i believe its going to come down to a war. china is eventually going to get fed up and come knocking on our door to collect and we wont be able to pay them.
QUICK make a bunker out of model m's!!!!
I pay into a 401k which will hopefully cover my retirement.
The debt is worrisome but at this level almost seems like a joke.
I have a house, 2 vehicles and 2 kids already!
Jobs come and go, some will never come back and the 1% will always get richer.
Unfortunately the large population of illegal immigrants is a large part of what keeps this country going. Good or bad I dunno.
I think it always seems like it will hit the fan but never does.
And no political parties are only around for voter sympathy. They do what they want once they are in office anyways. Worrying won't fix anything so why do it?
And yeah this is a little deep for a keyboard forum :p
One more thing, Endzone your the same age as my parents! ;)
i believe its going to come down to a war. china is eventually going to get fed up and come knocking on our door to collect and we wont be able to pay them.
QUICK make a bunker out of model m's!!!!
Do you really think social security will be there for you when you retire? Don't you resent paying in all your life knowing you probably won't see a dime?No. Yes.
What do you think about our 17 trillion debt and going higher all the time? Will there be an economic collapse?Money is just made up by the Fed anyway, so no.
Are you able to afford a house and have 2 cars and at least 2 kids?Yes.
Are you concerned about the huge transfer of middle class jobs to China and Mexico and other points? Does it bother you that the middle class is shrinking and the top 1% are getting even richer?No. Those are the jobs of the past. Americans are innovators, not grunts, and we will always create jobs that cannot be shipped overseas.
Does the huge influx of Mexicans concern you? Are you pro-amnesty?No. I look at immigration like our failed drug war, we're really just playing pretend. We might as well let these people work legally and tax the **** out of them.
I'm 56, and I guess what I'm asking is what do you see coming down the line here in America? Do you think it will hit the fan soon, or do you think it will be business as usual?I do think the excrement will hit the fan soon. It seems Americans are getting dumber, fatter, and lazier as time progresses. We need to stop lowering our passing test scores, stop engineering our food for maximum profit instead of maximum nutrition, and get off of the damn couch and not watch so much television.
And does it even matter whether you vote republican, democrat or independent or libertarian? Are you worred about the future of America?No, it's all the same crap. You get to choose between dealing with a dry turd on your carpet, or wet diarrhea on your carpet. I voted for Gary Johnson last election, but I might as well have voted for the easter bunny or spiderman, because the system is setup not to give anyone outside of the establishment a chance.
I'm just curious to know how young people think. I have no other motive for wanting to know. Thanks.You're welcome.
If you're worried I sense guilt.
If you're worried I sense guilt.
Most that have the sense to worry have nothing to be guilty for, they are worried about what the majority is going to do. I get told quite frequently how uncommonly polite, intelligent and well spoken my children are. I worry that in spite of their being prepared as best I can for the future there won't be a worthwhile future for them.
I went to college for 2 years and chose to leave for a few reasons. Going to the wrong college was worse than not going. So far I'm doing rather well with that choice. I expect my kids will be capable of making the same choice and would like to think they'd go the happiness route rather than the pursuit of "stuff".
I do foresee some pretty serious repercussions on the way in regard to "our" choice of diet/nutrition and the over use of technology in early childhood development.
You guys shouldn't kill yourselves worrying so much. Do you know how meese live so long and strong? Carefree, that's how.
Well I'm 30 and I think I have a pretty decent handle on what's going on... :)
First I think people need to understand that it's not just America. What's happening here has been happening for all of history - people with weapons want your stuff. It's that simple. And your 401ks won't protect your retirement; they'll start dipping into those too. There are already plans to, in order to fund "counter-terrorism". No matter what the country, the entire concept of forced collectivism always comes at the cost of other people's money, and when you start to run low you have to take more of it. This is really happening everywhere. In countries like England, Switzerland or Norway they don't see it so much simply because those countries have more capital than most others. They are rich as hell, but the same thing will happen eventually. The national debt, as I see it, doesn't really matter, because who is going to make us pay? That's the whole point of the industrial military complex; we are basically forced to fund a gigantic protection agency for the state.
Personally, I have a decent salary but I would NOT be able to afford a house and have two cars and 2+ kids on it - no way! I have a hard enough time saving living alone in a 1 br apartment with one car! Most people these days live paycheck-paycheck and are in debt. The transfer of jobs to me is somewhat disconcerting only because I (and I'm sure others on this forum) have seen a significant drop in quality from moving to Chinese factories. Even more disconcerting is the way "employees" i.e. slaves are treated there. (And some of the are literally chained to their desks, in the Chinese prisons). I would like to see more things made here and I think we would if markets were actually controlled by the people and not the state.
Huge influx of Mexicans does not concern me because we have plenty of land - the problem is taxation and the way markets are controlled by the state. The Mexicans just become more cheap labor for the state and more bodies to make the 1% rich. I am not pro-amnesty; I am pro-anarchy. I don't want borders or permission slips at all. I want human beings to be free because no one has the right to rule or subjugate or live at the expense of anyone else.
Having said all that, personally I don't see an imminent collapse happening. Aren't people still shopping at the mall? Going to McDonald's? As long as people keep spending money, the status quo will be kept. They'll just keep looking for new ways to squeeze more out of us. It will just get tougher and tougher. Personally I think we should all go on welfare - the ship ain't gonna sink itself!
And I definitely believe that voting will not change anything because all electoral politics is cronyism. The entire system - from ballot access to media to corporate sponsorship to gerrymandering - has been put in place to preserve the establishment. Personally I am one of many who want "radical" change here but I want it to come slowly and peacefully through things like education and agorism. I want people to see their relationship with the government for what it truly is (people with weapons who want their stuff) and stop providing consent to the robbery. At the end of the day all governments require consent of the governed, even the worst of dictators.
Here is what I see in the future:
CHAOS!
REVOLUTION!
COLLAPSE!
WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE!
That's it.
Thanks for your response. I can tell by some of the statements you made that your political leaning is libertarian--right?
Thats seriously depressing for a Keyboard Forum
Do you really think social security will be there for you when you retire? Don't you resent paying in all your life knowing you probably won't see a dime?
What do you think about our 17 trillion debt and going higher all the time? Will there be an economic collapse?
Are you able to afford a house and have 2 cars and at least 2 kids?
Are you concerned about the huge transfer of middle class jobs to China and Mexico and other points? Does it bother you that the middle class is shrinking and the top 1% are getting even richer?
Does the huge influx of Mexicans concern you? Are you pro-amnesty?
I'm 56, and I guess what I'm asking is what do you see coming down the line here in America? Do you think it will hit the fan soon, or do you think it will be business as usual?
And does it even matter whether you vote republican, democrat or independent or libertarian? Are you worred about the future of America?
I'm just curious to know how young people think. I have no other motive for wanting to know. Thanks.I'm not young, technically. I just barely made the threshold for this survey.
Hey Krogenar. I'm middle class, and I don't hate you. Your generalization has been disproved.
The problem is getting "small government" and "less corporate control of government" in one package.
Burn all millionaires. Also Ayn Rand books.
Hey Krogenar. I'm middle class, and I don't hate you. Your generalization has been disproved.
Yeah, but you probably vote for bigger and more intrusive (and therefore higher taxing) government at every turn. So your actions probably don't match up with your declarations, so my generalization still holds. Democrats (progressives, liberals, whatever they're calling themselves) they drink the class warfare Kool-Aid. Unless you're in favor of smaller government, which I seriously doubt. You don't hate me, you just want the profit of my labor, which you did not earn, with government acting as your proxy.
