HeyBub wrote:

That's a separate issue. Politicians need two things to stay in
office: votes and money. The money supplied by the "special
interests" offset the cries of the easily manipulated unwashed masses.

It's a balancing act. Sometimes the mob prevails, sometimes those who
are most affected win.

"The mob," that's cute, you're really not all that impressed by the whole
democracy thing, are you. That view is usually held by those who assume
that in the good old days they would have been among the patrician class, it
never seems to cross their minds that they might have been piling muck in a
bog with their bare hands while yelling, "Help! Help! I'm being repressed!"

Lobbyists are good. Do you really want the electorate to decide the
railway tariff for unrendered yak-fat? Or do you want the railroads
and the yak wranglers to have input?

I don't want the final decision to rest on how much the yak-fat cartel
contributs to the campaign funds of key legislators, which is often the way
it is now. The banking industry spend three hundred million lobbying for
deregulation in the mid-90s, they got what they wanted and then indulged in
an orgy of greed and incompetence which has put all of us in trouble.
Lobbyists need to be kept on a short leash, and fat chance of either party
ever agreeing to that.

DGDevin wrote:

Lobbyists are good. Do you really want the electorate to decide the
railway tariff for unrendered yak-fat? Or do you want the railroads
and the yak wranglers to have input?

I don't want the final decision to rest on how much the yak-fat cartel
contributs to the campaign funds of key legislators, which is often
the way it is now. The banking industry spend three hundred million
lobbying for deregulation in the mid-90s, they got what they wanted
and then indulged in an orgy of greed and incompetence which has put
all of us in trouble. Lobbyists need to be kept on a short leash, and
fat chance of either party ever agreeing to that.

Uh, no. That's not what happened. The banking industry is probably the most
regulated in the country. What happened was a 1995 amendment to the
Community Redevelopment Act that mandated a certain percentage of loans be
made to "disadvantaged" communities. Absence of sufficient loans in these
communities would cause government regulators to not be happy with banks and
morgtage companies.

To meet this goal, banks had to loan money to non-credit worthy people. This
worked as long as housing prices continued to rise. When the balloon payment
came due, the homeowner simply re-financed the appreciated value. This Ponzi
scheme collapsed when everybody who could draw two consecutive breaths owned
a home.

Drive around the most ****ed-up neighborhood in your town. In a typical
shopping center you'll see a bodega, a pawn shop, hookers on the corner, and
crack dealers in the alleys. And there, like a gold coin in a pile of dung,
a Washington Mutual, Bank of America, or Wells Fargo branch. Do you think
those banks WANTED to put a store-front in the middle of that crap?

DGDevin wrote:

HeyBub wrote:

That's a separate issue. Politicians need two things to stay in
office: votes and money. The money supplied by the "special
interests" offset the cries of the easily manipulated unwashed masses.

It's a balancing act. Sometimes the mob prevails, sometimes those who
are most affected win.

"The mob," that's cute, you're really not all that impressed by the whole
democracy thing, are you. That view is usually held by those who assume
that in the good old days they would have been among the patrician class,
it never seems to cross their minds that they might have been piling muck
in a bog with their bare hands while yelling, "Help! Help! I'm being
repressed!"

The nation's Founders weren't too enthralled with democracy either,that is
why the established a Republic. The idea of a pure democracy (as we are
seeing today) truly is "the mob" ruling. It is 51% of people who don't pay
income taxes voting in politicians who continue to promise to punish the
49% of those who do pay taxes and obtaining more support from some of that
49% by telling *them* that they are really only going after the 5% of wage
earners who are now paying 60% of all income taxes. Pure democracy can be
likened to two foxes and a chicken deciding on the lunch menu. That is why
the Republic outlined in the Constitution was established -- to make sure
that no one swing group could control the direction and fortunes of the
country. Unfortunately, too many "progressives" going back to at least
Woodrow Wilson decided that was too "quaint" and "inefficient" and that
the "voices of the people" should be the driving force for all policies.
So now we have all these neat "innovations" to the constitution, like the
Income Tax -- a direct tax on the citizens of the various states that has
now managed to place the federal government pretty much in absolute control
of every citizen's life due to the control of how those taxes are spent.


Lobbyists are good. Do you really want the electorate to decide the
railway tariff for unrendered yak-fat? Or do you want the railroads
and the yak wranglers to have input?

I don't want the final decision to rest on how much the yak-fat cartel
contributs to the campaign funds of key legislators, which is often the
way
it is now. The banking industry spend three hundred million lobbying for
deregulation in the mid-90s, they got what they wanted and then indulged
in an orgy of greed and incompetence which has put all of us in trouble.
Lobbyists need to be kept on a short leash, and fat chance of either party
ever agreeing to that.

