On Sun, 04 Dec 2016 14:32:58 +0000, Stormin' Norman
wrote:

On Sat, 3 Dec 2016 11:41:03 -0500, Taxpayer
wrote:

On 12/3/2016 9:30 AM, Stormin' Norman wrote:
I have never worked a day in my life, probably because I have always
loved what I do / have done to earn a living and provide for my
family.


Do you pay income taxes? I sure do and I'm ****ed off that so many of my hard earned dollars fund programs to support lazy/useless/stupid people. Why any working taxpayer would willingly cast a vote for a Clintoncrat is beyond my comprehension.

My personal finances are really none of your business, but that said,
yes I do and I have been paying those taxes continually for more years
than you have probably been alive.


Wouldn't it be nice to get something in return for your tax dollars? Apparently myself and other working taxpaying voters spoke-up at the last election. Maybe America's lazy will finally be forced to work like the rest of us?

I would like to see tax dollars spent more wisely, yes. Many of our
current military programs are enormous, poorly planned money holes,
our DoD is far too top heavy with too many chiefs and not enough
indians.

In fact, I advocate our country implement two year universal military
servitude for all citizens of a certain age, lower pay for these
conscripts and an elimination of lifetime benefits for non-career
veterans except for those who sustain direct service related permanent
injuries.

I would like to see the Social Security funds protected and taken out
of the reach of congress so they cannot draw down the reserves by
borrowing the monies and ****ing them away on pork. I would also like
to see means testing for social security, hell, I don't need the SS
check every month, but they send it to me anyway.

I would like to see a balanced budget amendment, the presidential
line-item veto and an amendment which limits federal borrowing to
declared wars and certain types of disasters. Also, a complete
elimination of the Federal Reserve Bank, which I consider to be a
progressive boondoggle that has become a form of shadow government.
Lastly, I would like to see an aggressive effort to pay down the
national debt and eliminate the vast amounts of interest we as tax
payers must contribute to service the interest on the debt, that alone
is a travesty.

I feel a dramatic reduction in governmental employment, an elimination
of civil service protections which do not have parallels in the
non-union private sector and a drastic reduction in retirement
benefits not to mention a much longer term of service before being
eligible for retirement of government employees.

Our governments need to return to being a service to the citizenry,
not a major employment sector of our economy. It used to be
government employment was for people that without many other options,
now it is a desirable career. That needs to change.

I have no problem with feeding the hungry, helping to care for the
sick, extending the public school education system to accommodate the
needs of an advancing society and establishing a national
apprenticeship and mentoring program.

Regardless of the patriotic rhetoric, I believe there are groups of
people who require and deserve a hand-up, not a hand-out, because of
many years of oppression and systemic disadvantage.

One last, very important thing, we should completely eliminate the
absurd income tax system and implement an across the board consumption
tax on everything except the necessities, e.g. non prepared food, non
luxury clothing, medicine, etc.

Buy a house, pay the same relative tax you pay on a car or a TV. Buy
a corporate plane, pay the tax, no deductions for operating the plane
or amortization or write down on the aircraft, etc.

The tax system is an abortion with absurd benefits designed to enhance
the lifestyle of the rich and famous. A properly configured
consumption tax system, one that cannot be jiggered with through
regulations, but only via legislation, would put all of our
representatives in the cross hairs of all voters. Congress would be
very nervous about making changes that could not be kept secret and
that would directly impact every citizen.

On Sun, 4 Dec 2016 14:49:02 -0000 (UTC), Roger Blake
wrote:

On 2016-12-04, Stormin' Norman wrote:
In fact, I advocate our country implement two year universal military
servitude for all citizens of a certain age,

Ah, so you are in favor of institutionalized slavery.

I am in favor of universal military servitude just as I am in favor of
taxes for all residents. I would even like to see voting eligibility
tied to this service.

Freedom isn't free, and currently our citizens are insulated from the
costs of maintaining our representative democracy. We have what is
basically a mercenary style, all volunteer, well paid and benefited
military. For those who haven't noticed, much of the cost of our
military operations are financed through borrowing from future
generations.

Those of you who didn't live through the second war did not experience
the sacrifices made by that generation to support that war. Now, we
go to war and build $13 billion super carriers and no one notices the
cost because of the unbridled borrowing. We also barely notice those
who fight our wars and most citizens can ignore the conflicts because
they can just choose to not serve and their children can avoid service
just as did Trump.

If you want to characterize UMS as slavery, that is your business. I
would like to see it implemented as the price of voting citizenship.
Of course there would be exceptions and maybe we would have a
universal government service instead of UMS, but the concept is the
same.

On Sun, 04 Dec 2016 15:09:07 +0000, Stormin' Norman
wrote:

On Sun, 4 Dec 2016 14:49:02 -0000 (UTC), Roger Blake
wrote:

On 2016-12-04, Stormin' Norman wrote:
In fact, I advocate our country implement two year universal military
servitude for all citizens of a certain age,

Ah, so you are in favor of institutionalized slavery.