What do you think about our 17 trillion debt and going higher all the time? Will there be an economic collapse?
Money is not real. It's a creation of governments. At some point we will default on our debt and our currency will collapse because our leaders have proven themselves more adept at winning favors and posturing for power rather than actually solving problems. The euro will go first, if anything. It will be rocky. Is that sequester over yet?
Hey Krogenar. I'm middle class, and I don't hate you. Your generalization has been disproved.
Yeah, but you probably vote for bigger and more intrusive (and therefore higher taxing) government at every turn. So your actions probably don't match up with your declarations, so my generalization still holds. Democrats (progressives, liberals, whatever they're calling themselves) they drink the class warfare Kool-Aid. Unless you're in favor of smaller government, which I seriously doubt. You don't hate me, you just want the profit of my labor, which you did not earn, with government acting as your proxy.
Funny stuff. You only help prove my idea that intelligence is not necessary to accumulate wealth.
Oh good, you already everything about me and we have never met or shared any personal details. Shall I bow down to the omniscient Krogenar, or wait to kiss your hand when we meet in person?
Your arrogance is quite charming. If you want to continue with your ignorant generalizations, please do so. I would like to know if you would be this rude to me if we ever met in person, without knowing one iota about me.
Understanding this world is always easier when we just throw people into categories rather than seeking to understand the individual.
i agree with your statement about putting people into categories. I am not immune to such behavior. For example, I put you into the category of "arrogant jerk."
The problem is that those who have power will never give it up. That's why people should withold consent as much as possible. They require consent to govern.
For instance Thoreau wrote of tax protesting as a way to de-fund those who wage war. There are 3 million americans and only a few hundred thousand irs agents. What if we all stopped paying taxes?
The problem is that those who have power will never give it up. That's why people should withold consent as much as possible. They require consent to govern.
For instance Thoreau wrote of tax protesting as a way to de-fund those who wage war. There are 3 million americans and only a few hundred thousand irs agents. What if we all stopped paying taxes?
If we all stop paying taxes, there will be even more stupid people than there is today. Education is already lacking in most of the United States, no taxes means no schools. I rather fund a war with my money and have at least some not so stupid come out as a result of my taxes.
The U.S. government would just drain your bank account. To wit: the Cypriot bank tax that occurred a few months ago. The government just levied a tax on bank accounts over a certain amount, and took the money out directly. What is the bank going to do, say, "No." to them? The Cypriot government put a hold on bank transfers, so people couldn't avoid the tax. They don't actually have to come to your door with a gun to ruin you financially. What currency they don't undermine by printing money, they just take.
I think a complete economic collapse is more likely. Or another Civil War, but with a North Korean twist -- some southern states (Texas, hopefully) decides to secede and they get a few generals to agree, and we tell the President of the Old United States that we have codes for some nukes, and that we just want a peaceful parting of the ways.... with the subtext being 'or Washington, D.C. vanishes in a flash of light.' That's why Iran, North Korea and every other tin-pot dictatorship wants a nuke; once you have one you're mostly untouchable.
That new America could go back to a pre-Progressivist state, keeping all the social reforms of the Civil Rights Movement and others, but with none of the financial stupidity. I don't want to see any of that happen, but it would beat a complete collapse. That's really the only scenario I see ever possibly working.
If we all stop paying taxes, there will be even more stupid people than there is today. Education is already lacking in most of the United States, no taxes means no schools. I rather fund a war with my money and have at least some not so stupid come out as a result of my taxes.
That's not true; today you can get a better education on your phone than in a brick & mortar government school house.
They wouldn't change their policies, they would just take what wealth was available and pay the soldiers for as long as they could.Wow, just wow. Some of your comments... Your wealth has blinded you, and not by a little.
If we all stop paying taxes, there will be even more stupid people than there is today. Education is already lacking in most of the United States, no taxes means no schools. I rather fund a war with my money and have at least some not so stupid come out as a result of my taxes.
That's not true; today you can get a better education on your phone than in a brick & mortar government school house.
The U.S. government would just drain your bank account. To wit: the Cypriot bank tax that occurred a few months ago. The government just levied a tax on bank accounts over a certain amount, and took the money out directly. What is the bank going to do, say, "No." to them? The Cypriot government put a hold on bank transfers, so people couldn't avoid the tax. They don't actually have to come to your door with a gun to ruin you financially. What currency they don't undermine by printing money, they just take.
In Cyprus that's different. Here? with millions of people? If what happened in Cyprus happened here there would be blood in the streets.
And the federal government will never let anyone secede, that's a pipe dream.It must have seemed impossible for some colonies to secede from the most powerful empire in history (at the time).
They tried it before and it resulted in lots of dead bodies. It's just a bad idea.
And Iran, North Korea, etc. want nuclear weapons to protect themselves from...guess who...US!So I guess it would make no sense for Texas, Florida and other states to watch protection as well?
You know, the psychopathic neo-colonialist imperialists who've been busy murdering the living shib out of people since Columbus docked his boat here!Last time we had a debate you claimed that you (as an individual) had the right to own a nuclear weapon. I'm a supporter of the Second Amendment, but ... there are limits. Do you still stand by that statement?
Burn all millionaires. Also Ayn Rand books.
Burn all millionaires. Also Ayn Rand books.
this is the most insightful post in this whole thread
I respectfully disagree. In Cyprus they were very, very clever about it. They only seized money from accounts in excess of 100,000 Euros. This yields a lot of money, while screwing over just a few hundred people. That's why hating the rich is so incredibly profitable -- they're a minority, so who cares if they're ruined in the process? The EU bureaucrats likely looked at the chart of accounts, and determined what 'ceiling' would yield the most money, while pissing off the least number of people. Those people are still ruined, but there's not enough of them to cause civil unrest. It's perfect. Or, if things were really bad, the U.S. government would just take small amounts, not enough to make people see blood, but enough to eventually impoverish them. This is what printing money does as well, invisibly. You've still got your money in the bank -- it's just worthless.
It must have seemed impossible for some colonies to secede from the most powerful empire in history (at the time).
It's the most bloodless scenario I can envision. I would imagine the editorial board of the NY Times would relish jettisoning 'JesusLand' from the country. Finally, they could pursue their dreams of a socialist utopia without any opposition. There would be no conflict. Those other (now nuclearized) states would extend their umbrella of nuclear protection to other states, and then what could Washington really do? Nuke those states? Invade? I don't think it would happen -- people don't have the will for it anymore. We could still trade, and it could be a friendly separation. Not all divorces are angry and bitter.
Last time we had a debate you claimed that you (as an individual) had the right to own a nuclear weapon. I'm a supporter of the Second Amendment, but ... there are limits. Do you still stand by that statement?
They wouldn't change their policies, they would just take what wealth was available and pay the soldiers for as long as they could.Wow, just wow. Some of your comments... Your wealth has blinded you, and not by a little.
Generals (in general) do NOT have nuke codes. Sorry, they don't. This is why the President is always near the "football". Only one, maybe two other people have the capability to launch missiles, just in case the President is missing (i.e. chain of command). But honestly, WTF would you do with them anyhow? Nukes don't give you any power. Why do you think terrorists haven't used one, it would turn the ENTIRE world against you, it's also why we are dwindling them down. Would you threaten the U.S. with one? Great move, you launch 1, the U.S. makes Texas a wasteland for the next 5million years. Great tactic. Oh, and you threatened/wiped out your oil customers.
You being well off, means you see a lot of things through rose colored glasses, I see and work with people like you all the time.
While you aren't worried about sending jobs overseas, you should worry about all the qualified jobless students out there hungry for that job of yours. They are jobless because of jobs going overseas.
