Soback

Hey Aperson. Here's the thing. Name at least one big league American port managing company. THER'S NONE. NOT ONE. Why? Because just like in my first exampley, they have been put out of business once we started letting non US based companies bid on port managing contracts. Whith lower labor (managment) costs overseas, the non US companies have won the bids, and ultimatly put big US port managing companies OUT OF BUSINESS. And now, we are stuck. We either pay more (it takes time to grow a good, reliable company, thus the start up costs are ALWAYS higher, till the company gains experience and operational costs drop) and have a small US company manage the ports and grow with it, or outsource it. The politicians have literally screwed the citizens, and not a single one of them is held liable. If I, a simple guy, with a simple education can understand this, are you going to tell me (like those fricking politicians do) that they didn't know what they were doing? Of course they did, they were lining their pockets and the pockets of their friends with this deals. They were also getting re-elected because the US citizen was enjoying lower costs on credit, because of those deals. It was the politicians RESPONSIBILITY to explain it to the citizens in a rational matter, NOT give them candy for a decade while screwing them in a lifetime.

It could. But while they only "could", Republicans already did.

And why is Bush a socialist? Because he does NOTHING to improve our situation. He continues selling out US citizens, he continues letting illegals into this country. He is selling out our future for peanuts, or rather for improving the quality of life for others, the others in other countries and the others at home (Katrina, wellfare, social security, medicare, ect...social programs) he is forcing us pay for all that. When my work will benefit only me. When my taxes are spend with primary benefit going to the taxpayer. And when the decision of my money (labor) going to help the less fortunate (or not), and how much, is left up to me. Then I will support a person that is responsible for that. And I can say that he believes in and respects the Constitution of the United States of America. Bush is nothing but another socialist, wiping his dirty hands on the US Constitution while smirking at us on national tv when he says "People and fish can co-exist" "..to put food on your family.." Don't know what goes on through his head, or where it's burried. But whether or not people and fish can co-exist, or the sick thought of putting food on my family, are farthest from my mind. He is obviously not thinking about borders, economy, or protecting our Constitutional rights. Last time I checked, he was thinking about selling the rights to manage a couple OUR marine terminals(yes, the US citizens are the OWNERS of those terminals, as our taxes paid for them) to a foreign power.