I am in favor of universal military servitude just as I am in favor of
taxes for all residents. I would even like to see voting eligibility
tied to this service.

Freedom isn't free, and currently our citizens are insulated from the
costs of maintaining our representative democracy. We have what is
basically a mercenary style, all volunteer, well paid and benefited
military. For those who haven't noticed, much of the cost of our
military operations are financed through borrowing from future
generations.

Those of you who didn't live through the second war did not experience
the sacrifices made by that generation to support that war. Now, we
go to war and build $13 billion super carriers and no one notices the
cost because of the unbridled borrowing. We also barely notice those
who fight our wars and most citizens can ignore the conflicts because
they can just choose to not serve and their children can avoid service
just as did Trump.

If you want to characterize UMS as slavery, that is your business. I
would like to see it implemented as the price of voting citizenship.
Of course there would be exceptions and maybe we would have a
universal government service instead of UMS, but the concept is the
same.
I agree with UGS rather than UMS. I grew up in a community where
volunteerism and service were a part of everyday life. I did my 2
years, teaching.

On Sunday, December 4, 2016 at 9:09:12 AM UTC-6, Stormin' Norman wrote:
On Sun, 4 Dec 2016 14:49:02 -0000 (UTC), Roger Blake
wrote:

On 2016-12-04, Stormin' Norman wrote:
In fact, I advocate our country implement two year universal military
servitude for all citizens of a certain age,

Ah, so you are in favor of institutionalized slavery.

I am in favor of universal military servitude just as I am in favor of
taxes for all residents. I would even like to see voting eligibility
tied to this service.

Freedom isn't free, and currently our citizens are insulated from the
costs of maintaining our representative democracy. We have what is
basically a mercenary style, all volunteer, well paid and benefited
military. For those who haven't noticed, much of the cost of our
military operations are financed through borrowing from future
generations.

Those of you who didn't live through the second war did not experience
the sacrifices made by that generation to support that war. Now, we
go to war and build $13 billion super carriers and no one notices the
cost because of the unbridled borrowing. We also barely notice those
who fight our wars and most citizens can ignore the conflicts because
they can just choose to not serve and their children can avoid service
just as did Trump.

If you want to characterize UMS as slavery, that is your business. I
would like to see it implemented as the price of voting citizenship.
Of course there would be exceptions and maybe we would have a
universal government service instead of UMS, but the concept is the
same.

Yea, I've watched the movie "Starship Troopers". ヽ(ヅ)ノ

[8~{} Uncle Citizen Monster

"Stormin' Norman" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 3 Dec 2016 11:41:03 -0500, Taxpayer
wrote:

On 12/3/2016 9:30 AM, Stormin' Norman wrote:
I have never worked a day in my life, probably because I have always
loved what I do / have done to earn a living and provide for my
family.


Do you pay income taxes? I sure do and I'm ****ed off that so many of my
hard earned dollars fund programs to support lazy/useless/stupid people.
Why any working taxpayer would willingly cast a vote for a Clintoncrat is
beyond my comprehension.

My personal finances are really none of your business, but that said,
yes I do and I have been paying those taxes continually for more years
than you have probably been alive.


Wouldn't it be nice to get something in return for your tax dollars?
Apparently myself and other working taxpaying voters spoke-up at the last
election. Maybe America's lazy will finally be forced to work like the
rest of us?

I would like to see tax dollars spent more wisely, yes. Many of our
current military programs are enormous, poorly planned money holes,
our DoD is far too top heavy with too many chiefs and not enough
indians.

In fact, I advocate our country implement two year universal military
servitude for all citizens of a certain age, lower pay for these
conscripts and an elimination of lifetime benefits for non-career
veterans except for those who sustain direct service related permanent
injuries.

I would like to see the Social Security funds protected and taken out
of the reach of congress so they cannot draw down the reserves by
borrowing the monies and ****ing them away on pork. I would also like
to see means testing for social security, hell, I don't need the SS
check every month, but they send it to me anyway.

I would like to see a balanced budget amendment, the presidential
line-item veto and an amendment which limits federal borrowing to
declared wars and certain types of disasters. Also, a complete
elimination of the Federal Reserve Bank, which I consider to be a
progressive boondoggle that has become a form of shadow government.
Lastly, I would like to see an aggressive effort to pay down the
national debt and eliminate the vast amounts of interest we as tax
payers must contribute to service the interest on the debt, that alone
is a travesty.

I feel a dramatic reduction in governmental employment, an elimination
of civil service protections which do not have parallels in the
non-union private sector and a drastic reduction in retirement
benefits not to mention a much longer term of service before being
eligible for retirement of government employees.

Our governments need to return to being a service to the citizenry,
not a major employment sector of our economy. It used to be
government employment was for people that without many other options,
now it is a desirable career. That needs to change.

I have no problem with feeding the hungry, helping to care for the
sick, extending the public school education system to accommodate the
needs of an advancing society and establishing a national
apprenticeship and mentoring program.

