The End of Our American Project

[PoliticalChic]

Just no end of your hate-America agenda-

Another myth: there was no genocide of Indians.

My ancestors who were on the Trail of Tears would disagree.

So?


Being wrong must be a family trait, huh?

 

[PoliticalChic]

9. How did it happen that America was agreeable to giving up constitutional restraints?

The 'perfect storm' sunk the great ship.


" Big changes began around the time of the Great Depression because "Americans, suffering from the Great Depression, weren't interested in constitutional limits on what the federal government could do." A critical event that drastically changed the limitation on the federal government was a 1937 Supreme Court decision ruling on the legality of Social Security. The case was Helvering vs Davis. This decision opened the path to more intrusive federal regulation.


Some of the founding fathers worried about the phrase in the Constitution, "general welfare." in article 1 section 8, the Constitution says that Congress has the power to provide for "general welfare of the United States." The founders disputed how exactly the term general welfare would be ...


James Madison and the other Federalists who defended the Constitution believed that the enumerated powers listed in the constitution would limit the government's power to just those powers listed. .... "None of the leading Federalists in any of the ratified conventions defended the notion that general welfare should be interpreted as conferring authority for Congress to do anything that advance the general welfare. Not even Alexander Hamilton."
Chris Lawson s review of By the People Rebuilding Liberty Without Permission




So....if one is content with the Bismarckian Welfare State....accept what we have.



But....it is The End of Our American Project

 

[JoeB131]

So?


Being wrong must be a family trait, huh?

You ain't white enough to be praising racist genocide.

Just sayin'.

 

[boedicca]

Elected officials and government workers no longer view themselves as servants of The People. Instead, they view The People as a big herd to milk dry.

 

[PoliticalChic]

So?


Being wrong must be a family trait, huh?

You ain't white enough to be praising racist genocide.

Just sayin'.

Besides being unable to think, you can't read, either?

There was no Indian genocide.

And leave us yellow folk out of you fables.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Elected officials and government workers no longer view themselves as servants of The People. Instead, they view The People as a big herd to milk dry.

AND....the world turned up-side down, with a government job supposedly providing security at a lower wage rate.....


"Federal workers earning double their private counterparts

1. .....federal employees' average compensation has grown to more than double what private sector workers earn, a USA TODAY analysis finds.

2. Federal workers have been awarded bigger average pay and benefit increases than private employees for nine years in a row.

3. Federal civil servants earned average pay and benefits of $123,049 in 2009 while private workers made $61,051 in total compensation, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis.

4. The federal compensation advantage has grown from $30,415 in 2000 to $61,998 last year.

5. "Americans are fed up with public employee pay scales far exceeding that in the private sector," says Rep.Eric Cantor, R-Va., the second-ranking Republican in the House.

Sen. Ted Kaufman, D-Del., says a pay freeze would unfairly scapegoat federal workers without addressing real budget problems.

6. What the data show:

•Benefits.Federal workers received average benefits worth $41,791 in 2009. Most of this was the government's contribution to pensions. Employees contributed an additional $10,569.

•Pay.The average federal salary has grown 33% faster than inflation since 2000. USA TODAY reported in March that the federal government pays an average of 20% more than private firms for comparable occupations. The analysis did not consider differences in experience and education.

•Total compensation.Federal compensation has grown 36.9% since 2000 after adjusting for inflation, compared with 8.8% for private workers"

Federal workers earning double their private counterparts - USATODAY.com

 

[JoeB131]

Besides being unable to think, you can't read, either?

There was no Indian genocide.

And leave us yellow folk out of you fables.

Well, yeah, you mean i guess you'll claim the Anti-Chinese laws and the interment of Japanese Americans didn't happen, either.

Most people agree what happened to the Native American was GENOCIDE by any definition.

 

[boedicca]

Elected officials and government workers no longer view themselves as servants of The People. Instead, they view The People as a big herd to milk dry.