Lets say you are a feudal lord. Your lands have grain fields, coal mining, steel plants. You have a stable internal economy, everything is groovy. Now, your neighboring lord has lands, but they are all in dissaray. His people live poorly, barely scraping by. So one day he decides that he will gather up some of his people, and pay them a little bit (which they will be happy to get, because they are barely scraping by as it is) to go mine coal. Then, he figures he can sell that coal to you at a huge profit, because your coal miners get paid much more. They get paid more because everything else in your lands costs more, since you have a stable economy, and the coal miners will obviously will not work for less than what is required to provide for their living. So. When he starts selling coal to you. What does it do? Well, on one hand it's great. The prices of coal in your country go down, since the shop owners are buying it at a lower price from your neighbor rather then from your own miners at a higher price. What happens to your miners? Well, now they are out of work. So their quality of living just droped, which is a decrease in overall quality of living, but others quality of living has increased because now since they pay less for coal, they have more money to spend on other things. What happens in your neighbors lands however? Well, now he is starting to build some functionality into his economy. He has a mining industry. Those miners are making money, and have money to spend on other things. So their standard of living is increasing. Which creates other jobs, because his miners have disposable income. Now, remember how everything was cheap in his country? Not anymore, now things are starting to cost more, as the economy starts growing, other jobs come into the picture, and they start having enough money to start importing, lets say, the steel from YOUR steel mills. Now, it's good right? Or so it seems. Even though your mining industry is gone, now you have more business selling steel to your neighbor, so those miners went into the steel industry. However, now since your neighbor is importing steel, the quality of life for his people keeps on increasing, now he can't keep those miners for the low wages that he was paying them, and now he can't sell the coal to you for cheap. What does that mean for your economy? Well, now you don't have a coal mining business, so you have no choice but to buy the coal from him. BUT since it costs more, your own people now pay the prices that are either the same that your own miners used to charge, or pretty close to them. So, their quality of life starts going down, less disposable income, because now they spend more for coal again. So, we fast forward. Lets say your neighbor build his own steel mills. Not only that, but now he can't sell you the coal anymore, his own population has grown and he needs it for them. What does it mean for you? Well, you are in do do. Your peoples quality of life plumets, they have to re-build their mining industry, and there will be a period while the coal is either un-available, or the price is through the roof. You see how for a couple of decades of lower coal prices you have traded away your future security. And for a period of a little higher standard of living (on top of the good standard of living you already had) you have increased your neighbors quality of life, while later on destroyed the quality of life for your own people. This is a very limited, mini economy scenario. But, you can paralel it to how poor the quality of life was in China, Mexico, middle east was in the 60's and how much better it is today. Now, compared to US, they are still of course, pretty bad. BUT, they have raised their standards of living at the cost of OUR businesses. They enjoy cars, freeways, internet, computers, ect... today because WE (our government) have allowed them to sell their products here, at MUCH lower prices. Now, it increases our standard of living temporarily (as you can see from that example), BUT have destroyed our home industry and service jobs/businesses, and when those third world countries standard of living rises, and the prices of their exports go up accordingly, because our own industries have been gutted by them and we have no choice but to depend on imports, OUR standards of living goes down because now we are importing the things we COULD have been making ourselfs at ever increasing prices, till such a time comes that it will be cost effective to produce such products again, at home. However, during the transitionary period we will have to pay, and pay dearly. So we are literally selling away our future, or buying todays comfort on credit. However you want to put it. The only way to prevent that. Is having taffirs. That when a third world country wants to sell it's stuff here, the price difference is imposed in taxes on THEM. Which means our own internal economy will be self sufficient, AND on top of it we can absorb consumer demand spikes by increasing or decreasing tarifs on imports. That's if you want your country to be a complete true stronghold. Now, if you are for one world, government, nation, country, whatever. Then you can create a one world economy. Eventually everything will balance out. But there will be some tough times that are self imposed and are un-necessary, as you will be paying with your quality of life and your childrens quality of life, plunging your country into dissaray, all for "helping" increase the quality of life for your neighbors. At least in China's case, you can really see them making big strides. Hell, they were just farming communities in the early 1900's, now it's really coming up. In Mexico's case, they would rather migrate here and send the money back, and keep their economy in shambles so that the money they send back is worth 10 times as much. Which is what a lot of them do, work in US for 10 or 15 years, then go back, buy a house and retire with the money they saved up, while putting a US citizen out of work and on wellfare. Also, you should probably know this, every US dollar that leaves US borders increases inflation here in the US. As now we will have two dollars. One that the we will print again to replace the one that left our borders (remember, the Gold Standard was abolished, and now we are not restricted to printing only so much money as can be backed up by gold, we can print gazillions and not back it up by anything but the words "Legal tender" which means when the time comes to collect on loans, puff it all crumbles to dust as there's no wealth to secure the loans taken out or give", and then another one that will find it's way here back from Mexico. The value of dollar didn't increase, but when all of a sudden there's two where there should've been only one, the true value for each one is only 50cents. Now, since you can't call 1 dollar 50 cents, you have to raise the price of goods from 0.99 to 1.99 to compensate. So that the true value of someones time spent working to earn that dollar stays the same. Thus inflation. Another way your standard of living is decreased, this time by illegal immigration. [ 03-09-2006, 10:08 PM: Message edited by: Soback ]

Yeah, it's good news that he is taking away our Constitutional freedoms while making us pay for it at the same time. And you'd better believe that. There's absolutly no chance that republicans will win the next election. Not only do the socialists hate them, but their own people, the conservatives that have voted for them, have turned away. If the republicans can't do the things that they were supposed to do when we voted them into office, then we might as well turn the country over to the socialists and once it's done, re-build anew. It's plain and simple. A lot of conservatives feel betrayed. Those that do, will NOT vote for a republican in the next election. They will either not vote at all, or vote for a libertarian. They gave Bush a second chance. Why would they give the party that keeps on betraying conservative values, keeps on increasing/growing the government, and violating the Constitution a third, when there's a third party that not only sounds conservative, but promises to bring back the Constitution, enforce it, and get rid of criminals in office that violate it.

What childlish statements would that be? Like the fact that the foods in above links cause cancer? Maybe you want to get in touch with WHO or the American Council of Science and Health http://www.acsh.org/ and tell then that they got it all wrong, that you know better. They need to stop making childlish statements and concentrate all their efforts on the smokers. After all, smoking is just baaaad. And since it's just baaaad. They should pay, we should tax them more, they should pay for themselfs, plus pay for others, and then pay some more.