Regardless of the patriotic rhetoric, I believe there are groups of
people who require and deserve a hand-up, not a hand-out, because of
many years of oppression and systemic disadvantage.

Good post. I agree wth pretty much all of it. As long as you are talking
amencments, add one for term limits. For state, county and city too.

On Sun, 4 Dec 2016 16:19:37 -0500, "dadiOH" wrote:


"Stormin' Norman" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 3 Dec 2016 11:41:03 -0500, Taxpayer
wrote:

On 12/3/2016 9:30 AM, Stormin' Norman wrote:
I have never worked a day in my life, probably because I have always
loved what I do / have done to earn a living and provide for my
family.


Do you pay income taxes? I sure do and I'm ****ed off that so many of my
hard earned dollars fund programs to support lazy/useless/stupid people.
Why any working taxpayer would willingly cast a vote for a Clintoncrat is
beyond my comprehension.

My personal finances are really none of your business, but that said,
yes I do and I have been paying those taxes continually for more years
than you have probably been alive.


Wouldn't it be nice to get something in return for your tax dollars?
Apparently myself and other working taxpaying voters spoke-up at the last
election. Maybe America's lazy will finally be forced to work like the
rest of us?

I would like to see tax dollars spent more wisely, yes. Many of our
current military programs are enormous, poorly planned money holes,
our DoD is far too top heavy with too many chiefs and not enough
indians.

In fact, I advocate our country implement two year universal military
servitude for all citizens of a certain age, lower pay for these
conscripts and an elimination of lifetime benefits for non-career
veterans except for those who sustain direct service related permanent
injuries.

I would like to see the Social Security funds protected and taken out
of the reach of congress so they cannot draw down the reserves by
borrowing the monies and ****ing them away on pork. I would also like
to see means testing for social security, hell, I don't need the SS
check every month, but they send it to me anyway.

I would like to see a balanced budget amendment, the presidential
line-item veto and an amendment which limits federal borrowing to
declared wars and certain types of disasters. Also, a complete
elimination of the Federal Reserve Bank, which I consider to be a
progressive boondoggle that has become a form of shadow government.
Lastly, I would like to see an aggressive effort to pay down the
national debt and eliminate the vast amounts of interest we as tax
payers must contribute to service the interest on the debt, that alone
is a travesty.

I feel a dramatic reduction in governmental employment, an elimination
of civil service protections which do not have parallels in the
non-union private sector and a drastic reduction in retirement
benefits not to mention a much longer term of service before being
eligible for retirement of government employees.

Our governments need to return to being a service to the citizenry,
not a major employment sector of our economy. It used to be
government employment was for people that without many other options,
now it is a desirable career. That needs to change.

I have no problem with feeding the hungry, helping to care for the
sick, extending the public school education system to accommodate the
needs of an advancing society and establishing a national
apprenticeship and mentoring program.

Regardless of the patriotic rhetoric, I believe there are groups of
people who require and deserve a hand-up, not a hand-out, because of
many years of oppression and systemic disadvantage.

Good post. I agree wth pretty much all of it. As long as you are talking
amencments, add one for term limits. For state, county and city too.


I am in favor of executive term limits, POTUS AND VPOTUS limited to
one six year term which would free them from a vast number of
political considerations. After this election's episode, I would like
to also mandate a total reassignment of legislature and executive
investments and business interests to an audited blind trust for the
duration of their elected service.

I don't see a need for term limits below the executive level. The
electorate should have the right to elect whomever they desire as
their representatives.

On 2016-12-04, Stormin' Norman wrote:
Freedom isn't free, and currently our citizens are insulated from the
costs of maintaining our representative democracy. We have what is

The usual statist twaddle. Slavery is slavery, no matter how you try
to sugarcoat it with sanctimonious drivel about "maintaining our
representative democracy."

Taxation is institutionalized theft, and while it cannot be entirely
avoided as long as the State exists, it should be minimized. The vast
majority of taxes today go to fund the welfare state, not the military.
End the New Deal and the Great Society and taxes will drop drastically.

If you want to characterize UMS as slavery, that is your business. I
would like to see it implemented as the price of voting citizenship.

If tied to voting, a la Heinlein's "Starship Troopers," rather than
"serve or go to jail/be shot" that takes the idea out of the realm of
slavery and actually makes sense. In fact universal suffrage is a very
bad idea. A lot of the economic problems we face today stem from the
fact that non-producers are permitted to sit on their asses, draw a
welfare check, and continue to vote themselves more and more largesse
out of the public treasury. (Which of course comes out of their more
productive neighbors' pockets.)

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roger Blake (Posts from Google Groups killfiled due to excess spam.)

NSA sedition and treason -- http://www.DeathToNSAthugs.com
Don't talk to cops! -- http://www.DontTalkToCops.com
Badges don't grant extra rights -- http://www.CopBlock.org
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Sun, 4 Dec 2016 23:05:03 -0000 (UTC), Roger Blake
wrote:

On 2016-12-04, Stormin' Norman wrote:
Freedom isn't free, and currently our citizens are insulated from the
costs of maintaining our representative democracy. We have what is

The usual statist twaddle. Slavery is slavery, no matter how you try
to sugarcoat it with sanctimonious drivel about "maintaining our
representative democracy."


