Page 5 of 6 [ 85 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

Inventor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,014
Location: New Orleans

13 Nov 2014, 9:12 am

GoonSquad wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Dox47 wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
Milton Freidman was partial back in the 70s to a negative income tax, I think I remember hearing Nixon actually considering it before his presidency was destroyed by scandal. It's interesting idea, cutting out the bureaucratic middle man and giving it straight to the people shouldn't be more offensive then funding these massive government programs which are mismanaged and cannibalize themselves.


I agree, cut out the massive bureaucracy and fold all the currnent programs into one simplified one, and it might even come out cheaper than what we're currently doing. Trim back the military and the criminal justice system, and we could probably give everyone a pretty decent amount without even touching the tax rates, I even suspect that there would be a bit of a positive feedback loop where less desperate people equaled less crime which means more savings, etc.


HOLY SH*T! I'm largely agreeing with you two! 8O
But the same people who oppose a minimum wage would also be fighting this, maybe with the argument that this would discourage hard work, or leave people in poverty... without offering any sort of counter solution.


The big problem here is there's still not enough money...

I just did a a midterm paper on OASDI (social security/disability).... We spend about 800,000 million on TANF (welfare) and Social Security each year.

The current US population is 210 million (persons over 18 ). If you do the math, you'll see that 800,000/210=$3809.52/year.

That's not enough. To give everyone, say, $1200.00/month (a very minimal income) would mean spending about $3 trillion a year. :cry:

We'd still need higher taxes, cut to other parts of the budget, and means testing. That would pretty much kill the whole thing.


With some 60% in the workforce, they would not settle for $1200 a month.

Other programs, welfare, SSI, Unemployment, food stamps, are already paying out the same money, with a very high office cost.

So the cost would be under a trillion, that would go in at the bottom, where it will change hands many times, generate local sales tax, and increase the consumer spending part of the economy.

Our main problem, Capital flows up, then stops, and collects interest.

The problem is too much money, and investing it drives up the price of everything.

Too much Capital drives down the value of Capital.

The Radical Warren Buffet favors taxing all income at a flat rate. He said 30%.

People paying Capital Gains and no Social Security on the next million did not seem right.

The Radical Inventor favors making all income subject to Social Security.

A 1% transaction tax on Securities would bring in a fortune.

All of this would come from those making more than ten times the basic income.

The tax structure would remain the same for those making under $130,000.

This would bring in more than enough for a Universal Income.

It would create an immediate demand for workers, which produces better conditions and higher pay.

This will cause those with the Universal Income to consider how much more they could make working.

Many would continue their education, and two year programs could teach welding, plumbing, electric, machine shop, while upgrading academic skills. We are short on truck drivers, there are jobs without enough trained people.

People making more money will spend it, good for the economy, or save it, good for the economy.

This is not welfare, old style, but a Investment in Citizens, where we want them to earn enough to pay taxes, and have savings.

Maybe it phases out after they make $40,000. Till they make $50,000. By then they are well on their way.

What we want is no poor people, more middle income earners, and a level playing field with the very rich. On their next million, they pay $300,000 in tax and $157,000 to Social Security.

Next we need two tier money, the current stuff for international, and a new Domestic Only issue. Local income cannot be moved out of the country. This would ruin the imported drug business. It can be exchanged for international money, but only if you can prove legal methods, and taxes paid.

We need some new cities, zero energy, 1,000 Mg Broadband, some for the developing economy, and some to keep those war babies out of the way.

All National Lands must be fed, planted, cultivated, to restore them to better than new. That takes a national irrigation system. We are wasting fresh water that can produce life. This drought may end in a few hundred years, we cannot wait. The soil that produces our food is in poor shape.

What this place will look like in a hundred years is something for us to decide now.

A lot of logged over land was bought in Arkansas a while back, it is now National Forests. There is some pitiful land out west that could be put back in tall grass prarie. Cattle have degraded the landscape.

We have looked out for light years, there is no where else for us to survive.

After 200 years of America, this place needs a hundred year rebuild.

We can have the money, the labor, and a long term goal, to die knowing we left this campsite a better place than when we came.

In 2120 people will build a monument to you, and thank you everyday.