Invest your own money towards retirement... great idea, you would be broke now, just like the millions who did that before 2008. I live in a red state, and I work for/with many people who thought that way (including 1 and 2%'ers). Their retirement was set back by an easy 10 years and sure are thankful now for Social Security as it's all they now have.
This goes triple for the day trader, who pretty much lost everything and is once again trying to chase that money he lost (he didn't learn the first time). People like you don't realize how much you gamble because you usually end up on your feet. When things don't work out though, you have no idea how far down you can fall and you have no idea how fast it can happen.
If you lost your job tomorrow, are you sure you could find another with equal pay? Are you sure about that? And how long would it take? How long before you finally accept that you are resigned to working for Walmart at minimum wage? It could happen, despite what you may think. I have seen it happen to skilled engineers and computer techs. Happens a LOT in California, where you have people with B.S. degrees working in warehouses moving boxes.
And then we have Texas...
Contrary to popular belief, Texas no longer has the right to peacefully succeed. When they joined the U.S. they reserved that right, however, they used that right and then lost it when they lost the Civil War. Most other states were former federal land that was granted state status, and therefore never had that right to begin with. Even if Texas could, succession isn't free. You need to fund a military, setup a ...
[snipped]
...Mexican drug lords would. If I was Mexico and saw it coming, my army would be crossing the border 30 seconds after you signed the paperwork. Long before you ever had a chance to even start organizing or arrange purchase of any military hardware. You also have Spain, Venzeula, Cuba, and a few others who certainly wouldn't mind taking it while weak. Texas isn't Oregon, with only one coastline to protect from foreign invasion, Texas is BIG, and not only borders it's two former owners, but also a large coastline, where just a hop skip and a jump are several countries who would love all that land, if only as a big F.U. to the U.S.
Texas would likely be "free" for all of about 3 days. I don't give a damn how many gun toting Texans you may have, a bunch of guys with assault rifles and no real military training are nothing to a tank and aircraft. Sure, you can use guerrilla tactics and possibly run them out, but at best it would take years and years and another would be right behind it and then you would probably end up in a civil war due to the cities despising the rural control. It's already well on it's way to becoming a blue state.
If you think your taxes are too high, move to Europe (why do you think their rich move here)!
Or on a more seriousness note, a less modern country with lower tax rates and lower standard of living. As many of your kind like to tell others, "if you don't like it here, MOVE". While you seem to realize you are well enough off, You have absolutely ZERO clue how good you really have it. And it's still not enough.
The legislation is Fatca, the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act. To appreciate its breathtaking scope along with America's unique "citizen-based" tax practices, imagine this: You were born in California, moved to New York for education or work, fell in love, married and had children. Even though you have faithfully paid taxes in New York and haven't lived in California for 25 years, suppose California law required that you also file your taxes there because you were born there. Though you may never have held a bank account in California, you must report all of your financial holdings to the State of California. Are you a signatory on your spouse's account? Then you must declare his bank accounts too. Your children, now adults, have never been west of the Mississippi but they too must file their taxes in both California and New York and report any bank accounts they or their spouses may have because they are considered Californians by virtue of one parent's birthplace.
Quote from: KrogenarLast time we had a debate you claimed that you (as an individual) had the right to own a nuclear weapon. I'm a supporter of the Second Amendment, but ... there are limits. Do you still stand by that statement?I didn't "claim" anything, I argued that all individuals have a natural right to life, liberty and property (as has been argued by many other folks including Locke) which no one else has a right to infringe upon.
Yes dude, I believe that an individual should be able to, if they so choose, own a gun, RPG, tank, nuclear weapon, etc. if they so choose to. Because, not only does that happen now, but because it's legitimized by government, those who end up owning such things are inevitably 90% more likely to be the most dangerous people who could be in control of them. Hundreds of thousands of CHILDREN dead in the middle east - dude, I would prefer any peaceful individual owned these bombs rather than anyone taking orders from congress. Is it a risk? Of course, but it's one I'm willing to live with. If legislators actually represented the will of the people, then these children would still be alive today, the Mexicans wouldn't have been sold guns, all kinds of other atrocities would never have occurred, and the oligarchical reality of our government would not be so.
It's a hypothetical -- the only way I could envision a bloodless separation of 'JesusLand'. If nukes don't give a state any real power (Leslieann: "Nukes don't give you any power.") then why are states like North Korea and Iran so hellbent on obtaining them, or refining their missile technology, Leslieann? Why? Is it because it doesn't give them any power? No, they want nukes because they know once they've got them, they cannot be invaded, or the chances drop precipitously. These states don't want nukes so they can use them; they want them so they can threaten to use them. So yes, I would defer to your military experience that maybe generals don't have nuclear launch codes, but the scenario could still work if someone, somewhere got them into the hands of a secessionist state or states. I'm not saying it's a likely scenario, I'm claiming it's the only scenario I can envision in which a series of states, fed up with the Federal government, could leave the Union, with the least bloodshed possible.It's power but not military power.
Can I borrow prdlm's plaintive whine about "you don't know me, man!!" in this instance? Nah, I'll pass. Jobs are going overseas because those are developing economies, they make good products (sorry, it's true!) and they do it a lot less cheaply than American workers. I'm a business person -- my job is to face reality, every day. I wish jobs weren't going overseas, but the market dictates that they should. Instead of Americans becoming more flexible, more well-educated, they want unions, and price protections -- more walls to keep the change at bay, but those walls will never hold, they'll only forestall the destruction to some other day, and it will be far worse on that day.
They're greatful? They paid into it, it was always their money, and it was never more than a promise. The market (even with its ups and downs) is still a better bet than Social Security. At least in the market I own the stocks and pass them on to my heirs, my family. I'd rather have more choices and freedom, than promises from the government.You miss-understood. These people *****ed and moaned about having to pay into social security, claiming they should be able to invest it themselves, and ended up losing everything, except their social security.
How do you know I don't realize how much I can lose. I've been in the market a long time -- and I'm not a gambler. Gambling is a tax on people who are bad at math. How can you be so sure I have "no idea" how "far" and "fast" fortunes can change? Am I a rich bastard who's never had to work a day in his life, is that it? I'm not offended by the charge, if that's what you mean, I'm just trying to determine what you're actually saying. I see the world through 'rose-colored glasses'? -- I assure you, stark reality is what I see.Your "let them eat cake attitude", is a pretty good sign you haven't actually been there.
I am numerate, literate, a hard worker and I feel confident that if my current circumstances were to take a serious downturn that I would survive. Yeah, I might have to start in Walmart, but I would be a manager before very long, and I'd be back on my feet faster than most other people.None of that means sh*t anymore.
President of Texas: "Any attempt to invade or launch an attack on our newly formed government will result in the destruction of Washington, D.C. via nuclear missiles -- we would greatly prefer a peaceful separation and friendly ongoing relations. Please respect our right to leave the Union."Would you like us to leave you an aircraft carrier too?
I won't lie -- it would be a really, REALLY scary few days.
Ok, I admit it. I LOL'd. My taxes are too high, so move to Europe? (blinks) Europe?Sarcasm.
I've looked. There's really nowhere else to go. Why do I have it 'good', Leslieann? Because of the government, or in spite of it? For me it's the latter. Oh, and you can't just give up American citizenship and escape the American system.I never said it was cheap to leave.
North Korea doesn't care about nukes, it's a bargaining tactic to remove sanctions against them.
If China gets news that [the North Koreans] actually have a nuke or nuclear reactor, they will destroy it. They need food more than a nuke.
Iran wants them, not for offense and not even so much as defense, but because they can again, use them as a bargaining chip to get UN sanctions dropped against them. Once they have a nuke, the U.N. will back off.