I would not say your argument is entirely invalid, however, I believe
there are distinctions that set conscription well apart from slavery.

Taxation is institutionalized theft, and while it cannot be entirely
avoided as long as the State exists, it should be minimized. The vast
majority of taxes today go to fund the welfare state, not the military.
End the New Deal and the Great Society and taxes will drop drastically.

Institutionalized theft, using your logic one could call Social
Security a Ponzi scheme. However, both statements are wrong as we the
people have legislated and legalized taxation, social security and
conscription. If you did not have a say in these legislations, you
might have a point, however, our society has deemed them to be legal.


If you want to characterize UMS as slavery, that is your business. I
would like to see it implemented as the price of voting citizenship.

If tied to voting, a la Heinlein's "Starship Troopers," rather than
"serve or go to jail/be shot" that takes the idea out of the realm of
slavery and actually makes sense. In fact universal suffrage is a very
bad idea. A lot of the economic problems we face today stem from the
fact that non-producers are permitted to sit on their asses, draw a
welfare check, and continue to vote themselves more and more largesse
out of the public treasury. (Which of course comes out of their more
productive neighbors' pockets.)

I am not familiar with Heinlein or "Starship Troopers" so I am not in
a position to comment.

On Sun, 04 Dec 2016 13:55:14 -0500, wrote:

On Sun, 04 Dec 2016 15:09:07 +0000, Stormin' Norman
wrote:

On Sun, 4 Dec 2016 14:49:02 -0000 (UTC), Roger Blake
wrote:

On 2016-12-04, Stormin' Norman wrote:
In fact, I advocate our country implement two year universal military
servitude for all citizens of a certain age,

Ah, so you are in favor of institutionalized slavery.

I am in favor of universal military servitude just as I am in favor of
taxes for all residents. I would even like to see voting eligibility
tied to this service.

Freedom isn't free, and currently our citizens are insulated from the
costs of maintaining our representative democracy. We have what is
basically a mercenary style, all volunteer, well paid and benefited
military. For those who haven't noticed, much of the cost of our
military operations are financed through borrowing from future
generations.

Those of you who didn't live through the second war did not experience
the sacrifices made by that generation to support that war. Now, we
go to war and build $13 billion super carriers and no one notices the
cost because of the unbridled borrowing. We also barely notice those
who fight our wars and most citizens can ignore the conflicts because
they can just choose to not serve and their children can avoid service
just as did Trump.

If you want to characterize UMS as slavery, that is your business. I
would like to see it implemented as the price of voting citizenship.
Of course there would be exceptions and maybe we would have a
universal government service instead of UMS, but the concept is the
same.
I agree with UGS rather than UMS. I grew up in a community where
volunteerism and service were a part of everyday life. I did my 2
years, teaching.

Did you never serve in the military?

On Sunday, December 4, 2016 at 5:23:14 PM UTC-6, Stormin' Norman wrote:
On Sun, 4 Dec 2016 23:05:03 -0000 (UTC), Roger Blake
wrote:

On 2016-12-04, Stormin' Norman wrote:
Freedom isn't free, and currently our citizens are insulated from the
costs of maintaining our representative democracy. We have what is

The usual statist twaddle. Slavery is slavery, no matter how you try
to sugarcoat it with sanctimonious drivel about "maintaining our
representative democracy."


I would not say your argument is entirely invalid, however, I believe
there are distinctions that set conscription well apart from slavery.

Taxation is institutionalized theft, and while it cannot be entirely
avoided as long as the State exists, it should be minimized. The vast
majority of taxes today go to fund the welfare state, not the military.
End the New Deal and the Great Society and taxes will drop drastically.

Institutionalized theft, using your logic one could call Social
Security a Ponzi scheme. However, both statements are wrong as we the
people have legislated and legalized taxation, social security and
conscription. If you did not have a say in these legislations, you
might have a point, however, our society has deemed them to be legal.


If you want to characterize UMS as slavery, that is your business. I
would like to see it implemented as the price of voting citizenship.

If tied to voting, a la Heinlein's "Starship Troopers," rather than
"serve or go to jail/be shot" that takes the idea out of the realm of
slavery and actually makes sense. In fact universal suffrage is a very
bad idea. A lot of the economic problems we face today stem from the
fact that non-producers are permitted to sit on their asses, draw a
welfare check, and continue to vote themselves more and more largesse
out of the public treasury. (Which of course comes out of their more
productive neighbors' pockets.)

I am not familiar with Heinlein or "Starship Troopers" so I am not in
a position to comment.