Janissy
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 May 2009
Age: 57
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,450
Location: x

13 Nov 2014, 9:38 am

Inventor wrote:
All National Lands must be fed, planted, cultivated, to restore them to better than new. That takes a national irrigation system. We are wasting fresh water that can produce life. This drought may end in a few hundred years, we cannot wait. The soil that produces our food is in poor shape.

What this place will look like in a hundred years is something for us to decide now.

A lot of logged over land was bought in Arkansas a while back, it is now National Forests. There is some pitiful land out west that could be put back in tall grass prarie. Cattle have degraded the landscape.


YES! 8)

Bring back the Civilian Conservation Core, a truly excellent part of the U.S. New Deal.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_C ... tion_Corps
This is the work they did from 1933-1942. Some of it needs to be redone since it has degraded since then. The projects you describe are also needed. There is a lot of work to be done. And a lot of people looking for work who could do it.
Quote:
The CCC performed 300 possible types of work projects within ten approved general classifications:

Structural improvements: bridges, fire lookout towers, service buildings
Transportation: truck trails, minor roads, foot trails and airport landing fields
Erosion control: check dams, terracing and vegetable covering
Flood control: irrigation, drainage, dams, ditching, channel work, riprapping
Forest culture: planting trees and shrubs, timber stand improvement, seed collection, nursery work
Forest protection: fire prevention, fire pre-suppression, firefighting, insect and disease control
Landscape and recreation: public camp and picnic ground development, lake and pond site clearing and development
Range: stock driveways, elimination of predatory animals
Wildlife: stream improvement, fish stocking, food and cover planting
Miscellaneous: emergency work, surveys, mosquito control[25]



kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 87,510
Location: Queens, NYC

13 Nov 2014, 9:54 am

When will they find a way to make use of all that salt water in the world???????????



trollcatman
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Dec 2012
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,919

13 Nov 2014, 10:50 am

luanqibazao wrote:

And what are you saying, that we need to keep giving away more and more free stuff or the poor will riot and loot? That's not a logical or moral argument, that's straight-up extortion. There could be no stronger argument for ending the welfare state.


Historically, in many countries social and political reform was done to appease the working class. Around the time of WW1 there was a serious risk of a succesful communist revolution in many European countries, but the non-commie parties moved towards a welfare state to prevent that. There have been quite a few unsuccesful commie revolutions (Troelstra for example), the one country that was rigid and absolutist turned out to become communist (Russia). Not that that works btw, the communist countries don't really have a welfare state comparable to Western countries, you're probably better off being poor in Europe than being poor in China or Vietnam.



Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 34,439
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

13 Nov 2014, 1:42 pm

luanqibazao wrote:
auntblabby wrote:
your whole attitude is that "productive" people are all that matter. for you, productivity = worthiness as a human being as opposed to those who cannot produce anything.


No, one's ability to earn money in a free market is not the same as one's worth as a human being. I know a pizza delivery guy whom I consider a finer human being than about any wealthy "celebrity" I can think of. I don't know how to make this clearer.

Quote:
you badmouthed such folks but you didn't badmouth "productive" people, so that tells me who you consider worthy as humans of survival.


The only person I badmouthed was Justin Bieber. If you're a fan, sorry, but I value honesty.

Quote:
you don't want your tax dollars to go to help anybody you consider "unworthy" such as "unproductive" people - you consider the military and police and fire departments to be worthy but not anything related to social services.


Nobody said anything about such things ? but yes, I don't mind paying for services that offer me and my family a clear value. Why would I want to pay for anything which offers me nothing in return?

Quote:
that is short-sighted because without social services no amount of military and police and fire departments can clean up the resultant mess.


That is illogical and historically ignorant. Before a little over a century ago, nobody thought that the federal government ought to be in charge of poor relief. Not only did that society not collapse, people from all over the world risked their lives to come here and take part in the amazing growth in prosperity which economic liberty was creating.

And what are you saying, that we need to keep giving away more and more free stuff or the poor will riot and loot? That's not a logical or moral argument, that's straight-up extortion. There could be no stronger argument for ending the welfare state.

Quote:
that IS my answer, you are exhibiting the behavior and opinions of an ableist. I have no use for such. all my life I have had to put up with people such as yourself browbeating me because I am not sufficiently "productive" even going so far as to call me "slacker" and other such nasty names.