AND....the world turned up-side down, with a government job supposedly providing security at a lower wage rate.....


"Federal workers earning double their private counterparts

1. .....federal employees' average compensation has grown to more than double what private sector workers earn, a USA TODAY analysis finds.

2. Federal workers have been awarded bigger average pay and benefit increases than private employees for nine years in a row.

3. Federal civil servants earned average pay and benefits of $123,049 in 2009 while private workers made $61,051 in total compensation, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis.

4. The federal compensation advantage has grown from $30,415 in 2000 to $61,998 last year.

5. "Americans are fed up with public employee pay scales far exceeding that in the private sector," says Rep.Eric Cantor, R-Va., the second-ranking Republican in the House.

Sen. Ted Kaufman, D-Del., says a pay freeze would unfairly scapegoat federal workers without addressing real budget problems.

6. What the data show:

•Benefits.Federal workers received average benefits worth $41,791 in 2009. Most of this was the government's contribution to pensions. Employees contributed an additional $10,569.

•Pay.The average federal salary has grown 33% faster than inflation since 2000. USA TODAY reported in March that the federal government pays an average of 20% more than private firms for comparable occupations. The analysis did not consider differences in experience and education.

•Total compensation.Federal compensation has grown 36.9% since 2000 after adjusting for inflation, compared with 8.8% for private workers"

Federal workers earning double their private counterparts - USATODAY.com

This is why George Meany, head of the AFL-CIO, and FDR opposed government unions.


“It is impossible to bargain collectively with the government.”

That wasn’t Newt Gingrich, or Ron Paul, or Ronald Reagan talking. That was George Meany -- the former president of the A.F.L.-C.I.O -- in 1955. Government unions are unremarkable today, but the labor movement once thought the idea absurd.

The founders of the labor movement viewed unions as a vehicle to get workers more of the profits they help create. Government workers, however, don’t generate profits. They merely negotiate for more tax money. When government unions strike, they strike against taxpayers. F.D.R. considered this “unthinkable and intolerable.”

Government collective bargaining means voters do not have the final say on public policy. Instead their elected representatives must negotiate spending and policy decisions with unions. That is not exactly democratic – a fact that unions once recognized.

George Meany was not alone. Up through the 1950s, unions widely agreed that collective bargaining had no place in government. But starting with Wisconsin in 1959, states began to allow collective bargaining in government. The influx of dues and members quickly changed the union movement’s tune, and collective bargaining in government is now widespread. As a result unions can now insist on laws that serve their interests – at the expense of the common good...

F.D.R. Warned Us About Public Sector Unions - NYTimes.com

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Why does this reader think the OP didn't tell the whole story regarding the convenience store guy? Hmmmmmmm?

By the way....nobody was jailed...which was the implication made.

What was left out?

Why does this reader think the OP didn't tell the whole story regarding the convenience store guy? Hmmmmmmm?

Probably because she neglected to mention the IRS returned all of his money.

How the IRS seized a man s life savings without ever charging him with a crime - The Washington Post

Now, yeah, this is an awful abuse of a law meant for a good reason- to keep drug dealers and possible terrorists under close scrutiny. It probably needs to be revised.

But it's not the "Fire and Brimstone" Political Spice has put it out to be.

They did????? But....the project has ended!! It's not possible that the evil Feds gave the money back!!

Shall we look into the history of the forfeiture laws that led to this matter? What do you think we will learn?

So its OK for the government to take your stuff in the first place, as long as they give it back?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Besides being unable to think, you can't read, either?

There was no Indian genocide.

And leave us yellow folk out of you fables.

Well, yeah, you mean i guess you'll claim the Anti-Chinese laws and the interment of Japanese Americans didn't happen, either.

Most people agree what happened to the Native American was GENOCIDE by any definition.

1. Here's a plan:

I'll be responsible for what I post....not what the results of your Korsakoff Syndrome produces.


2. "Most people agree what happened to the Native American was GENOCIDE by any definition."