Mutually assured destruction isn't exactly a great way to wage war.
Do you honestly think if we gave up our nukes that China or Russia would immediately invade?
If they did [use nukes], what good did their nukes do? Using a nuke may eliminate your enemy, but renders the land unusable as well. Makes the end result not exactly a good value.
QuoteCan I borrow prdlm's plaintive whine about "you don't know me, man!!" in this instance? Nah, I'll pass. Jobs are going overseas because those are developing economies, they make good products (sorry, it's true!) and they do it a lot less cheaply than American workers. I'm a business person -- my job is to face reality, every day. I wish jobs weren't going overseas, but the market dictates that they should. Instead of Americans becoming more flexible, more well-educated, they want unions, and price protections -- more walls to keep the change at bay, but those walls will never hold, they'll only forestall the destruction to some other day, and it will be far worse on that day.
To some extent I agree, but there are things we could be doing to stop the bleeding. More education doesn't work,
we wouldn't be sending jobs over to China in droves, and the middle class wouldn't be shrinking if that were the case, since more and more people are getting better educated than ever. 90% of all new jobs in this country are low wage and companies would rather send the jobs overseas than pay a skilled worker here. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
The fact of the matter is technology has killed the need for skilled workers. You no longer need someone to operate a milling machine, draw it in CAD and let the machine do it. Truck drivers... On the highway, driving a big rig isn't much different than driving a car these days. Kids teach themselves programming. Film school? Grab a camera and make something... Worked for Kevin Smith. He spent less making Clerks than he did on a partial film school education. Several Youtubers now have directing jobs. Same for musicians, we no longer need the recording industry. Grab a Mac, and a homebuilt studio, and upload to Itunes.
Today we need fewer people working, with less skill, and fewer people watching over them. At some point we will pass a point where only a few people can produce more than we all need. The farm industry has been there for decades. Manufacturing isn't far behind. Within 20 years machines will be as smart as us, and why send something to China to be made, when you can have a robotic army here that costs you very little. There are already several warehouses full of 3d printers running 24/7. The owners oversee the few workers through their Iphones and webcams. It's cheaper and more practical than sending things overseas to be made.
Once we hit the point where there is only enough work for 20% of the population (and 1% taking all the money), then what?
Sadly, that is where we are headed and it's not unprecedented. Rome had a similar problem, all those slaves killed the job market, just as robots will kill ours. Most of the Roman population lived on government assistance, paid for by the rich.
Quote from: KrogenarThey're greatful? They paid into it, it was always their money, and it was never more than a promise. The market (even with its ups and downs) is still a better bet than Social Security. At least in the market I own the stocks and pass them on to my heirs, my family. I'd rather have more choices and freedom, than promises from the government.You miss-understood. These people *****ed and moaned about having to pay into social security, claiming they should be able to invest it themselves, and ended up losing everything, except their social security.
You may feel you make safe investments, but studies have shown that even the best investors are only right 50% of the time.
Even Warren Buffet, arguably one of the best, has a 54% track record on successful investments over long term. More importantly, the stock market is like gambling, controlled by banks, and just like gambling in Vegas, the house always wins.
Table IV.B6 is a long-run balance sheet for Social Security. It shows that the system’s $88.9 trillion in liabilities exceed its $68.4 trillion in assets by $20.5 trillion.
The liabilities are the present value of the system’s projected benefit payments, whereas the assets are the system’s $2.7 trillion trust fund plus $65.7 trillion in projected taxes, also valued in the present.
The $20.5 trillion fiscal gap separating Social Security’s liabilities and assets -- its unfunded liability -- is enormous; it is 1.4 times U.S. gross domestic product and 34 times annual Social Security taxes.
Quote from: KrogenarHow do you know I don't realize how much I can lose. I've been in the market a long time -- and I'm not a gambler. Gambling is a tax on people who are bad at math. How can you be so sure I have "no idea" how "far" and "fast" fortunes can change? Am I a rich bastard who's never had to work a day in his life, is that it? I'm not offended by the charge, if that's what you mean, I'm just trying to determine what you're actually saying. I see the world through 'rose-colored glasses'? -- I assure you, stark reality is what I see.Your "let them eat cake attitude", is a pretty good sign you haven't actually been there.
Quote from: LeslieannI am numerate, literate, a hard worker and I feel confident that if my current circumstances were to take a serious downturn that I would survive. Yeah, I might have to start in Walmart, but I would be a manager before very long, and I'd be back on my feet faster than most other people.None of that means sh*t anymore.
The reality is that companies are using fewer and fewer managers. The more qualified you are, the more you expect to earn, so why not leave you, with your preconceived notions of how to run THEIR store at the low end, and instead train someone to do things their way and pay them half as much. As a company, if they don't have to pay you for your education, they would rather not. They want their money now, not 10 or 20 years from now and they don't care what happens to the company down the road.
See, you still think in the terms of traditional business, where you reward those with an education.Whoa, I don't reward people for having an education. Again, maybe your language is just imprecise, but I'm not looking for someone to reward -- I'm looking for someone who can help me run by business -- bluntly, who will help me make a profit. If I can find someone who is willing to take less money and do just as good a job (and hopefully has a sense of humor) they're hired. Yeah, I want them at the lowest price I can get. Good people are hard to find -- even harder to keep, too. We've had so many good people that, even when I hired them I knew they wouldn't stay; they were too smart. They were going to make their own companies one day, and many of them did. Their education is usually just a way to separate the wheat from the chaff, to be honest.
It's not that way anymore, not only do they not want want to reward anyone,
but we now have an abundance of over qualified people competing for low wage jobs, all expecting to be paid better because all their lives they were told get an education and the money will come. A degree may get you hired, but they certainly don't want to pay you for it anymore.
QuotePresident of Texas: "Any attempt to invade or launch an attack on our newly formed government will result in the destruction of Washington, D.C. via nuclear missiles -- we would greatly prefer a peaceful separation and friendly ongoing relations. Please respect our right to leave the Union."Would you like us to leave you an aircraft carrier too?
I won't lie -- it would be a really, REALLY scary few days.
You wouldn't get the nukes. Sorry, wouldn't happen,
Even if they physically were left there, you still have no way to launch or aim them. It's not like you aim them with a joystick right there in the missile silo.
Besides, think this through for a second, you just nuked Mexico or the U.S. and made their land uninhabitable for tens of thousands of years. You just gave them the best reason of all to invade you at all costs. Nukes work on a country on the other side of the world, not your neighbor. China once claimed that even if Russia hit them with every nuke they had, China would win the war due to attrition. You have a billion Chinese to kill, and you wouldn't get them all, and they would walk right across your border. Yeah, you can kill a lot of people, but you also irradiate the planet, and piss off everyone else at the same time. War is about measured escalation, not outright "I will nuke you!".
While you and others like you love to say "in spite of the government". That same government you so hate and despise is also what makes it possible for you to make that money. I find it quite ironic that the same poor people you claim are such a burden on you and the government, also claim the government is a burden on them.
Can I borrow prdlm's plaintive whine about "you don't know me, man!!" in this instance? Nah, I'll pass.