So, you think you're entitled to some of my earnings ? but you can't say why, and it's my fault. :roll:

Quote:
I would just rather avoid such people.


I would rather you did, too. While you're at it, avoid my wallet, and avoid electing politicians who keep taking more and more of my money and giving it to their corporate cronies, sundry foreign dictators, and the welfare queens I see every time I go to the grocery.


So your another one of those people who opposes taxation, but instead of taking it up with the government who taxes you...you just resnet the poor and act like things would remain functional if we just cut welfare. Also back in the day when people thought the government shouldn't do anything to help the poor or fund public services with taxes....many houses burnt down when people couldn't afford a private fire department company to come to their house and put it out. But hell may as well go back to the dark ages.....Also yeah when people are desperate and at risk of death via starvation and what not they are going to try to survive we do not need to increase desperation in this country which ending all welfare would do.

Not to mention once again there are many people on welfare who work....there are other ways to 'contribute' besides working. Also if you hate taxes so much how do you propose we fund public services, and what would be a better more effective solution to address poverty in this country? Might be a hard one as I said 'effective' solution....cutting welfare and than ignoring the issue isn't a solution you know.


_________________
We won't go back.


auntblabby
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 113,605
Location: the island of defective toy santas

13 Nov 2014, 5:38 pm

luanqibazao wrote:
avoid electing politicians who keep taking more and more of my money and giving it to their corporate cronies, sundry foreign dictators, and the welfare queens I see every time I go to the grocery.


how dare you tell me not to vote. how 'bout I tell you to stop voting for scoundrels who want to take away my health care?



Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 34,439
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

13 Nov 2014, 5:57 pm

trollcatman wrote:
luanqibazao wrote:

And what are you saying, that we need to keep giving away more and more free stuff or the poor will riot and loot? That's not a logical or moral argument, that's straight-up extortion. There could be no stronger argument for ending the welfare state.


Historically, in many countries social and political reform was done to appease the working class. Around the time of WW1 there was a serious risk of a succesful communist revolution in many European countries, but the non-commie parties moved towards a welfare state to prevent that. There have been quite a few unsuccesful commie revolutions (Troelstra for example), the one country that was rigid and absolutist turned out to become communist (Russia). Not that that works btw, the communist countries don't really have a welfare state comparable to Western countries, you're probably better off being poor in Europe than being poor in China or Vietnam.


^this
Funny part is it is a logical argument....if people are desperate they will do what they need to in order to survive. If welfare is cut, nothing effective is put in its place then what is likely to be the logical outcome. That the poor will just lay down and die? Simply not going to happen. So yeah logically it makes sense for a society to provide for its population(even the poor) otherwise said population is very likely to turn on the society...duh.


_________________
We won't go back.


auntblabby
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 113,605
Location: the island of defective toy santas

13 Nov 2014, 6:18 pm

Sweetleaf wrote:
Funny part is it is a logical argument....if people are desperate they will do what they need to in order to survive. If welfare is cut, nothing effective is put in its place then what is likely to be the logical outcome. That the poor will just lay down and die? Simply not going to happen. So yeah logically it makes sense for a society to provide for its population(even the poor) otherwise said population is very likely to turn on the society...duh.

the romans were smart enough to see the necessity of bread and circuses, but americans don't seem to be getting the picture. yet.



drh1138
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 2 Dec 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 498

13 Nov 2014, 6:28 pm

auntblabby wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
Funny part is it is a logical argument....if people are desperate they will do what they need to in order to survive. If welfare is cut, nothing effective is put in its place then what is likely to be the logical outcome. That the poor will just lay down and die? Simply not going to happen. So yeah logically it makes sense for a society to provide for its population(even the poor) otherwise said population is very likely to turn on the society...duh.

the romans were smart enough to see the necessity of bread and circuses, but americans don't seem to be getting the picture. yet.


Maybe the incumbent Roman Foreign Minister should send a delegation to tell us all about the efficacy of such initiatives. Oh, wait...



FMX
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Mar 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,319

14 Nov 2014, 9:47 am

auntblabby wrote:
the romans were smart enough to see the necessity of bread and circuses, but americans don't seem to be getting the picture. yet.