--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Mark & Juanita wrote:

The nation's Founders weren't too enthralled with democracy either,that is
why the established a Republic. The idea of a pure democracy (as we are
seeing today) truly is "the mob" ruling. It is 51% of people who don't pay
income taxes voting in politicians who continue to promise to punish the
49% of those who do pay taxes and obtaining more support from some of that
49% by telling *them* that they are really only going after the 5% of wage
earners who are now paying 60% of all income taxes. Pure democracy can be
likened to two foxes and a chicken deciding on the lunch menu. That is why
the Republic outlined in the Constitution was established -- to make sure
that no one swing group could control the direction and fortunes of the
country. Unfortunately, too many "progressives" going back to at least
Woodrow Wilson decided that was too "quaint" and "inefficient" and that
the "voices of the people" should be the driving force for all policies.
So now we have all these neat "innovations" to the constitution, like the
Income Tax -- a direct tax on the citizens of the various states that has
now managed to place the federal government pretty much in absolute control
of every citizen's life due to the control of how those taxes are spent.

The message below was sent by e-mail to me recently. I believe it fits
nicely into this thread.
__________________________________________________ ____________

Catching Wild Pigs

A chemistry professor in a large college had some exchange students in
the class. One day while the class was in the lab the Professor noticed
one young man (exchange student) who kept rubbing his back, and
stretching as if his back hurt.

The professor asked the young man what was the matter. The student told
him he had a bullet lodged in his back. He had been shot while fighting
communists in his native country who were trying to overthrow his
country's government and install a new communist government.

In the midst of his story he looked at the professor and asked a strange
question. He asked, “Do you know how to catch wild pigs?”

The professor thought it was a joke and asked for the punch line. The
young man said this was no joke. “You catch wild pigs by finding a
suitable place in the woods and putting corn on the ground. The pigs
find it and begin to come everyday to eat the free corn. When they are
used to coming every day, you put a fence down one side of the place
where they are used to coming. When they get used to the fence, they
begin to eat the corn again and you put up another side of the fence.
They get used to that and start to eat again. You continue until you
have all four sides of the fence up with a gate in the last side. The
pigs, which are used to the free corn, start to come through the gate to
eat; you slam the gate on them and catch the whole herd.

Suddenly the wild pigs have lost their freedom. They run around and
around inside the fence, but they are caught. Soon they go back to
eating the free corn. They are so used to it that they have forgotten
how to forage in the woods for themselves, so they accept their captivity.”

The young man then told the professor that is exactly what he sees
happening to America. The government keeps pushing us toward socialism
and keeps spreading the free corn out in the form of programs such as
supplemental income, tax credit for unearned income, tobacco subsidies,
dairy subsidies, payments not to plant crops (CRP), welfare, medicine,
drugs, etc. While we continually lose our freedoms -- just a little at a
time.

Keep your eyes on the newly elected politicians who are about to slam
the gate on America.

One should always remember: There is no such thing as a free lunch!
Also, a politician will never provide a service for you cheaper than you
can do it yourself.

"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough
to take away everything you have"

Thomas Jefferson


--
Jack Novak
Buffalo, NY - USA

Nova wrote:
Mark & Juanita wrote:

The nation's Founders weren't too enthralled with democracy
either,that is why the established a Republic. The idea of a pure
democracy (as we are seeing today) truly is "the mob" ruling. It is
51% of people who don't pay income taxes voting in politicians who
continue to promise to punish the 49% of those who do pay taxes and
obtaining more support from some of that 49% by telling *them* that
they are really only going after the 5% of wage earners who are now
paying 60% of all income taxes. Pure democracy can be likened to
two foxes and a chicken deciding on the lunch menu. That is why the
Republic outlined in the Constitution was established -- to make
sure that no one swing group could control the direction and
fortunes of the country. Unfortunately, too many "progressives"
going back to at least Woodrow Wilson decided that was too "quaint"
and "inefficient" and that the "voices of the people" should be the
driving force for all
policies. So now we have all these neat "innovations" to the
constitution,
like the Income Tax -- a direct tax on the citizens of the various
states that has now managed to place the federal government pretty
much in absolute control of every citizen's life due to the control
of how those taxes are spent.

The message below was sent by e-mail to me recently. I believe it
fits nicely into this thread.
__________________________________________________ ____________

Catching Wild Pigs

A chemistry professor in a large college had some exchange students in
the class. One day while the class was in the lab the Professor
noticed one young man (exchange student) who kept rubbing his back,
and stretching as if his back hurt.

The professor asked the young man what was the matter. The student
told him he had a bullet lodged in his back. He had been shot while
fighting communists in his native country who were trying to
overthrow his country's government and install a new communist
government.
In the midst of his story he looked at the professor and asked a
strange question. He asked, “Do you know how to catch wild pigs?”