You can't have a strong defense without a strong economy backing it up. Defending the country takes military, intelligence, people, equipment, ect.... that in turn takes money. Military doesn't produce money, it consumes it. The better defended a country is, the more it costs to operate that said defense, THUS the stronger economically the country needs to be to maintain that defense. In Russia, once socialism completly ate away at countrys wealth, airforce pilots were flying their Migs to middle east, and sell them. When they returned, there were absolutly no reprecussions. Why? Because the pilots, just like other highly trained military personel, weren't being paid. So they were selling off the equipment they were given to operate so that they had money, to provide for their families. That's what happens when the economy of the country is weak. Free trade? Do you know how the economy works? Free trade is nothing but a bunch of bull. Those Chinese factories overseas don't have stringent regulations, and Chinese economy dictates that those factory workers get paid ten times less than a US factory worker. It's NOT low pay, it's just that's what the costs of living in China is. You can rent a place to live, buy food and other expenses on that "low, by US standards" pay. Same goes for customer support being exported to India. How do you secure your internal economy, and make the country less dependent on other countrys economies. By making sure your country can provide the services, manufacturing, and other jobs INTERNALLY. So, what you do is regulate it with TARIFS. You make the car imported from Japan or Europe cost the same as the comparable car made in US. Don't you understand that once lets say, a steel industry is gone in US because it's cheaper to import said steel from China, because of difference in labor costs. You are in DEEP do do if China decides to drastically raise their rates, or with holds shipments of steel, or a disaster strikes and no more trade with.... in this case China. It will take years, if not a decade to re-establish your footing and re-build, internally, the industry that has been lost. I will agree with you that internall trade should be completly de-regulated, as that leads to healthy competition, increased job security, increased standard of living, AND prevents the states from tightening their grip on the citizens freedoms and bussinesses. As both groups will move to the state that doesn't violate their rights. HOWEVER, international trade is a whole different issue. Unregulated, it destroys your home economy, lowers your standard of living (if you are trading with the country that has lower standars of living, it will raise it if you are trading with the country that has higher standards of living, since US is right there on the top, it lowers the standards of living in US while raising in whoever we are trading with), destroys your home industry (be it product or service based), ect...It becomes global economy, which means ONE WORLD economy. What that means to YOU, is, if your standard of living is good, then it will drive it down, if you live in a country where it's low, it will drive it up. It's just like socialism, YOU end up paying the costs for third world countries, by buying cheaper products now, destroying your home industries, and when your trading partners standard of living increases, so do their costs, and so do the costs of products they sell to you. However, your home industry has already been gutted, and you will pay the costs later. So the results of that take decades to manifest. See the difference?

It's not about helping the people I don't know. It's about re-distribution of wealth (they paid out $200,000 per family, for their homes, while their homes were worth LESS than $100,000, HOWEVER, why should the government be spending my taxes, buying other peoples homes, period), it's about social programs (those "refugees" were fed, clothed and taken care of for 7 months, a lot of them are STILL being clothed, fed, and taken care of, while forcing ME to pay for them) Don't give me the "they are disprivelleged" BS. Me and my mom moved here from another country with LESS than $1,000 dollars, fast forward, and 13 years later I have an education that I have paid for with loans, refusing all government grants, and we have a house. What have those "refugees" done? They were born in US, and 7 months, billions of dollars later they are STILL in the gutters, leeching off of working people like me. Who enables them with their rights, taking the money that is earned by the working people and gives it to them. The government. Who is at the top of the government right now. Bush. Is he using my tax money to secure the borders against illegal immigration? No. Is he using the power granted to him by the Constitution to strenghten US, politically and economically. No. Is he doing anything to make US self reliant. No. Is he doing anything to protect my Constitutional rights? No. He is gutting US of jobs by pandering to the socialist China. He is bleeding US of wealth by squandering it on social programs. He is not doing anything to protect this country borders. He is not doing anything to protect my CONSTITUTIONAL rights. He is not impeaching/prosecuting people in this government that are blatantly passing laws that violate my Constitutional rights, nor is he doing anything about those that fail to uphold the Law of the Land, aka the Constitution. He is as much a criminal as they are. That's what it's all about. And that's why roughly 60% of this government is corrupt and should be gotten rid off. While 20% being so corrupt that letting them rot in jail is a liability. Russia let Lenin sit in jail, and look what happened. If he was shot, Russia would've never contracted the cancer that is socialism, the socialism that first bled her dry and then rotted her away. If not for socialism, a capitalistic Russia would have been one of the worlds super powers today.