Heinlein wrote a story turned into a SciFi movie with T&A and a lot of blood and guts, a LOT of blood and guts with the enemy being giant bugs. People who wished to be considered citizens must serve in the military. If you like to see pretty young men and women spattered, crushed and blown up, Starship Troupers is the movie for you. ヽ(ヅ)ノ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XvAsR4O4W0w

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_5UZfwX0ss

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52WoFoZnDa0

[8~{} Uncle Space Monster

On 2016-12-04, Stormin' Norman wrote:
Institutionalized theft, using your logic one could call Social
Security a Ponzi scheme. However, both statements are wrong as we the
people have legislated and legalized taxation, social security and
conscription. If you did not have a say in these legislations, you
might have a point, however, our society has deemed them to be legal.

Social Security *is* a Ponzi scheme by any reasonable definition of the term.

I do not see government as having any special status and judge its
actions the same way that I would any individual or private organization.
If it is immoral for an individual or a private concern to do something,
as far as I am concerned it is also immoral for a government to do
it. People have been conditioned from an early age to give the State
special status and dispensation, particularly when it uses the excuse of
"the will of the people." I don't buy it.

Every action of government is based in violence and coercion, same as the
mafia. The fact that we have some say over who the dons are going to be
does not change this. That's the reason that in the US, government was
supposed to be limited and constrained to a set of specific functions
laid out in a written document. Unfortunately it has managed to weasel
out of its chains and has now metasticized into virtually every facet
of our lives.

I am not familiar with Heinlein or "Starship Troopers" so I am not in
a position to comment.

In short, Starship Troopers described a society in which the right to full
citizenship had to be earned via voluntary Federal service. In the book
only such full citizens were able to vote or hold public office. Individuals
were free not to serve but in that case would live under those constraints.
(Though they were otherwise entitled to the same rights and protections.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starship_Troopers

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roger Blake (Posts from Google Groups killfiled due to excess spam.)

NSA sedition and treason -- http://www.DeathToNSAthugs.com
Don't talk to cops! -- http://www.DontTalkToCops.com
Badges don't grant extra rights -- http://www.CopBlock.org
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Mon, 5 Dec 2016 03:26:36 -0000 (UTC), Roger Blake
wrote:

On 2016-12-04, Stormin' Norman wrote:
Institutionalized theft, using your logic one could call Social
Security a Ponzi scheme. However, both statements are wrong as we the
people have legislated and legalized taxation, social security and
conscription. If you did not have a say in these legislations, you
might have a point, however, our society has deemed them to be legal.

Social Security *is* a Ponzi scheme by any reasonable definition of the term.

Actually, the most significant difference is that Ponzi Schemes are
illegal and Social Security is legal.


I do not see government as having any special status and judge its
actions the same way that I would any individual or private organization.
If it is immoral for an individual or a private concern to do something,
as far as I am concerned it is also immoral for a government to do
it. People have been conditioned from an early age to give the State
special status and dispensation, particularly when it uses the excuse of
"the will of the people." I don't buy it.

If you object, you should petition your representatives for change and
the redress of your grievance.


Every action of government is based in violence and coercion, same as the
mafia. The fact that we have some say over who the dons are going to be
does not change this. That's the reason that in the US, government was
supposed to be limited and constrained to a set of specific functions
laid out in a written document. Unfortunately it has managed to weasel
out of its chains and has now metasticized into virtually every facet
of our lives.


I disagree, many actions of a totalitarian government are edicts,
handed down by one or a few people who are not the duly elected
representatives of the people. Those edicts are enforced through the
threat or actual use of violence and intimidation.

In the USA, our duly elected representatives pass laws which are
reasonably considered to be the will of the people. Any citizen has
the right to protest and seek to change those laws through their
representatives without fear of retaliation or retribution from the
government.

Should you opt to engage in unlawful behavior up to and including
anarchy, the people have deemed that our laws should be enforced by
our representatives and their supervised agents.

In other words, if you consider the enforcement of laws established by
a representative democracy to be "violence and coercion" then you do
not understand our system of government, refuse to work within the
framework of that system or are anarchistic by nature and have no
place living in a civilized society. I am not sure what your options
are, possibly you could find a way to emigrate to and survive on Mars.

I will say it once again, if citizens object to laws and regulations,
they should be petition their representatives. The government is what
we make of it. Yes, it is a slow and tedious process, but that is how
a representative democracy works.


I am not familiar with Heinlein or "Starship Troopers" so I am not in
a position to comment.

In short, Starship Troopers described a society in which the right to full
citizenship had to be earned via voluntary Federal service. In the book
only such full citizens were able to vote or hold public office. Individuals
were free not to serve but in that case would live under those constraints.
(Though they were otherwise entitled to the same rights and protections.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starship_Troopers

On 12/4/16 10:26 PM, Roger Blake wrote:
On 2016-12-04, Stormin' Norman wrote:
Institutionalized theft, using your logic one could call Social
Security a Ponzi scheme. However, both statements are wrong as we the
people have legislated and legalized taxation, social security and
conscription. If you did not have a say in these legislations, you
might have a point, however, our society has deemed them to be legal.

Social Security *is* a Ponzi scheme by any reasonable definition of the term.


I have one problem with calling SS a Ponzi scheme. Mr. Ponzi's
victims were all voluntary and the "investment" was enforced by guys
with guns, and forfeiture warrants.

