do material-things.

I would rather have a "real" economy than a "bubble" economy any day.

I would also rather pay the actual value for a product than be tricked into getting a 20K$US+ loan where the Interest-rates tack on an additional 800$US to be paid every month whilst minimum monthly payment was set at 650$US if I'm working my ass off to try & get anywhere in the financial-progress department where I might only be being paid a maximum of a 1K$US or perhaps even 2K$US at most monthly income (and nobody deserves to be able to live such a free hand-me-down inheritance-life-style by sitting around, calling themselves bankers, and contributing nothing to society's maintenance nor advancement whilst living completely off the backs & sweat & efforts of others being their income-slaves via interest-rates or any other form of usury).

I also have enough experience in resource-controlling multi-player games to know that becoming "rich" is merely a matter of controlling all of the resources (a monopoly), and if you're tenacious & unscrupulous enough, the control of enough resources allows you to be able to control a hell of a lot of other resources such to the point where you can literally prevent anybody else from being able to obtain said resources even to the point where you could basically "own" them & make them do all of your bidding (Monopolies, man, over-powered).

I so much want to add a documentary on "Rich People" (and how most of them/us tend to make their/our money through scams/thefts apart from just "inheriting" everything) but let's go with a "Why Engagement Rings Are a Scam" clip instead...

And, people wonder why I loathed my career in marketing.

Geez, am I glad I got my wife an opal ring when we got married!

That's an interesting link, thanks. Also, it should be note that that is a GOVERNMENT PROGRAM. So, thanks for making my point.

Let me say again, the problem with private, religious charities doing social saftey net stuff is that they ignore research (housing first is evidence-based) and do things based on their intuitive notions of morality.