If it ever worked for the ancient Romans, it was only because their economy was heavily supported by slaves, which made up 30-40% of the population. America kinda dropped the ball 150 years ago on that one. ;)


_________________
CloudFlare eating your posts? Try the Lazarus browser extension. See https://wp-fmx.github.io/WP/


auntblabby
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 113,605
Location: the island of defective toy santas

14 Nov 2014, 5:03 pm

FMX wrote:
auntblabby wrote:
the romans were smart enough to see the necessity of bread and circuses, but americans don't seem to be getting the picture. yet.


If it ever worked for the ancient Romans, it was only because their economy was heavily supported by slaves, which made up 30-40% of the population. America kinda dropped the ball 150 years ago on that one. ;)

but sooner than we all think, it will be robots doing the slaves' work and causing the same dynamic.



GoonSquad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 May 2007
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,748
Location: International House of Paincakes...

14 Nov 2014, 5:48 pm

Inventor wrote:

With some 60% in the workforce, they would not settle for $1200 a month.

Other programs, welfare, SSI, Unemployment, food stamps, are already paying out the same money, with a very high office cost.


Okay, you're just plain wrong about this...

TANF (welfare) is about $50 billion/year.

SSI is about another $50 billion/year.

Food stamps is about $80 billion/year.

So, were talking LESS than $200 billion/year for welfare spending.... Also, you won't get more than about 5% saving from administration.

After further thought, I'm not going to consider OASDI or unemployment because they're social insurance, NOT WELFARE, and they aren't funded by general taxes...

If we ever did enact a minimum income, we could do away with unemployment, but that money should just go the general OASDI fund.

As for the rest of your comments, I don't disagree with a lot of what you say...

I'd say we should start with a base income of $10,000.00 for everyone over age 18. The trick is how and when to begin phasing it out...

I say there should be a gradual reduction in money starting at $20,000.00 level (200% of poverty) and totally gone at $40,000.00 (400% poverty).

The trick is reducing the payments without discouraging work or discouraging employers from paying incentive/merit pay. Also, the reduction scheme would have to be politically viable. That would probably be the hardest part....

You could probably come up with a plan that would cost $500-$600 billion per year. That would also, undoubtedly, stimulate the economy and make things better for everyone.

However we'd also need to eliminate the EITC and raise taxes on the upper 50% and *GASP* the holy job creators who reside in the top 10%....

THAT, I'm afraid, will NEVER happen.


_________________
No man is free who is not master of himself.~Epictetus


GoonSquad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 May 2007
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,748
Location: International House of Paincakes...

14 Nov 2014, 6:00 pm

drh1138 wrote:
auntblabby wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
Funny part is it is a logical argument....if people are desperate they will do what they need to in order to survive. If welfare is cut, nothing effective is put in its place then what is likely to be the logical outcome. That the poor will just lay down and die? Simply not going to happen. So yeah logically it makes sense for a society to provide for its population(even the poor) otherwise said population is very likely to turn on the society...duh.

the romans were smart enough to see the necessity of bread and circuses, but americans don't seem to be getting the picture. yet.


Maybe the incumbent Roman Foreign Minister should send a delegation to tell us all about the efficacy of such initiatives. Oh, wait...


Yeah... What they really needed was effective land reform. Bread and circuses was cheaper but it only prolonged the inevitable...

Roman history is a GREAT example of the corrosive effects of wealth inequality.


_________________
No man is free who is not master of himself.~Epictetus


Inventor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,014
Location: New Orleans

15 Nov 2014, 7:43 am

The plan does need to be pushed as something that will increase the economy, as adding money at the bottom will. All of the middle, working people, small business, will see customers with money, and the local governments sales tax.

On the issue of fairness, giving money to the poor sold as investment, a more stable educated workforce, that could still take a minium wage job and keep the universal income. Funding for education, student loans are a bomb waiting to go off, and all small business employers want better workers. It is also likely to reduce crime, as benefits could be cut off for convictions, jail time, so criminals would have something to lose. Raising the Minium Wage comes out of the pocket of small business, a Universal Income does not. Keep wages low to offset costs, then bring in new business customers, and demand will drive up wages, and everyone will be happy.

The consumer economy is 70% of national income, and 90% of the workforce.