Hey I'm sitting happy, I have easy access to a food source, 6 shotguns, at least a thousand rounds of ammunition (can, and will get more when the time is right) so I can hold my own against what the regular UK residents have, if a military forces comes at me, well thats me done and I don't mind, that means I have no more worries... But I imagine by the time I need to defend myself there will not be a "military" force left.Thats seriously depressing for a Keyboard Forum
Don't worry, it'll be much worse for people in the UK :)
Hey I'm sitting happy, I have easy access to a food source, 6 shotguns, at least a thousand rounds of ammunition (can, and will get more when the time is right) so I can hold my own against what the regular UK residents have, if a military forces comes at me, well thats me done and I don't mind, that means I have no more worries... But I imagine by the time I need to defend myself there will not be a "military" force left.Thats seriously depressing for a Keyboard Forum
Don't worry, it'll be much worse for people in the UK :)
Sorry to OP for my slightly irrelevant topic.
Can I borrow prdlm's plaintive whine about "you don't know me, man!!" in this instance? Nah, I'll pass.
I missed a lot of action in this thread, but no, you may not borrow my whine. You sure like to argue over the Internet, though. Gees.
Can I borrow prdlm's plaintive whine about "you don't know me, man!!" in this instance? Nah, I'll pass.
I missed a lot of action in this thread, but no, you may not borrow my whine. You sure like to argue over the Internet, though. Gees.
I didn't borrow it. Arguing -- no, I like to discuss these things and hash out the differences. But mainly it's about trolling socialists.
Hey I'm sitting happy, I have easy access to a food source, 6 shotguns, at least a thousand rounds of ammunition (can, and will get more when the time is right) so I can hold my own against what the regular UK residents have, if a military forces comes at me, well thats me done and I don't mind, that means I have no more worries... But I imagine by the time I need to defend myself there will not be a "military" force left.Thats seriously depressing for a Keyboard Forum
Don't worry, it'll be much worse for people in the UK :)
Sorry to OP for my slightly irrelevant topic.
So what's the smarter solution? Bend over and just ****ing take it? **** that.
Anyone who thinks that initiating force or violence is the key to lasting positive change is doomed by their own weak philosophy to simply end up with more of the same. Violence is the tool of the state; the only thing it has. And when all you have is a hammer everything looks like a nail. Force is not the tool for people who want peace, freedom and prosperity.
No, raising my fitness level then there is a possiblity, but currently nope.Hey I'm sitting happy, I have easy access to a food source, 6 shotguns, at least a thousand rounds of ammunition (can, and will get more when the time is right) so I can hold my own against what the regular UK residents have, if a military forces comes at me, well thats me done and I don't mind, that means I have no more worries... But I imagine by the time I need to defend myself there will not be a "military" force left.Thats seriously depressing for a Keyboard Forum
Don't worry, it'll be much worse for people in the UK :)
Sorry to OP for my slightly irrelevant topic.
Your in the army?
Side Note: You used Your here, this seems correct (I'm no literacy genius) would You're also be acceptable? -Tym Out
Side Note: You used Your here, this seems correct (I'm no literacy genius) would You're also be acceptable? -Tym Out
http://www.elearnenglishlanguage.com/difficulties/youryoure.html
Side Note: You used Your here, this seems correct (I'm no literacy genius) would You're also be acceptable? -Tym Out
http://www.elearnenglishlanguage.com/difficulties/youryoure.html (http://www.elearnenglishlanguage.com/difficulties/youryoure.html)
So I'm right?
So I'm right?I think so.
No, raising my fitness level then there is a possiblity, but currently nope.Hey I'm sitting happy, I have easy access to a food source, 6 shotguns, at least a thousand rounds of ammunition (can, and will get more when the time is right) so I can hold my own against what the regular UK residents have, if a military forces comes at me, well thats me done and I don't mind, that means I have no more worries... But I imagine by the time I need to defend myself there will not be a "military" force left.Thats seriously depressing for a Keyboard Forum
Don't worry, it'll be much worse for people in the UK :)
Sorry to OP for my slightly irrelevant topic.
Your in the army?
Side Note: You used Your here, this seems correct (I'm no literacy genius) would You're also be acceptable? -Tym Out
No, raising my fitness level then there is a possiblity, but currently nope.Hey I'm sitting happy, I have easy access to a food source, 6 shotguns, at least a thousand rounds of ammunition (can, and will get more when the time is right) so I can hold my own against what the regular UK residents have, if a military forces comes at me, well thats me done and I don't mind, that means I have no more worries... But I imagine by the time I need to defend myself there will not be a "military" force left.Thats seriously depressing for a Keyboard Forum
Don't worry, it'll be much worse for people in the UK :)
Sorry to OP for my slightly irrelevant topic.
Your in the army?
Side Note: You used Your here, this seems correct (I'm no literacy genius) would You're also be acceptable? -Tym Out
how the **** should I know, I'm dyslexic lol
So what's the smarter solution? Bend over and just ****ing take it? **** that.
Nothing will ever change until **** really hits the fan. The odds are not in our favor. Some people will not ever learn until the **** is literally smeared into their eyeballs.
Unlike conservative minarchists like Krogenar might have you believe, there's nothing to "fix"! The system is working EXACTLY the way it's supposed to.
The country (the government, rather) is not working the way it should. Government has grown far, far beyond the limits outlined in the Constitution.
North Korea already has nukes -- what they need now are missiles that can reach the continental U.S., which they may have already. I agree that the people of North Korea need food more than nukes, 1000% -- it's the tyrant of North Korea that needs nuclear weapons to maintain power and prevent an invasion.I honestly don't think they do. Yes, they have detonated one or two, but they lack the ability to not only send them a long way, but they also lack the ability to make more than one or two. It ate up A LOT of thri resources and money to even do those two.
The sanctions against Iran are there because they're pursuing nuclear weapons! So... so wait, according to your logic, the Iranians are developing nukes so that the U.N. sanctions leveled against them (for developing nukes) will be dropped? That doesn't make much sense, does it? I think it's pretty clear that they want nukes so that they can consolidate their power, forever.I think it's more a matter of energy independence from oil, and the only way they see to do that is nuclear. However, the first time they built a reactor it was bombed. So while they may see nukes as a defense, they also see it as a way to force the world to let them build a reactor.
Do you honestly trust Russia or China? I think if we completely de-nuclearized, the Chinese and Russians never would, or they would have a few hidden away, and they would nuke one small place and say, "Just give up -- it's better than living in Fallout 3, right?" Or they would detonate a nuke in the upper atmosphere, over the U.S. and use the EMP to disable the country. We'd all be living on a communist work farm, Leslieann, sans electricity, with iron hand tools.We won't get rid of all of them, but we are drawing them down to a reasonable level.
So, violence never solves anything? (Looks back at all of human history.) *sigh* Um, yeah, it kinda does, sadly.Violence, yes, but if your intent is to invade and gain territory or resources, nuking said land and resources isn't a good way to do it. Know anyone who wants land near Chernobyl? Didn't think so. The U.S. is rich with resources, if you invade it, you would want to capture those resources.
Not the way Americans do education, no. More unionized public schools that don't work won't solve our problems, no. We would have to break apart the government monopoly on education, and let people decide what is in their own best interests as far as education is concerned.I worry more about letting the people decide, have you seen what Louisiana has been trying to do with education? They removed it from government control and first thing they tried to do was eliminate math and science.
We are up against math, Leslieann. Why hire an American engineer for $90,000/year, when I can get one just as good (or better, and with a potentially better attitude) for $30,000/year? Should I do it for patriotism's sake? There's huge correction that needs to happen, Leslieann, in terms of American affluence and attitudes, but our politicians are giving us what we want -- forestall it forever, deny it, hold it back. Businesses in the U.S. are larded up with all sorts of expenses that competing nations don't do. America doesn't want to get in the ring and compete -- we'd rather buy off the referee, and we're paying for it.Again, I agree to some extent, however, we need to transition slow, and that isn't in the cards.
