Frankly DaveyB, I was under such an impression myself. I now know that republican party is no different at all from democrats. Both parties strive to achieve socialism, except the right is going for a more fascist type of it.

Republican party has no good ideas, and they lie about everything they do.

Out of what I have suggested, they have done nothing. It may look that way, if you take my words as if I want to impoverish an American worker. Because, this is what republicans do. Democrats strive to enrich the American worker.

Both approaches are wrong. I say let us correct the system to where every worker gets only what he can take in unregulated, free market. Let him determine if he wants to be rich or poor. Give him a clear choice, do not take away the fruits of his labor, but give him nothing either. Give him honest money he can save. Don't force him to waste his savings on social security scam, but let him, if he wants to.

I believe you're right on. Question is, what is it the other hand is doing?

True. But then, there never was a definition that ever made sense.

Since the beginning of the use of this definition, it was used not to categorize, but to separate the world on "us", "against us", and "those funny ones that think they can ignore us". (I am skipping the French, since we didn't know of such division when French were using it).

Why would you say that? Does the globe depend on us in some way? Imagine that we had some serious natural disaster, and there is a huge hole where we are right now. You think the world (rest of it) will jsut disappear as well?

No way! Some of the GlassyGlassy ones on this very board (hkm khm) have already gotten the mask, and are currently hiding in the mountains.

Funny thing Warmachine, is that they call us the conspiracy theorists. Supposedly we are the wacky ones that believe in ridiculous crap that is simply not happening.

I am in agreement with you in that this is your view of FED. No argument here. This also happens to be the official view.

I have different ideas Fanta. How about we simply vote down all the communist measures here, in USA, and put our workers where they really belong. Then we will have everything back as before. Made in USA, good quality, and the workers will have more left to them, definitely more than they have right now. Except for those who do not want to do a great work.

Fanta, your name is there because you once famously explained to me the purpose for the FED. No other reasons.

It meant that for those asking allowed questions, your answer (or really, an official answer) would suffice. This group is not looking for any answers, as they are only looking for "what the government says about it".

Please, tell me what is your point. I may not need to read the resource at the link.

Why? I didn't immediately suggest anything. I simply have shown that to think that there is some fair amount of taxes based on equal (even if so) percentages is ridiculous.

It only feels fair because you're the one ripping off the other guy. Once you are the one being ripped off, you want to move to China.

Regarding your rhetoric question of proper taxation, I must say that if you really care, start asking first why do we even have taxation.
Then see if you can agree with those reasons for taxation. The rates, can be determined later.

My main objection to your "equal amount" line would be that the taxes should be low enough so that they can be afforded by the poorest. Even at that point, it would not be fair, because of:

1-some people would still refuse to pay their fair share by getting completely broke. So, somebody will have to work to subsidize them.

2-even if we all paid the same amount it would be bullsh!t system. Because rich do not use public buses, schools, foodstamps, in many cases even police.

So, the taxation system is inherently unfair to rich, not to poor as it is commonly believed. The rich are viewed not as people and citizens, but simply as objects of extortion. The going argument is to increase the fairness of taxation we need to make rich to pay more, since we can, and they have something we can steal.

This is, the understanding of fairness, ability to steal and presence of things to be stolen.

It is considered to be unfair to tax the poor. The fact that he needs to pay for what he consumes, doesn't even enter into an equation. It is unfair because he doesn't have anything to steal, and because it is impossible to steal from the majority.

So much for the fairness of the people.

There is certainly some of that in the mix. Governments always create crises, to put through the measures they desire, as supposed cures for the crises.

No, but thanks for the offer.

Who's going to regulate the regulator?

And this one is just another, but very clever misdirection. While it tells us what happened, it actually manages to make us accept some very wrong concepts as base ideas.

Specifically? FED is not loaning any money to the government for any interest.

Now I know why is it that when I see Bush, I have this subtle feeling of seeing a hamster. It's from Kerry!

Ditto.

You may fix it, after much or trouble. Personally, I think inkjet printers (consumer tier) are designed to be like a Chinese made bicycle. You want to turn a nut and the whole fork bends.

Just not worth thinking about.

On commercial tier side, I've seen some pretty reliable machines, from HP to OCE. Not the same as consumer market.

Misdirections.

You should be at least doing something to fix the problem. You can't sit there doing nothing, or, like Obama keep creating even a bigger mess, simply because someone else have created some mess already.

His fault is that not only Obama doesn't keep the status quo, he is attempting to completely destroy the country.

Don't know about all. There is always an exception, which doesn't change anything.

Once you say "all" then the single exception proves you wrong.

Therefore, it is better to say that because all cops are honest and all criminals are guilty, we just need to give the government all the power.

I was chatting with a police chief, and he mentioned he would like to be a SWAT chief. I wondered isn't there extra headaches. He sais something like this (long time ago, but I remember the point):

"Look, right now I am the god for anyone with as much as a handgun. I am the lord, and when I send an angel of death, you die. If I was a SWAT chief, I could do that to anyone with as much as AK47, no matter, I send the angels and you're dead man."

My thinking is that you're correct, the less weapons we have, the more power even a regular cop has over us, the law-abiding citizens. As for the real tough guys, government doesn't even dare to mess with them. They run their operations as if they were legal, in the daylight.

Every cop dreams of becoming a lord. He only has a handgun, and the fewer of us own that, the bigger lord he is. And every bureaucrat above the cop, is feeling exactly the same. They all instinctively seek higher office, to attain the higher firepower under their trigger. And if they can't expand upward, the only way to be more deadly is to push us downward, so they all like the idea of disarming us.

Presidents don't need any money to rule. Just like kings, they only need money or special privileges to pay their guards. The rest will be forced to do what is necessary.

Money, is an instrument of free exchange. There is nothing free about government power.