Errr. No. Starch foods are carcinogens, PERIOD. Potato chips are carcinogenic, so is milk. Raw steak wouldn't be a carcinogen, because it wouldn't have been cooked, and thus there would be no burned carbon in it. Wanna eat raw steak? And BlackGhost. You REALLY need to educate yourself about the topics you are attempting to discuss. It's already been established that you have no comprehension of how businesses work or how the economy functions. The fact that you have never heard of someone dying of steak is because people don't die of steak unless they choke on it. They die of CANCER caused by cooked steak, because cooked steak has burned carbon, which is a CARCINOGEN. Carcinogen is something that increases the chance of CANCER. Here's some heavy duty reading for your http://dceg.cancer.gov/pdfs/butler14162620...a%20carcinogen' However, maybe we should go with something easier http://www.lef.org/magazine/mag2003/apr2003_awsi_02.html See the list on the left? See the food items? Did you even read the link to WHO article I posted that says 35% of carcinogens come from FOODS, while 30% come from smoke. Numbers will tell you that foods contain 5% more types of carcinogens. Which in turn means you are more likely to get cancer just by consuming certain foods. And if you follow that up with the link above, you will see that those are the types of food that you eat EVERY DAY. Now add the fact that those foods have been raised with the use of pesticides and other chemicals. So, read up, before you say something "UNLOGICAL", err... illogical. http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/200...r-nfi092203.php http://dceg.cancer.gov/pdfs/sinha922000.pd...a%20carcinogen' Here's something really interesting http://www.preventcancer.com/consumers/gen...dirty_dozen.htm

Bush slid down REALLY low in my opinion. He IS a socialist, Katrina proved it big time. He literally pissed away our money down the drain on that one, and NOBODY was held responsible, 60% of this government, and I don't just mean the Bush administration, I mean the whole government, should be in prison labor camps, the other 20% should be executed for gross incompetence, treason, violating the Constitution they swore to uphold, and crimes commited against the citizens of this country.

Were they eating well done steak in that reastaurant? Because you do know that steak is a carcinogen, right? How did they determine if it was the cigarette smoke from rather then the steak they ate every Friday night at that same restaurant.

Here's a little more. How many of those 4000 worked in an industry dealing with carcinogens. Do you know how many things, chemicals, compounds, ect... are categorized as carcinogens? If any of them were a plumber, painter, carpenter, mechanic, scientist, lab attendant, ect... thousands of other different professions. They could have developed cancer due to some other carcinogen. But, like I have said. You are 5% MORE at risk of developing cancer, just from foods alone, as compared to smoking. So, numbers DO matter. If you just pitch your tent at the tobacco headquarters with a sign saying "Smoking is bad", "Special taxes on the smokers", "Higher insurance premiums for smokers", and your major anti smoking reason is cancer. Well, what does it say about how informed you are when you ignore the steak factory, paint making plant, or a lumber mill next door.

Sure it does. And so does grilled meat, nickel, estrogen, progesterone, selenium sulfide (used in shampoos). According to WHO 35% of carcinogens are derived from food alone, and 30% come from smoking. You are more at risk of developing cancer when eating certain foods, rather than smoking. http://www.tianxian.com/books/chap7-4.asp So judging by your rationale, we should institute a special tax on people who eat steaks, and raise their insurance premiums. When you make such silly statements as bussinesses would fail if they weren't taxed, we have to pay for others living if they can't help themselfs, and trying to throw that statistic of 4000 deaths a year due to second hand smoke. It just shows that you have no comprehension of how economy functions (in relation to taxation statement), and what exactly causes cancer (in your later statement). You keep repeating the same line "Smoking is bad", but what you fail to do is corelate and weave factual information into it. Here's food for thought. How do you know that 1000 of those 4000 people didn't develop cancer because they went out to a steak place every Friday, or a certain food item that is a carcinogen wasn't a regular part of their diet. You see, it takes more than just throw out data that you have picked up from an unti-smoking, anti-tabaco, anti-big bussiness campaign.