Well....let's see how simple it is to prove you to be a moron:

a. "Though the term"genocide"was not coined until 1944, acts of genocide have been committed throughout history....“Genocide,” a term used to describe violence against members of a national, ethnical, racial or religious group with the intent to destroy the entire group, came into general usage only after World War II,..."What Is Genocide - Facts Summary - HISTORY.com

b. " In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group,..."
The UN Convention, Article II,Convention on Genocide


3. Is that what happened?
Only in Liberal wet dreams.

Here's what happened:
" However, the arrival of the white man precipitated what was probably the worst
demographic disaster in history. It was not warfare but disease which played the major part. The Indians had no resistance to tuberculosis, pneumonia, cholera, typhus, smallpox and other European ailments, with the result that their population declined by about 90 per cent between 1492 and 1650, disappearing altogether in some areas."
"Wild in Woods: The Myth of the Noble Eco-Savage,' by Robert Whelan, p.29-30


4. So...any imbecile who claims that to be genocide, must also call the Plague genocide....

"The Black Death arrived in Europe by sea in October 1347 when 12 Genoese trading ships docked at the Sicilian port of Messina after a long journey through the Black Sea.... Over the next five years, the mysterious Black Death would kill more than 20 million people in Europe–almost one-third of the continent’s population." Black Death - Facts Summary - HISTORY.com


I said 'imbecile.'
You can raise your paw.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Why does this reader think the OP didn't tell the whole story regarding the convenience store guy? Hmmmmmmm?

By the way....nobody was jailed...which was the implication made.

What was left out?

Why does this reader think the OP didn't tell the whole story regarding the convenience store guy? Hmmmmmmm?

Probably because she neglected to mention the IRS returned all of his money.

How the IRS seized a man s life savings without ever charging him with a crime - The Washington Post

Now, yeah, this is an awful abuse of a law meant for a good reason- to keep drug dealers and possible terrorists under close scrutiny. It probably needs to be revised.

But it's not the "Fire and Brimstone" Political Spice has put it out to be.

They did????? But....the project has ended!! It's not possible that the evil Feds gave the money back!!

Shall we look into the history of the forfeiture laws that led to this matter? What do you think we will learn?

So its OK for the government to take your stuff in the first place, as long as they give it back?

Great defense for Willie Sutton!

"I'll give it back! What da' dillio???'

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

The American project ended in 1913

 

[JoeB131]

So your argument, not to pour through your verbal diarhea, is that it wasn't genocide because they hadn't come up for a word for it yet?

Seriously? This is your argument? So something doesn't exist until you find a word for it.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The American project ended in 1913

Anyone who has studied the history of taxation will tend to agree with you.

 

[JoeB131]

The American project ended in 1913

you mean when we became a real country wiht a real government?

 

[PoliticalChic]

So your argument, not to pour through your verbal diarhea, is that it wasn't genocide because they hadn't come up for a word for it yet?

Seriously? This is your argument? So something doesn't exist until you find a word for it.

See...you should have read it...you would have made less of a fool of yourself.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

The American project ended in 1913

Anyone who has studied the history of taxation will tend to agree with you.

I'm not speaking of just the 16th Amendment, but also the 17th.

 

[JoeB131]

See...you should have read it...you would have made less of a fool of yourself.

why, it's the same boring shit you guys always say, "Well, some Native Americans died of diseases the White man intentionally introduced, so that excuses the ones who were killed by bullets."

except we killed a lot of them with bullets. We killed a lot of them by killing off the Bison, which was the basis of their economic system. We killed a lot of them by forcing them to live on reservations on the shittiest land in the country.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The American project ended in 1913

Anyone who has studied the history of taxation will tend to agree with you.

I'm not speaking of just the 16th Amendment, but also the 17th.