On Mon, 5 Dec 2016 09:26:23 -0500, "Kurt V. Ullman"
wrote:

On 12/4/16 10:26 PM, Roger Blake wrote:
On 2016-12-04, Stormin' Norman wrote:
Institutionalized theft, using your logic one could call Social
Security a Ponzi scheme. However, both statements are wrong as we the
people have legislated and legalized taxation, social security and
conscription. If you did not have a say in these legislations, you
might have a point, however, our society has deemed them to be legal.

Social Security *is* a Ponzi scheme by any reasonable definition of the term.


I have one problem with calling SS a Ponzi scheme. Mr. Ponzi's
victims were all voluntary and the "investment" was enforced by guys
with guns, and forfeiture warrants.



With all due respect, if you and others object to the law, change it.
That is your right.

Most people spend more time each month playing on Usenet, watching TV,
listening to the radio, surfing the web, etc. then they spend
exercising their rights as citizens and getting involved in our
governance.

On 12/4/2016 8:32 AM, Stormin' Norman wrote:

I would like to see tax dollars spent more wisely, yes. Many of our
current military programs are enormous, poorly planned money holes,
our DoD is far too top heavy with too many chiefs and not enough
indians.

How would you implement changes in our military?

In fact, I advocate our country implement two year universal military
servitude for all citizens of a certain age, lower pay for these
conscripts and an elimination of lifetime benefits for non-career
veterans except for those who sustain direct service related permanent
injuries.

I don't think a forced military service would work, and I'm not sure why
lifetime benefits for veterans should stop, either. Many people join
the service BECAUSE of some of the benefits, like, assistance with
paying for school. Remove those benefits and then less people would be
interested in joining the military, which would in turn, might actually
mean we'd have to return to a draft. I'd much rather have a military
consisting of people who want to be there, than having a military full
of people who don't want to be there.

I would like to see the Social Security funds protected and taken out
of the reach of congress so they cannot draw down the reserves by
borrowing the monies and ****ing them away on pork. I would also like
to see means testing for social security, hell, I don't need the SS
check every month, but they send it to me anyway.

I agree with protecting the SS funds. How would you delineate between
people who shouldn't get SS?

I would like to see a balanced budget amendment, the presidential
line-item veto and an amendment which limits federal borrowing to
declared wars and certain types of disasters.

All good ideas, imo.

Also, a complete
elimination of the Federal Reserve Bank, which I consider to be a
progressive boondoggle that has become a form of shadow government.
Lastly, I would like to see an aggressive effort to pay down the
national debt and eliminate the vast amounts of interest we as tax
payers must contribute to service the interest on the debt, that alone
is a travesty.

How would you suggest that be done?

I feel a dramatic reduction in governmental employment, an elimination
of civil service protections which do not have parallels in the
non-union private sector and a drastic reduction in retirement
benefits not to mention a much longer term of service before being
eligible for retirement of government employees.

I think government is too large, too, but I'm not sure reducing the
benefits in any job is a good idea. People work hard and should get
something out of working any job, but I'd like to see a reasonable
adjustment - not just blindsiding employees just because they work for
the government. They have families to support, too.

Our governments need to return to being a service to the citizenry,
not a major employment sector of our economy. It used to be
government employment was for people that without many other options,
now it is a desirable career. That needs to change.

I don't see any reason a government job shouldn't be a desirable career
any more than a private sector job.

I have no problem with feeding the hungry, helping to care for the
sick, extending the public school education system to accommodate the
needs of an advancing society and establishing a national
apprenticeship and mentoring program.

All good ideas.

Regardless of the patriotic rhetoric, I believe there are groups of
people who require and deserve a hand-up, not a hand-out, because of
many years of oppression and systemic disadvantage.


You mean like women, right?

--
Maggie

On Mon, 05 Dec 2016 14:40:30 +0000, Stormin' Norman
wrote:

On Mon, 5 Dec 2016 09:26:23 -0500, "Kurt V. Ullman"
wrote:

On 12/4/16 10:26 PM, Roger Blake wrote:
On 2016-12-04, Stormin' Norman wrote:
Institutionalized theft, using your logic one could call Social
Security a Ponzi scheme. However, both statements are wrong as we the
people have legislated and legalized taxation, social security and
conscription. If you did not have a say in these legislations, you
might have a point, however, our society has deemed them to be legal.

Social Security *is* a Ponzi scheme by any reasonable definition of the term.


I have one problem with calling SS a Ponzi scheme. Mr. Ponzi's
victims were all voluntary and the "investment" was enforced by guys
with guns, and forfeiture warrants.



With all due respect, if you and others object to the law, change it.
That is your right.


Any attempt to eliminate SS will meet with a tarring and feathering.
Followed by a trip out of town on a rail.