Major Corporations are 30% and 10%.

Those sitting on Capital and charging rent on money hardly hire anyone, and suck the life out of the economy, as more and more vanishes into their bank accounts. They are less of job creators than the poor, who keep the welfare system running.

All Workers, Small Business and Corporations pay about the same tax rate, so the votes are there to abolish Capital Gains, Carried Interest, Unrepatrioted Profits, and tax all income at the same rate. The same for Social Security, all personal income taxed the same. The people gaming the system, putting the burden on everyone else, are the 1%. Faced with a landslide of votes, Congress will go with the majority, or be replaced.

Nothing has the power of an idea who's time has come.

Congress is favored by 13%, with equal percents calling for throwing them all out, hanging, drawn and quartered, and burning at the stake.

They all pander to the poor during elections, and a Universal Income will bring out all the poor to vote.

The majority, the middle, workers, small business will see that a lot of government can be abolished, crime reduced, more money in their neighborhoods, more local taxes, and a cut in income taxes across the board. They also have children they pay to go to school, who then move back home. This reduces their education costs, and prevents boomarang children moving back in with no income.

There is the looming problem of Social Security, not enough workers to support the payouts.

People do vote their retirement, this assures that Social Security will remain funded.

I think it could be replaced by a Universal Income if the payments were a bit higher.

If a Universal Income leads to economic growth, higher payments will lead to more.

We had the bailouts, to recapitalize the banks and brokers, QE, and the costs go on.

This is the Main Street Recapitalization Program, Bootstrap Economics.

For some it will be survival, for others a new car. Home ownership will go up.

The poor will get a foothold in the American Dream, the money will float upward into the middle.

Who has the most to gain? Not the poor, they will still be on the edge of poverty, but Warren Buffet who owns a huge chunk of working American Business will reap the rewards, has already supported most of the program, and people trust him. He also has the most to lose if American burns.

I do distrust government, as we all should. Bill Gates and a direct deposit system could run this, it is not big as custom software goes.

Small banks, Credit Unions, would be the place to send the money. Deposits are their life blood. This expands local credit for the middle.

Drought is spreading, there is a line between grain and grazing that is moving the wrong way. Buying up failing grain land, like a whole County, fencing it for buffalo, a hundred year fence, cultivate, feed, water, plant, and let it grow. Pipe water from the rivers, make lakes, replenish the ground water, it will spread water, windbrake, and rainfall beyond the fence. Make it off limits for a hundred years, except the buffalo and deer hunts. People will pay $5,000 to shoot an Elk. This can become profitable.

It will change things, people will complain, but all along the fence line property values will go up. New creeks will form in old beds. Migratory birds and butterflies will find it.

Texas has been restoring grassland that was turned to brush and near desert by cattle. It costs as much as the land, takes five years, then a grass sod is self supporting. Trees take forty years, but the effect reaches far. It preserves moisture, is cooler, and attracts rain. You do have to keep cattle out.

This Country belongs to We The People. We can order the government to do things. Elections are about people who do not follow orders.

A plan that benefits the vast majority of Citizens cannot be stopped.

So vote Aspie Economics, A Differance in Thought and Perception, life can get better.



aghogday
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,562

15 Nov 2014, 11:34 am

Ah, the audacity of hope and the VALUE OF THINKING and DOING DIFFERENT.

First, here's a few quotes for reference:

http://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/17 ... ican-dream

Quote:
?For half of the world's population, roughly three billion people around the world living on less than two dollars a day, an election is at best a means, not an end; a starting point, not deliverance. These people are looking less for an "electocracy" than for the basic elements that for most of us define a decent life--food, shelter, electricity, basic health care, education for their children, and the ability to make their way through life without having to endure corruption, violence, or arbitrary power.?

- President Obama, from the 'Audacity of Hope'


https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/924-he ... rebels-the

Quote:
?Here's to the crazy ones. The misfits. The rebels. The troublemakers. The round pegs in the square holes. The ones who see things differently. They're not fond of rules. And they have no respect for the status quo. You can quote them, disagree with them, glorify or vilify them. About the only thing you can't do is ignore them. Because they change things. They push the human race forward. And while some may see them as the crazy ones, we see genius. Because the people who are crazy enough to think they can change the world, are the ones who do.?