Oh it will. When you raise taxes, things cost more, and when things cost more, customers will have to pick between either their cell phones, or broad band, ect... when you can't afford both, it's either one thing or another, then there's decline in purchasing power, which brings around the decline in jobs, which brings around un-employment, higher wellfare, medicare, food stamp benefits payouts, which in turn will drain the tax revenues, and the liberals (or should I say socialists) will want to increase taxes again. It's the next Europe. And it will continue down this road till it gets so bad that you will fight to provide for YOUR family rather than providing for everyone elses. That's when it's either a massive depression or inflation, high crime, uprisings, getting rid of stupid socialistic politicians and their following. Then, once all of them are put down and out of office, it will slowly reverse itself and the country will start re-building. MAYBE. Rome couldn't pull out of it. Germany tried pulling out of it by starting WWII, Europe went through those phases for hundreds of years, and is going through it right now. Russia was a perfect example. What can I say but that it's US's time.

You have no case to ruin. Your statment of "Why should smokers pay more, even though they cost less. Because they smoke!." wouldn't even go over with a 6 year old. And, the "1% unjustly spend is not enough to be called servitude", is in the same category as pretty much all of your other statements. They hold no water. It's like saying that if 11hours and 59 minutes you are forced to work for someone else, and get no benefits from it, is not considered servitude, BUT if you work 12 hours and 1 minute, THEN it's servitude. The fact that wellfare, social security, medicare, food stamps is nothing new, doesn't mean that it's ok. You keep saying that I should pay because I could end up in the same situation. Let me clue you in. Even if I did end up in the same situation, I AM NOT ENTITLED TO OTHER PEOPLES MONEY. Get that entitlement mentality out of this thread. You can't back it up with facts, all you got is feelings on how those people are poor, and that it could be me. It STILL is not an excuse to take my money and give it to them. As far as help to Katrina goes, it's complete and utter BS. Bush and all the politicians that wasted my money on that are nothing more than a bunch of dung bags. Those who suffered from Katrina should've been taken care of strictly by donations, or from their insurance. If I were to have a problem, such as my home being damaged because of a mudslide, earthquake, or whatever else, would the government pay for it? If the other homes on the block ended up ok, guess what I would get from the government, ZERO. So don't be telling me that I have to pay for someone elses problems when they have been stupid and either didn't insure their place, or didn't evacuate their things when they have had A WEEK notice. It's STILL not my problem. Oh, and by the way, we have those lazzy Katrina evacuees here in Bay Area. A lot of them STILL haven't found a job, and the liberal tv news, and news papers were screaming how FEMA is ending their hotel, food, expenses subsidies. That's almost HALF A YEAR LATER. If forcing me to pay for their living is not survitude, then what is. What you need to understand, is it's NOT a matter of likes or dislikes of where my taxes are going, but rather if it benefits the taxpayer, or is it at the expense of the taxpayer for someone elses benefit. Think about this statement for a bit, there's a difference there. And, if you still think that spending my taxes for the direct benefit of my neighbor is legal. Then you haven't read the links I have posted, and haven't distinguished the difference of "Benefits the taxpayer" vs. "Benefits the non-taxpayer at taxpayers expense". Roads, benefit the taxpayer, police benefit taxpayer, parks benefit the taxpayer, wellfare benefits the person that recieves it, so do other socialist programs such as medicare, social security, food stamps, ect... ALL of those programs should be handled STRICTLY by charity. There is no difference between the government taking $100 bucks from me and giving it to a guy that lives a mile away, without a job, and that same guy robbing me on the street. It doesn't benefit me, it benefits him, and it's MY labor that produced that money. Explain how bussineses would fail if people got to keep 100% of their income? Do bussinesses run on taxes, or on profits? In socialism "businesses" DO fail when people get to keep their paychecks. Because you can't call those "businesses" businesses, they are NOT, they are just government run programs. That's another reason out of thousands why in socialism taxes approach 70%. So, to get back on track. Posted by Black Ghost "How to justify why a smoker pays more than a guy who costs 10x more. Um, because he smokes! You see, there's more to this whole thing than just leveling out the money and all that between whos paying what and how much." ----- See, that's where you just completly faltered in your wish to argue the points of why smokers should pay more. Insurance is BUSINESS. Businesses run on PROFITS. Those that lose money, go out of business. So, NO, there isn't much more to insurance than money. It can't run on good wishes. So, you need to come up with a better way to argue your point, instead of blurting out "He pays more, even though he costs less. Because he smokes" and then going on to explain how smoking is bad. What are you going to do when the government decides it doesn't like you drinking soda. You do know that 4 years ago they were trying to put a special "child obesity" tax on soda. So, even if you are not obese, and just want a can of cold Coke, you would still have to pay a higher tax. What they are doing to smokers is the same thing. It's ILLEGAL. The only reason the population doesn't rise up and say enough, is because those who do not smoke, do not care. And then on top of it, there are others, like you, who say "Smoking is bad, so higher taxes on them is good". Years from now, the government will try that special "child obesity" tax on soda. What will you be saying then. "I don't mind, it's only a cent"? It just means that you don't know the value of money and that you don't value your own labor. Want to be a slave to the sickest, the poorest, the most corrupt people in this country, go ahead. Do not force those who like their freedom to bow down and spend their time for the benefit of those sickest, poorest, and corrupt. One hour that I spend working for their benefit, is an hour I lose working on my home, or my motorcycle, or just relaxing and enjoying MY life. Why should I work for the sole benefit of them enjoying theirs. It's slavery, plain and simple.