I agree completely -- the world is becoming a more competitive place, and technology is making it happen. But we needed to see this coming, and we did not. Plus, China and other nations don't respect our copyrights, which I think should hurt them. I would support a tariff that calculated the profit lost from China copyright infringement and distribute it across Chinese goods, and send that money back to copyright holders. I don't mind competing with foreign countries, but that doesn't mean they can openly break the law.This is partly why they can do it cheaper.
In that scenario of yours (which I think is coming) would you support laws that would outlaw the use of robots, or 3D printing machines? Would you support a law requiring all U.S.-based manufacturing companies to have a minimum number of human workers, per robot worker? Or some other similar law? I'm not being facetious here, I'm dead serious. I would not support those kinds of laws because they seek to distort the market. Laws like the ones above would incentivize moving automated manufacturing overseas, where presumably they would not have such laws.At least one U.S. senator already wanted to ban 3d printers (because of guns), he's a complete fool.
the only way to truly be safe in the face of a wave of change is to become a surfer, to become nimble, flexible and agile enough to cope. My point is that building walls to keep out change in the form of laws that distort market forces don't work.Again, this is why I tell people to go for a job that cannot be outsourced, to another country, or a robot. At least not cheaply, before you retire.
Sadly, that is where we are headed and it's not unprecedented. Rome had a similar problem, all those slaves killed the job market, just as robots will kill ours. Most of the Roman population lived on government assistance, paid for by the rich.
And the lesson is what? That a government promise is safer than the stock market? The 2008 real estate crash was instigated by the government trying to politicize mortgage lending, but that's a whole other thread. I would support letting people decide to either manage their own retirement (and not pay into Social Security, and have no right to government assistance) or pay into Social Security. Would you support giving people that choice?I agree another thread, but I disagree with what you are saying.
Which studies?Just got done at work, and not in the mood to look up studies on it, but that is the number I saw given. Still better accuracy than weather men.
I disagree. I think there's fraud and bad investments throughout the stock market, but it is still a better longterm place for your money than Social Security. Social Security taxes don't even go into any market, they just go out to current beneficiaries, and they have no contingency plans for these unfunded liabilities, Leslieanne, none.I'll take the government and here's why.
So, if I haven't plumbed the very depths of poverty personally, I should shut my mouth? I'm curious -- the more poor you've been, does it give you more of a right to comment on economic matters? I figure if you know how to make money, you might actually have more to say on how to generate more wealth, no? Is that not rational?I never questioned your ability to make money or your right to comment on economic matters. I am saying you don't see things from the same light as the lower classes.
Well, at least you have a positive mental attitude, there's always that! :)I'm pessimistic on peoples attitudes towards jobs and education, the media has fed people a bunch of lies about jobs and education. Some people see it as pessimistic, while I see it it as realistic.
I think people who believe that everything is out to get them, that blame outside forces on everything -- they don't get far, no matter how smart they are, or how many pieces of paper they have indicating they have an education.
Whoa, I don't reward people for having an education. Again, maybe your language is just imprecise, but I'm not looking for someone to reward -- I'm looking for someone who can help me run by business -- bluntly, who will help me make a profit. If I can find someone who is willing to take less money and do just as good a job (and hopefully has a sense of humor) they're hired. Yeah, I want them at the lowest price I can get. Good people are hard to find -- even harder to keep, too. We've had so many good people that, even when I hired them I knew they wouldn't stay; they were too smart. They were going to make their own companies one day, and many of them did. Their education is usually just a way to separate the wheat from the chaff, to be honest.
Who told them that?Jeez, I heard it all my life. TV, school, parents... Even today you constantly hear on the radio how an education is your ticket out.
I think college should be a lot cheaper, but again, the government likes to fund these things, and so they inadvertantly drive the price up. But don't worry, next they'll force banks to forgive student loans (sort of like what they did for the mortgage market) and then college loans will get really, REALLY expensive because banks will always have to wonder if they'll be forced to forgive future loans. To me the common denominator to all these disasters is government deciding to "Do Something." My crazy idea -- have them "Do Nothing" for a while and just see what happens.I would be very surprised if those loans are forgiven. Students aren't in power, so they don't command enough control in congress to achieve that.
To be honest, it was just a scenario, and not actually a plan, Leslieanne.Nah.
You're taking this very, very seriously.
I agree some progressive policies are bad, but so are a lot of conservative ones as well. We have a committee for a government, and idiots on said committee, so you can only expect so much from them.
Thought experiment time! By some miracle, the government is gone tomorrow. We just wake up and there's no government. Does the world really end? Will no new roads be built? Will the electricity stop flowing? Will people just starve in the streets? There would be unrest, there would be problems, but the world would get back on its feet. Governments are symptoms of human interaction, not vice versa. The government doesn't do nearly enough for me to justify what they take, by a very large amount. I wouldn't even mind paying as much as I do if they didn't piss it away like a pimp with two weeks left to live. Not only do Progressive policies not help poor people, they demonstrably make them worse! Fifty years ago the rate of out of wedlock black births was on par with white births -- same amount. Today something like 75% of all black babies are born out of wedlock, into a single parent home, with disastrous results for those kids and society at large. That's what all the "help" did -- made things a whole lot worse. It's bad enough to fund stupidity with my taxes; it's even worse to fund the outright destruction of the black family.
Agreed :))Show Image(http://www.thecrosbypress.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Popcorn-02-Stephen-Colbert.gif)
We also have far better long distance aircraftseriously?
Know anyone who wants land near Chernobyl?it's damn fertile!
We also have far better long distance aircraftseriously?Know anyone who wants land near Chernobyl?it's damn fertile!
6 shotguns, at least a thousand rounds of ammunitionyou sure you don't live in 'murica?
I'm sure, I actually store them for rich middle aged men who come to the countryside to shoot, and their wives wont let them keep weapons in their house.6 shotguns, at least a thousand rounds of ammunitionyou sure you don't live in 'murica?
North Korea already has nukes -- what they need now are missiles that can reach the continental U.S., which they may have already. I agree that the people of North Korea need food more than nukes, 1000% -- it's the tyrant of North Korea that needs nuclear weapons to maintain power and prevent an invasion.I honestly don't think they do. Yes, they have detonated one or two, but they lack the ability to not only send them a long way, but they also lack the ability to make more than one or two. It ate up A LOT of thri resources and money to even do those two.
Quote from: KrogenarThe sanctions against Iran are there because they're pursuing nuclear weapons! So... so wait, according to your logic, the Iranians are developing nukes so that the U.N. sanctions leveled against them (for developing nukes) will be dropped? That doesn't make much sense, does it? I think it's pretty clear that they want nukes so that they can consolidate their power, forever.I think it's more a matter of energy independence from oil, and the only way they see to do that is nuclear. However, the first time they built a reactor it was bombed. So while they may see nukes as a defense, they also see it as a way to force the world to let them build a reactor.
Well, your hypothetical was whether I believed China and/or Russia would invade the U.S. if we got rid of our nukes. My response was: "Yes, they sure would, and they use them as EMP weapons, not as conventional nukes. And you and me would both be working side-by-side on a Chinese-run farm commune in Illinois with 19th century era hand tools. I would eventually become a manager, however. ;)Quote from: KrogenarDo you honestly trust Russia or China? I think if we completely de-nuclearized, the Chinese and Russians never would, or they would have a few hidden away, and they would nuke one small place and say, "Just give up -- it's better than living in Fallout 3, right?" Or they would detonate a nuke in the upper atmosphere, over the U.S. and use the EMP to disable the country. We'd all be living on a communist work farm, Leslieann, sans electricity, with iron hand tools.We won't get rid of all of them, but we are drawing them down to a reasonable level.