On Mon, 05 Dec 2016 10:47:46 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Mon, 05 Dec 2016 14:40:30 +0000, Stormin' Norman
wrote:

On Mon, 5 Dec 2016 09:26:23 -0500, "Kurt V. Ullman"
wrote:

On 12/4/16 10:26 PM, Roger Blake wrote:
On 2016-12-04, Stormin' Norman wrote:
Institutionalized theft, using your logic one could call Social
Security a Ponzi scheme. However, both statements are wrong as we the
people have legislated and legalized taxation, social security and
conscription. If you did not have a say in these legislations, you
might have a point, however, our society has deemed them to be legal.

Social Security *is* a Ponzi scheme by any reasonable definition of the term.


I have one problem with calling SS a Ponzi scheme. Mr. Ponzi's
victims were all voluntary and the "investment" was enforced by guys
with guns, and forfeiture warrants.



With all due respect, if you and others object to the law, change it.
That is your right.


Any attempt to eliminate SS will meet with a tarring and feathering.
Followed by a trip out of town on a rail.

Which is exactly how a representative democracy should work, sans the
violence of course. However, SS has been around for about 80 years or
so and there is nothing to say a better system could not be
introduced.

For example, if the SS trust fund were configured as a blind trust,
one divided into many diverse pieces and administered by contracted
private management firms, the odds are it would not only be flush with
money for the foreseeable future, but it would also produce an
enormous shot in the arm for private industry and hence employment.

Combine the above with a legal prohibition on congress being able to
touch or borrow those funds and, those citizens who are most in need
at the most vulnerable points in their lives could live in the dignity
which should be afforded to our elders.

It is a win-win situation, proper investments produce tremendous
returns, and in turn those investments encourage employment and
economic growth. All while helping our neighbors who need it the
most, regardless of whether they made great life choices or not.

On Mon, 05 Dec 2016 13:56:05 +0000, Stormin' Norman
wrote:

Social Security *is* a Ponzi scheme by any reasonable definition of the term.

Actually, the most significant difference is that Ponzi Schemes are
illegal and Social Security is legal.


That is simply an arbitrary decision made by the government that is
running the Ponzi. It is clear the main elements of a Ponzi are
present.
1. It was designed as a pyramid with a large of new investors paying a
fairly small number of payees.
2. The operator of the scheme siphoned off as much of the excess
inventors money as they could and still give a reasonable amount of
money to the original investors.
3. There is no real "investment" (the government loaning itself money
is not investing, no matter what bogus they promise to pay
themselves.)
4 and the most important, when the base of the pyramid can not support
the number of payees who expect to get their money out, the scheme
fails.

On Mon, 05 Dec 2016 17:17:54 +0000, Stormin' Norman
wrote:

For example, if the SS trust fund were configured as a blind trust,
one divided into many diverse pieces and administered by contracted
private management firms, the odds are it would not only be flush with
money for the foreseeable future, but it would also produce an
enormous shot in the arm for private industry and hence employment

I agree with that but the left calls that "privatizing SS" and that is
seen as being as bad as anything else anyone has proposed.
The other problem is the tax was not high enough to support all of the
programs that have been allowed to raid the fund like SSI.
LBJ put the whole thing "on budget" to hide the cost of his war and
since then it is just a government welfare program, taking money from
the general fund and giving it to seniors along with a vast array of
other people.
FDR was the one who started raiding the money, to pay for his war.
Nobody has a plan to pay back all of the money that was taken and the
only way the government can get that money is with higher taxes.
This is not a question of SS failing. We are in a serious danger of
losing the "full faith and credit" of the US government over this
because those SS retirees will want the government to honor the
worthless paper in the "trust fund". They are already reneging on the
promise. They are pushing back the retirement date and they are taxing
money that was invested with "after tax" money. It was supposed to be
tax free.

On Mon, 05 Dec 2016 15:10:10 -0500, wrote:

On Mon, 05 Dec 2016 13:56:05 +0000, Stormin' Norman
wrote:

Social Security *is* a Ponzi scheme by any reasonable definition of the term.

Actually, the most significant difference is that Ponzi Schemes are
illegal and Social Security is legal.


That is simply an arbitrary decision made by the government that is
running the Ponzi. It is clear the main elements of a Ponzi are
present.
1. It was designed as a pyramid with a large of new investors paying a
fairly small number of payees.
2. The operator of the scheme siphoned off as much of the excess
inventors money as they could and still give a reasonable amount of
money to the original investors.
3. There is no real "investment" (the government loaning itself money
is not investing, no matter what bogus they promise to pay
themselves.)
4 and the most important, when the base of the pyramid can not support
the number of payees who expect to get their money out, the scheme
fails.

We, the people, through our representatives have approved of
everything the government is doing and has done with social security.

We are the government, the government is us. So many people lose
sight of this simple and all important fact when they are unhappy
about something and don't want to take any responsibility for either
the problem or the solution.