You seem to have read the sentence which contained the 70% tax quote, but completly missed the next sentence which implied that those 70% taxes exist in Europe and Canada, both of which comprise of socialistic governments. And since you don't seem to be aware of it, in US, the maximum Federal tax rate is 35%, then you add on top of it the maximum state tax (differs per state, but usually 15%) of 15%, that's 50%, THEN you add social security, about 7%, medicare 3%, and dissability 2%, that adds up to 62%. Now, if you are making 100,000 a year, your take home ammounts to $48,000. That's BULL. You might go into the rethoric about write offs, deductions, ect... that's all separate however, and varies from person to person and their individual situation, the FACT remains that the base tax is 62%. That means that out of 365 days, I work 226 days just to pay my taxes. You want to pile government imposed fees on top of that too? Now, I would understand it if that money was spend to benefit me. Like building a library, or a park, road construction, municipalities, defense, law, ect....THAT'S what taxes are supposed to be spend for, for things that PRIMARILY benefit those who pay them. HOWEVER when they are spend on things such as wellfare, medicare, social security, food stamps, those things primary benefit only the select people who under most circumstances DO NOT PAY TAXES, and their benefit to me is SECONDARY if not tritriary. That means I am working and paying for someone elses benefit WITHOUT HAVING A SAY. You might try squeezing in some poor argument how I can vote my say, while you know perfectly well that that's BS. You should study the history of the country you live in, and know what taxation without representation means, and what our founding people did about it, and what was that paper they wrote to make sure such a thing would never happen again. Since you don't seem to be familiar with legislative slavery, and how we have become unsuspecting, unprotesting slaves. Here's some links with that information. http://www.lewrockwell.com/yates/yates101.html http://www.mises.org/story/410 http://www.lewrockwell.com/yates/yates17.html "The 13th Amendment makes it very clear that we cannot legally or Constitutionally be forced into involuntary servitude. As such, we maintain that a human being has an inalienable right to own 100 % of Person and 100% of Labor, including control over how the fruits of his actions are dispensed. A human being has an inalienable right to control the compensation for his labor while in the act of any service in the marketplace ÔÇô e.g., digging ditches, flipping burgers, word-processing documents for a company, programming computers, preparing court cases, performing surgery, preaching sermons, or writing novels. A forcible direct tax on the labor of a human being is in violation of this right as stated in the 13th Amendment. If we work 40 hours a week, and another entity forcibly conscripts 25 % of our compensation, then we argue that we have been forced into involuntary servitude ÔÇô slavery ÔÇô for 10 of those 40 hours, and we were free for the other 30. If we could freely choose to work just the 30 hours and decline to work the 10 hours, then our wills would not be violated and the 13th Amendment would be honored." http://www.ncpa.org/pi/taxes/pd041399c.html http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/52.html http://www.semperliber.org/slavery.htm Why don't you read, and then tell if it's legal to FORCE me to pay taxes for wellfare, medicare, social security, food stamps, or any other program that primarily benefits someone else rather than the person who paid those taxes. http://antislavery.freeservers.com/#1 "Summary - A Quick Look At The Main Idea This is also a Constitutional Argument All wealth is labor in a stored format. The money you earn is your labor in a stored format. Your earnings have been called 'income', but earned money is actually compensation for your time and mental and or physical labor. When the government taxes your money/labor, then distributes your money/labor to people via government hand out programs (welfare), the government is making you work for those people who are receiving the handouts. This is servitude. Virtually all government money comes from taxation. All government handout programs, such as Food Stamps or Medicare, require tax money in order to operate. Government handouts are government run socialism. All government social programs are taxpayer servitude. If you don't like being forced to work for people via government handouts, then government hand out programs are putting you into involuntary servitude. Involuntary servitude is illegal in the U.S.A. and is specifically forbidden by the 13th amendment to the Constitution of the United States. In the long standing Supreme Court case Boyd v. United States Volume 116 U.S. Reports page 616 February 1, 1886, the Court noted that "constitutional provisions for the security of person and property should be liberally construed. . . . It is the duty of courts to be watchful for the constitutional rights of the citizen, and against any stealthy encroachments thereon." At p. 635. The court went on to say that what may not be done directly, may not be done indirectly through legislative fiat. In other words, something which cannot be done directly like involuntary servitude, cannot be done indirectly by creating government programs (legislative fiat) which make people involuntarily serve. Charities, that only get money from donations, are voluntarily servitude because the labor/money is voluntarily given. Charity is only charity when it is given voluntarily. Over half of the Federal budget is socialism. Income taxes are only about 50% of the money the Federal government takes in each year, therefore; all of your income taxes can be considered involuntary servitude. You can get a feel for how much of your labor is involuntary servitude by looking at the amount of income taxes you pay. The Supreme Court will only rule on cases which are brought before the court. This case must be argued to the Supreme Court in order rectify the situation, which has existed since the year 1933. If nobody stands up and formally complains about being an involuntary servant, then the government can assume we are serving voluntarily. The only thing that can stop us from freeing ourselves, is saying it can't be done and then failing to act. We owe it to our children to pass on the freedom that so many have died for. The definition of Taxpayer Slavery cannot yet be found in the dictionary because it is a new and revolutionary, as well as accurate, way of describing government run socialism. Taxpayer Slavery is defined in the preface section of this web page." --------------------------------- Alright. NOW, seems like we have gotten the "it's ok to force citizens to pick up the tab for those with inherited diseases out of the way". Next step is, why don't you go ahead, and try to justify increasing the premium costs on smokers, even those without any medical problems, BUT, keeping the premiums for people with medical problems the same. How are you going to justify that a person who costs less per year to treat, pays MORE than a person that costs ten times as much. Explain away. And please, do so with factual arguments, leave the negative feelings about smokers at the door. Lets have an intelligent LOGICAL discussion. [ 02-27-2006, 12:42 AM: Message edited by: Soback ]