Russia is back as a super power, invading Georgia was them letting everyone know. However, threatening and invading small countries is a LONG way from invading the U.S. As for China, they have too much to lose financially if they invaded us. It would cripple their economy.
Regardless, neither country could get here. Nukes, yes, boats and planes, heck no.They cripple us with an EMP (which does not irradiate the landscape, it just sends your enemy back to the Middle Ages, technologically) and then they invade with tanks and planes, etc.
Quote from: LeslieannSo, violence never solves anything? (Looks back at all of human history.) *sigh* Um, yeah, it kinda does, sadly.Violence, yes, but if your intent is to invade and gain territory or resources, nuking said land and resources isn't a good way to do it. Know anyone who wants land near Chernobyl? Didn't think so. The U.S. is rich with resources, if you invade it, you would want to capture those resources.
Quote from: KrogenarNot the way Americans do education, no. More unionized public schools that don't work won't solve our problems, no. We would have to break apart the government monopoly on education, and let people decide what is in their own best interests as far as education is concerned.I worry more about letting the people decide, have you seen what Louisiana has been trying to do with education? They removed it from government control and first thing they tried to do was eliminate math and science.
Where I currently live, they spend more on education than almost anywhere else, and I swear, they are as dumb as a box of rocks. I can tell in 5 minutes if a customer has ever left the state. Many of my customers have never been more than 50 miles from their home. EVER.
Not only do I not want them controlling their education, I don't want them voting! Some shouldn't even be allowed to reproduce.
Again, I agree to some extent, however, we need to transition [to a global economy] slow[ly], and that isn't in the cards.
It would be worth paying the $90k, IF you were getting better quality. However we aren't investing in ourselves, and instead we just walk around saying how America is #1 and ignoring how far we have fallen.
It's also why I tell people to get a job that cannot be outsourced.Plumbers, electricians, etc. We could also be inventing new products and processes -- we can (and should) insist that patents and copyrights be respected by others, worldwide. Then you could still make things in America, in a sense. They might be manufactured elsewhere, but developed here. But that would mean our leaders having a pair.
In that scenario of yours (which I think is coming) would you support laws that would outlaw the use of robots, or 3D printing machines? Would you support a law requiring all U.S.-based manufacturing companies to have a minimum number of human workers, per robot worker? Or some other similar law? I'm not being facetious here, I'm dead serious. I would not support those kinds of laws because they seek to distort the market. Laws like the ones above would incentivize moving automated manufacturing overseas, where presumably they would not have such laws.At least one U.S. senator already wanted to ban 3d printers (because of guns), he's a complete fool.
What eventually MUST happen is one of three things (that I can think of):
The first one is the one I think Republicans like, and that is, we get off this rock and spread to other planets. This would create more industries and more opportunity and things could stay roughly as they are. Problem is, we will reach a tipping point before we ever leave our solar system.
The second option is something similar to Star Trek, everyone is taken care of, and people work if they want, on what they want. Certain jobs give you extra money or income, but no one is really forced to do anything. No one lacks for anything.
A plumber will have a job for a long time, a doctor, expect a lot fewer of them. The same goes for teachers, a robot could easily replace many of them. Home care workers in Japan are already being replaced in some instances with robots.
I'll take the government [Social Security]and here's why: If your stock tanks, you tank. As you said, the new generation pays for the old one, so money is always coming in. It may not always be enough, but there is money there. No contingency plan? Yes there is, raise taxes. I'm not saying it's a good plan, but at least it's not gambling with the money where it can all be lost.
One problem I have with people predicting the doomsday of Social Security is this... So long as there are young people working, there is money for Social Security. The ONLY way it completely fails 100% is if NO ONE is working. It may not be as much as you want, but so long as someone is working, there is money there.
Quote from: KrogenarSo, if I haven't plumbed the very depths of poverty personally, I should shut my mouth? I'm curious -- the more poor you've been, does it give you more of a right to comment on economic matters? I figure if you know how to make money, you might actually have more to say on how to generate more wealth, no? Is that not rational?I never questioned your ability to make money or your right to comment on economic matters. I am saying you don't see things from the same light as the lower classes.
It's far easier to make money, with money, but really, I don't want to go down this road because it will end up an "us vs. them".Democrats will take you there, Leslieann. It's 'Us' vs. 'Them'
Quote from: LeslieannWell, at least you have a positive mental attitude, there's always that! :)I'm pessimistic on peoples attitudes towards jobs and education, the media has fed people a bunch of lies about jobs and education. Some people see it as pessimistic, while I see it it as realistic.
I think people who believe that everything is out to get them, that blame outside forces on everything -- they don't get far, no matter how smart they are, or how many pieces of paper they have indicating they have an education.
I don't fear for my job, I'm my own boss and my work cannot be outsourced. I didn't go the whole education route, but I'm qualified for several different careers. I'm not rich, but instead, I value my free time.
And do you pay the well educated ones more than the others, even though they do the same job?
As for being single parents, sorry, but I don't have an issue with that. Guys think women are crazy, it's only because men make them that way. Can't live with them, can't reproduce without them.... Yet. :DIt's been pretty conclusively proven that the single worst thing for kids, is being brought up in a single parent household. When they control for race, income, gender, education -- everything else they can think to control for, statistically -- nothing else seems to matter as much as an out-of-wedlock birth. Which group has the highest rate of this problem? Blacks, sadly. And consequently, their children have the highest rate of problems.
Gah, this is getting long and we seem to be attracting a crowd (they even brought popcorn!)
Make your rebuttal, I will read it, but I'm calling it quits.
The USA will be much the same as it is now, but will continue to experience a moderate decline in political/economic/military significance to the rest of the world, perhaps a very slight decline in cultural significance also. It'll also probably continue to be dragged into the 21st century with regard to government-funded welfare and infrastructure - much to the chagrin of types like the OP; although nothing like the extent of Europe.
The USA was a very unique thing that happened in that it was a Christian nation from the beginning.
The USA will be much the same as it is now, but will continue to experience a moderate decline in political/economic/military significance to the rest of the world, perhaps a very slight decline in cultural significance also. It'll also probably continue to be dragged into the 21st century with regard to government-funded welfare and infrastructure - much to the chagrin of types like the OP; although nothing like the extent of Europe.
The USA was a very unique thing that happened in that it was a Christian nation from the beginning. If it was just a Godless country like most all countries in Europe (Europe is a spiritual wasteland) I would agree with you that things would take a more natural course. But given the involvement of the Most High God, I don't things will happen naturally. Our downfall could be much faster. Look how far America has fallen in just 40 years.
The USA will be much the same as it is now, but will continue to experience a moderate decline in political/economic/military significance to the rest of the world, perhaps a very slight decline in cultural significance also. It'll also probably continue to be dragged into the 21st century with regard to government-funded welfare and infrastructure - much to the chagrin of types like the OP; although nothing like the extent of Europe.
The USA was a very unique thing that happened in that it was a Christian nation from the beginning. If it was just a Godless country like most all countries in Europe (Europe is a spiritual wasteland) I would agree with you that things would take a more natural course. But given the involvement of the Most High God, I don't things will happen naturally. Our downfall could be much faster. Look how far America has fallen in just 40 years.
I'm of the opinion that the USA's staunch Christian affiliation is why it's one of the most ****ed up countries in the Western world. Same reason why the Middle East is so ****ed up, except you're swapping out Christianity for Islam (two branches of this same faith, anyway).
The USA will be much the same as it is now, but will continue to experience a moderate decline in political/economic/military significance to the rest of the world, perhaps a very slight decline in cultural significance also. It'll also probably continue to be dragged into the 21st century with regard to government-funded welfare and infrastructure - much to the chagrin of types like the OP; although nothing like the extent of Europe.