-Steve Jobs


http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quote ... 33991.html
http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/369-a-h ... ole-called

Quote:
"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."

?A human being is a part of the whole called by us universe, a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feeling as something separated from the rest, a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty.?

-Albert Einstein


THESE are really smart guys, no doubt about it, but the thing that truly does set them apart is they REFUSE to run with the herd as Obama sits around with some friends smoking dope philosophizing about IDEAS AND eventually putting them into action.

And Steve Jobs, sitting around with a few friends in a field of dreams doing LSD suggesting he is going to change the world.

And then there is Einstein changing the landscape of physics forever, sticking out his tongue at those who run with the herd.

And then there is Inventor up there, a 60 something year old dude that makes things with his mind AND HANDS, and refuses to run with the herd or specialize in any one area of education.

The results are synergy of ideas that CAN MAKE NEW THINGS HAPPEN.

When George W. Bush was in his HAYDAY with an administration BENT on fear mongering to save the day for his re-election political hopes, was there any chance that an African American President would soon become president from a Pulpit of hope and charisma; no, not if one polled the general public but OBAMA REFUSED TO BELIEVE SUCH A THING, AND WELL WITH HIS HOPE..

Yes, the hope of one man and of course the people that got behind him, the status quo was changed for ever; an African American was elected to the highest office in the land.

And will a women become President now; likely yes, soon.

The demographic of voting may not have changed very much in mid-term off-President election years, but when it comes time for Presidential election time, the fuller herd of minority thinking and doing do come out to vote.

It's the bigger thing, and well, these days folks do like bigger things, no doubt.

Oh, and then there's health care reform, and what chance did that have of passing during a GW election, NONE.

BUT OBAMA AND his administration and democratic 'cronies' DID change that landscape of the status quo for more to come.

Yes, more to come, as we do have the 'GENERATIon SELFIE' RISING, A NEW WAY OF FREEDOM THINKING IN creating oneself as individual, and not just what others want to see.

What I'm saying here in much fewer words is CHANGE IS POSSIBLE, AND HISTORY NOW PROVES THAT TO BE TRUE IN THE US, RESOUNDINGLY SO, if not anything else for the FACT that we have an African American President, NOW.

Truly the conservative leaning thought is lead by patriarchal religious types that herd together and form opinions and exclude those that don't hold those opinions from the social group, which is an instinctual way of controlling humans.

But go to any Southern Baptist good 'ole timey' Gospel singing and the truth of what's left of that demographic is in gray hairs.

Yes, that's all one can see for rows and rows of pews, and I have the photographs to prove it, in my long time hobby as an Anthropologist as participant observer.

Meanwhile, the twenty-somethings are jumping up and down in dance halls taking selfies and creating themselves anew each day.

The World is changing and more than ever CHANGE IS POSSIBLE.

AND THE AUDACITY OF HOPE.

AND OH BY THE WAY, if anyone thinks this is just emotional gibberish, keep something in MIND if ONE can.

Emotions change the world.

Facts are just facts.

If there is any evidence of this in the world that is conclusive, it is Obama's existence in the White House.

He did it with emotion, not facts.

He did it with Hope, the audacity of hope, and people DO MOST DEFINITELY LOOK AT HIM AS AUDACIOUS, IN THE GRAY HAIRED ROWS OF SOUTHERN BAPTIST CHURCHES. :)

BUT THEY DON'T DANCE THE TRUE DANCE OF LIFE IN HEART, THINKING AND DOING THINGS DIFFERENT THAN THE HERD.

Inventor is a breath of fresh air to me, as the books (per example of John Robison's book) say Autistic people do things differently, but the PPR section of this Internet site, seems to prove that wrong, as part of a stereotype that doesn't seem to work here often, except for a few individuals like Inventor.


_________________
KATiE MiA FredericK!iI

Gravatar is one of the coolest things ever!! !

http://en.gravatar.com/katiemiafrederick


GoonSquad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 May 2007
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,748
Location: International House of Paincakes...

15 Nov 2014, 12:26 pm

I'd like to be as hopeful as Inventor, but then I consider all the irrational opposition to the ACA and my heart sinks.


_________________
No man is free who is not master of himself.~Epictetus