1. As is usual with government policy, taxes crept up over time.
2. The Civil War produced the first tax on personal income: the Revenue Act of 1861. Interestingly, it was called an ‘indirect’ tax, defined as taxing an ‘event:’ a tax on the event of receiving income….therefore it didn’t have to be ‘apportioned,’ merely imposed uniformly throughout all areas “not in rebellion.”
   1. The tax was moderately progressive, 3% on all income over $800. This meant that most workers didn’t have to pay any tax. Revenue Act of 1861 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
3. The following year, due to a greater need, Congress increased both the rates and the progressivity. The exemption was lowered to $600 @ 3%, and a new 5% on income over $10,000. This, then was the first “progressive,” not flat tax. The law also imposed a duty on paymasters to deduct and withhold the income tax, and to send the withheld tax to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue. Revenue Act of 1862 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
   1. After the war exemptions were increased, and rates lowered, and in 1872, the tax was abolished.
   2. But, having had a taste of taking and using free money, politicians passed more than 60 bills designed to reinstate the income tax over the next 20 years. David G. Davies, “United States Taxes and Tax Policy,” p. 22.
4. Socialist, Populist, and Progressive movements paralleled this move, and this desire based on “taxing the rich.” In 1894, the Democrat-controlled Congress passed a bill that included a flat income tax…but part included taxes on income from real estate and personal property, and this triggered a court challenge as a direct tax infracting the Constitution’s apportionment rule,…
   1. Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Company, 157U.S.429(1895),aff'd on reh'g, 158U.S.601(1895), with a ruling of 5–4, was a landmark case in which theSupreme Court of the United States ruled that the unapportioned income taxes on interest,dividends and rents imposed by the Income Tax Act of 1894 were, in effect,direct taxes, and were unconstitutional because they violated the provision that direct taxes be apportioned. Pollock v. Farmers Loan Trust Co. - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
   2. Interesting decision, since the same principles had been upheld vis-à-vis the 1861 Revenue Act…. Springer v. United States,102 U.S. 586(1881),[1]was a case in which the United States Supreme Court upheld the Federal income tax imposed under the Revenue Act of 1864. Springer v. United States - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
5. The Progressives were horrified! They had been focused on forcing the “money class” to pay “in proportion to their ability to pay…’ which, essentially was the first half of “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” From each according to his ability to each according to his need - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
   1. The Progressives launched a campaign designed to reverse this decision, and that culminated with the ratification of the 16th Amendment, in 1913.

 

[PoliticalChic]

See...you should have read it...you would have made less of a fool of yourself.

why, it's the same boring shit you guys always say, "Well, some Native Americans died of diseases the White man intentionally introduced, so that excuses the ones who were killed by bullets."

except we killed a lot of them with bullets. We killed a lot of them by killing off the Bison, which was the basis of their economic system. We killed a lot of them by forcing them to live on reservations on the shittiest land in the country.

1. Yes, you are a moron.

2. ""Well, some Native Americans died of diseases the White man intentionally introduced,..."
Another myth.
You're a moron.

3. "...except we killed a lot of them with bullets."
And vice versa.

4. "We killed a lot of them by killing off the Bison..."
No, they killed off the Bison.
You're a moron.

These 'Noble Savages' were responsible for the extinction of a number of animals.
.... The aim was to kill as much as possible as quickly as possible, with the minimum risk to the hunter. There was no concern for conserving future stocks, nor for taking only as much as was necessary to meet present needs."
Whelan, "Wild in the Woods: The Myth of the Noble Eco-Savage"



A favorite Indian device was the ‘jump’, which meant stampeding herds of animals over a cliff, so that the fall would kill them, described in "Playing God in Yellowstone," by Alston Chase.


‘One successful kill of a number of adult animals,’ wrote Wright, describing the effects on the ecosystem of a jump near Jackson Hole, ‘would havereduced the breeding potential of the local [bison] herd to a level where it was no longer a significant part of the valley ecosystem.'
"Playing God in Yellowstone," by Alston Chase, p. 99-100