The USA was a very unique thing that happened in that it was a Christian nation from the beginning. If it was just a Godless country like most all countries in Europe (Europe is a spiritual wasteland) I would agree with you that things would take a more natural course. But given the involvement of the Most High God, I don't things will happen naturally. Our downfall could be much faster. Look how far America has fallen in just 40 years.
I'm of the opinion that the USA's staunch Christian affiliation is why it's one of the most ****ed up countries in the Western world. Same reason why the Middle East is so ****ed up, except you're swapping out Christianity for Islam (two branches of this same faith, anyway).
"Christian" has zero place in how the government of the US operates. Anyone who disagrees clearly missed the "separation of church and state" memo.
It can be argued that the US was founded on principles derived from Christian practice and thought. In that sense it can be said to be a Christian nation. Also in the sense that the vast majority of the people living at the time of its founding were Christian. The fact that there is no explicit state religion doesn't necessarily make the label invalid.
That's like saying that Slovakia or Poland are Muslim countries. After all, both were part of the Ottoman Empire, up until the Polish-Ottoman War of 1672.
If you never got the memo: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." ~ U.S. Constitution, Amendment I.
Now if you want to practice religion like the founders, that is your right, but just take notice that you have only three choices for your religion: the Congregationalist church, the Catholic Church (are u pedo?), or the Church of England (God Save the Queen). Those were the only established churches that existed in the original States/ Colonies.
If you go with Congregationalist (which is my recommendation) then you should do it like a Massachusetts Pilgrim in 1776, and wear some big-buckle shoes, and wear a funny black hat, and go the stockade every Sunday, unless you respect G*D's law and go to church in the morning (like 5:00 am) and return directly to your home where you shall remain basically motionless feeling guilty about being the miserable sinner that you know you are. Do not even think of watching football.
If you want to practice any other religion, that is simply not acceptable, at least not under the original founders' intent. You would need some kind of modernist, moral-relativist justification for deviating from the founders' established religions, which you don't want.
If you never got the memo: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." ~ U.S. Constitution, Amendment I.
Now if you want to practice religion like the founders, that is your right, but just take notice that you have only three choices for your religion: the Congregationalist church, the Catholic Church (are u pedo?), or the Church of England (God Save the Queen). Those were the only established churches that existed in the original States/ Colonies.
If you go with Congregationalist (which is my recommendation) then you should do it like a Massachusetts Pilgrim in 1776, and wear some big-buckle shoes, and wear a funny black hat, and go the stockade every Sunday, unless you respect G*D's law and go to church in the morning (like 5:00 am) and return directly to your home where you shall remain basically motionless feeling guilty about being the miserable sinner that you know you are. Do not even think of watching football.
If you want to practice any other religion, that is simply not acceptable, at least not under the original founders' intent. You would need some kind of modernist, moral-relativist justification for deviating from the founders' established religions, which you don't want.
You must have studied history in public school. The first article in the Bill of Rights simply means that the federal government shall not interfere in the affairs of the church. Remember the reason for the whole seperation from England was so that the church would be free to worship as they wanted--not be bound by the "3 religions" as you describe. You must be cooperating with your own delusion if you can't see this because it is so obvious what it means if looked at in the context of what America was all about and why settlers came here in the first place.
Folks, folks, you're ALL missing the point.
The state IS a church.
Have you ever read judicial canons? Or pledged allegiance?
You must have studied history in public school. The first article in the Bill of Rights simply means that the federal government shall not interfere in the affairs of the church. Remember the reason for the whole seperation from England was so that the church would be free to worship as they wanted--not be bound by the "3 religions" as you describe. You must be cooperating with your own delusion if you can't see this because it is so obvious what it means if looked at in the context of what America was all about and why settlers came here in the first place.Sorry, but you are wrong.
Or pledged allegiance?The Pledge of Allegiance did not include "God" until the 1950's, when it was added to it.
The Pledge of Allegiance did not include "God" until the 1950's, when it was added to it.
I hope you spontaneously combust. That would be the best of all acts of god.
You keep playing your video games, and you might be the next guy to go shoot up a school.
Well believe your own delusions if you want to. Anybody can rewrite history to their own liking. The fact is that the Christian church had a profound affect upon American history, and that is why this nation was the most prosperous in the history of the world--at least it was until you liberals took over.
You think like the nuts that believe in the theory of evolution. How could anyone that is sane believe in this nonsense? The thing is, people who believe in the theory of evolution, they know if the back of their minds that it is just a wild chance that this could ever happen--let's say 1 in a billion. So why do they believe this idiocy? It's because they want to wash God from their conscience. They do not want to be submitted to the creator God. Same thing with you explanations about U.S. history. They are false, but you are willing to believe them because you want to do the same thing the evolutiist do, and that is to wash God from your conscience.
You keep playing your video games, and you might be the next guy to go shoot up a school.
That's uncalled for. There's no actual link between violent video games and violent acts.
You keep playing your video games, and you might be the next guy to go shoot up a school.
That's uncalled for. There's no actual link between violent video games and violent acts.
You keep playing your video games, and you might be the next guy to go shoot up a school.
That's uncalled for. There's no actual link between violent video games and violent acts.
Maybe in your mind there is no link. But if you look at every school shooting, the perp had a history of playing violent video games. It's the one thing most everybody had in common.
So, imagine a U.S. in 2038 where there are no violent video games? I wonder what video games will be like then. I wonder what kind of computers they will be played on. Will your average Joe even be able to afford a good computer then?
prescription psychotropic drugs.does ritalin count as such in the states?
In my experience (I watched that episode from the Simpsons) yes.prescription psychotropic drugs.does ritalin count as such in the states?
You keep playing your video games, and you might be the next guy to go shoot up a school.
That's uncalled for. There's no actual link between violent video games and violent acts.
Maybe in your mind there is no link. But if you look at every school shooting, the perp had a history of playing violent video games. It's the one thing most everybody had in common.
So, imagine a U.S. in 2038 where there are no violent video games? I wonder what video games will be like then. I wonder what kind of computers they will be played on. Will your average Joe even be able to afford a good computer then?
I think if you play violent video games, you are in danger of being partially controlled by a demonic spirit.What the hell are you talking about? It sounds like the ramblings of an absolute madman. You think porn and video games open you up to demonic spirits? You're a ****ing nutjob.
I think if you play violent video games, you are in danger of being partially controlled by a demonic spirit. How else could these guys that shoot up schools do what they do? It isn't just a mental issue. The drugs are also a common problem as another poster pointed out.
The same thing goes for pornography. If you watch it you are opening the door to partial control by a demonic spirit. That is why it is so hard to get out of.
Well believe your own delusions if you want to. Anybody can rewrite history to their own liking. The fact is that the Christian church had a profound affect upon American history, and that is why this nation was the most prosperous in the history of the world--at least it was until you liberals took over.(https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS4e8BzPlhSKo5TODlNykVhmxZjjjEUGTbH9YpQ_IpXU7mJzlT2)
You think like the nuts that believe in the theory of evolution. How could anyone that is sane believe in this nonsense? The thing is, people who believe in the theory of evolution, they know if the back of their minds that it is just a wild chance that this could ever happen--let's say 1 in a billion. So why do they believe this idiocy? It's because they want to wash God from their conscience. They do not want to be submitted to the creator God. Same thing with you explanations about U.S. history. They are false, but you are willing to believe them because you want to do the same thing the evolutiist do, and that is to wash God from your conscience.
Moose, there is no way that is a demon. That concoction could only be heaven-sent.