On Mon, 05 Dec 2016 15:20:51 -0500, wrote:

On Mon, 05 Dec 2016 17:17:54 +0000, Stormin' Norman
wrote:

For example, if the SS trust fund were configured as a blind trust,
one divided into many diverse pieces and administered by contracted
private management firms, the odds are it would not only be flush with
money for the foreseeable future, but it would also produce an
enormous shot in the arm for private industry and hence employment

I agree with that but the left calls that "privatizing SS" and that is
seen as being as bad as anything else anyone has proposed.
The other problem is the tax was not high enough to support all of the
programs that have been allowed to raid the fund like SSI.
LBJ put the whole thing "on budget" to hide the cost of his war and
since then it is just a government welfare program, taking money from
the general fund and giving it to seniors along with a vast array of
other people.
FDR was the one who started raiding the money, to pay for his war.
Nobody has a plan to pay back all of the money that was taken and the
only way the government can get that money is with higher taxes.
This is not a question of SS failing. We are in a serious danger of
losing the "full faith and credit" of the US government over this
because those SS retirees will want the government to honor the
worthless paper in the "trust fund". They are already reneging on the
promise. They are pushing back the retirement date and they are taxing
money that was invested with "after tax" money. It was supposed to be
tax free.

Yes, I lived through all that history which is why I put forth the
broad brush solutions I posted above. Over the years, I have
documented the same suggestions in a slightly more formal manner and
have sent them to my representatives and to four or five different
presidents ( forget exactly how many). Not enough of my fellow
citizens have taken interest in the topic and the congress continues
to treat the trust fund like a cookie jar to be raided or a gravy pot
full of homemade meatballs to be swiped.

On 12/5/16 12:17 PM, Stormin' Norman wrote:
On Mon, 05 Dec 2016 10:47:46 -0600, Vic Smith

For example, if the SS trust fund were configured as a blind trust,
one divided into many diverse pieces and administered by contracted
private management firms, the odds are it would not only be flush with
money for the foreseeable future, but it would also produce an
enormous shot in the arm for private industry and hence employment.

The problem with that is there is no such thing as a blind trust in this
arena. You have at the very least normal checks and balances to make
sure the investments are legal. And the Congress would use it as a slush
fund in many cases. About the only way to do it would be to cut it up
into a bunch of index funds. Even then the new money would cause all
sorts of havoc.




It is a win-win situation, proper investments produce tremendous
returns, and in turn those investments encourage employment and
economic growth. All while helping our neighbors who need it the
most, regardless of whether they made great life choices or not.

The problem would be the definition of "proper".

On 12/5/16 3:20 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 05 Dec 2016 17:17:54 +0000, Stormin' Norman

FDR was the one who started raiding the money, to pay for his war.
Nobody has a plan to pay back all of the money that was taken and the
only way the government can get that money is with higher taxes.

Oh that that was true. (grin). There is also inflating it (my personal
guess for most likely scenario) and cutting benefits.

presented the following explanation :
On Mon, 05 Dec 2016 17:17:54 +0000, Stormin' Norman
wrote:

For example, if the SS trust fund were configured as a blind trust,
one divided into many diverse pieces and administered by contracted
private management firms, the odds are it would not only be flush with
money for the foreseeable future, but it would also produce an
enormous shot in the arm for private industry and hence employment

I agree with that but the left calls that "privatizing SS" and that is
seen as being as bad as anything else anyone has proposed.
The other problem is the tax was not high enough to support all of the
programs that have been allowed to raid the fund like SSI.

Are you suggesting that SSI funds come from SS instead of general tax
revenues?

LBJ put the whole thing "on budget" to hide the cost of his war and
since then it is just a government welfare program, taking money from
the general fund and giving it to seniors along with a vast array of
other people.
FDR was the one who started raiding the money, to pay for his war.
Nobody has a plan to pay back all of the money that was taken and the
only way the government can get that money is with higher taxes.
This is not a question of SS failing. We are in a serious danger of
losing the "full faith and credit" of the US government over this
because those SS retirees will want the government to honor the
worthless paper in the "trust fund". They are already reneging on the
promise. They are pushing back the retirement date and they are taxing
money that was invested with "after tax" money. It was supposed to be
tax free.

On Mon, 05 Dec 2016 16:53:15 -0500, FromTheRafters
wrote:

presented the following explanation :
On Mon, 05 Dec 2016 17:17:54 +0000, Stormin' Norman
wrote:

For example, if the SS trust fund were configured as a blind trust,
one divided into many diverse pieces and administered by contracted
private management firms, the odds are it would not only be flush with
money for the foreseeable future, but it would also produce an
enormous shot in the arm for private industry and hence employment

I agree with that but the left calls that "privatizing SS" and that is
seen as being as bad as anything else anyone has proposed.
The other problem is the tax was not high enough to support all of the
programs that have been allowed to raid the fund like SSI.

Are you suggesting that SSI funds come from SS instead of general tax
revenues?

That is what is supposed to be happening but it is a distinction
without a difference since SS has been upside down for almost a decade
and we are using the general fund (33% borrowed money) for retirees
too.
This was even acknowledged by the left when they said not raising the
debt limit would threaten SS, even though they still hang on to the
myth that there is a trust fund.
The trust fund is just another line item on the debt.