The professor thought it was a joke and asked for the punch line. The
young man said this was no joke. “You catch wild pigs by finding a
suitable place in the woods and putting corn on the ground. The pigs
find it and begin to come everyday to eat the free corn. When they are
used to coming every day, you put a fence down one side of the place
where they are used to coming. When they get used to the fence, they
begin to eat the corn again and you put up another side of the fence.
They get used to that and start to eat again. You continue until you
have all four sides of the fence up with a gate in the last side. The
pigs, which are used to the free corn, start to come through the gate
to eat; you slam the gate on them and catch the whole herd.

Suddenly the wild pigs have lost their freedom. They run around and
around inside the fence, but they are caught. Soon they go back to
eating the free corn. They are so used to it that they have forgotten
how to forage in the woods for themselves, so they accept their
captivity.”
The young man then told the professor that is exactly what he sees
happening to America. The government keeps pushing us toward socialism
and keeps spreading the free corn out in the form of programs such as
supplemental income, tax credit for unearned income, tobacco
subsidies, dairy subsidies, payments not to plant crops (CRP),
welfare, medicine, drugs, etc. While we continually lose our freedoms
-- just a little at a time.

Keep your eyes on the newly elected politicians who are about to slam
the gate on America.

One should always remember: There is no such thing as a free lunch!
Also, a politician will never provide a service for you cheaper than
you can do it yourself.


Excellent parable. It also illustrates the different methodologies in
capturing wild pigs. We right-wingers wouldn't go to all the trouble of corn
and fences and time.

We'd just shoot the porkers the first day.

"HeyBub" wrote

Excellent parable. It also illustrates the different methodologies in
capturing wild pigs. We right-wingers wouldn't go to all the trouble of
corn and fences and time.

We'd just shoot the porkers the first day.

From an age based perspective, and the view looking over Attila the Hun's
right shoulder, I would shoot those casting the corn/building the fences ...
save a damn sight more time and angst.


--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

Swingman wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote


Excellent parable. It also illustrates the different methodologies in
capturing wild pigs. We right-wingers wouldn't go to all the trouble of
corn and fences and time.

We'd just shoot the porkers the first day.


From an age based perspective, and the view looking over Attila the Hun's
right shoulder, I would shoot those casting the corn/building the fences ...
save a damn sight more time and angst.



Didn't you Texans do that in the past with a different brand of sheep
herders?

http://www.jcs-group.com/oldwest/war/grass.html

--
Jack Novak
Buffalo, NY - USA

Nova wrote:
From an age based perspective, and the view looking over Attila the
Hun's right shoulder, I would shoot those casting the corn/building
the fences ... save a damn sight more time and angst.



Didn't you Texans do that in the past with a different brand of sheep
herders?

http://www.jcs-group.com/oldwest/war/grass.html

Only Texans that have sheep are Aggies.

Brought them back as war brides after the mistaken invasion of New Zealand
(which is a whole 'nother story that had something to do with a muskrat and
a jar of mayonnaise - I never was too clear on the details).

On Apr 6, 1:33*pm, Nova wrote:


Keep your eyes on the newly elected politicians who are about to slam
the gate on America.

Unfortunately, it was the preceding President who oiled the gate's
hinges and put a stronger spring on the closer.


One should always remember: There is no such thing as a free lunch!
Also, a politician will never provide a service for you cheaper than you
can do it yourself.

Not totally true. Have you priced paving lately? No individual can
afford many of the things we insist, rightly, that government carry
out. It's at the point of deciding what's right for the government to
do, and what isn't, that people differ.


"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough
to take away everything you have"

* * *Thomas Jefferson

Yup. But when was the line crossed? Maybe with something as simple,
and old, as the Louisiana Purchase, doubling the size of the U.S. and
tripling or quadrupling its real needs for government intervention? It
sure isn't a recent phenomenon that government grew beyond reasonable
bounds.

Charlie Self wrote:
On Apr 6, 1:33 pm, Nova wrote:


Keep your eyes on the newly elected politicians who are about to slam
the gate on America.

Unfortunately, it was the preceding President who oiled the gate's
hinges and put a stronger spring on the closer.


One should always remember: There is no such thing as a free lunch!
Also, a politician will never provide a service for you cheaper than
you can do it yourself.

Not totally true. Have you priced paving lately? No individual can
afford many of the things we insist, rightly, that government carry
out. It's at the point of deciding what's right for the government to
do, and what isn't, that people differ.


But the government's not interested in doing things cheaply.

I invented a biped that attaches to a shovel handle to keep the shovel in an
upright position. I tried to sell my invention to several local governments
on the basis that my device could cut labor costs - no longer would a work
crew digging a hole have to have a couple of people on the payroll whose
sole purpose was to keep shovels vertical.

No takers.

I concluded that governments weren't interested in saving money.