US HAS to start protecting it's own interests. I still see no reason why US run company can't manage those terminals. Mexico, Canada, Europe, China, Japan, even Thailand, ALL of these countries engage in protectionism of their markets and industries, we are the only ones that continue selling out our own country piece by piece. The dollars future is already pretty much dead. The only reason for them to sell the contract to a foreign power is either for a back scratcher deal, which DOES NOT benefit the citizen of US, or just to get more money out of the contract as opposed to what US based company would pay, and in turn just prolong US's future for another couple of years, yet again, ON CREDIT, bleeding more jobs and money out of the country. The same jobs that could be staying here, managing those terminals, and the same money that could be staying here, in turn creating other jobs.

No, not the downfall of the monetary system. The downfall of the dollar, which means the downfall of the United States. Bet you never thought that United States would become a third world country. In a way, it's for the best, when things get really bad, it will destroy liberal and socialistic ideals, those who can will survive, those who can't, won't. People will plain out refuse to feed someone else when their family will barely have enough to eat. The monetary system will survive just fine, all things have value, and therefore need a common medium that people can trade for.

You keep contradicting yourself. First you say that we are not paying for anyones health care. Then you say that we are paying for smokers health care. Which one is it? As far as for proof. I already gave you one. It's simple math. Don't know why you seem unable to figure it out. I even do the additions and subtractions. Let me try again. Person A costs 50,000 a year in health bills. He has diabetes with high blood pressure thrown in. Person B costs 10,000 a year. He smokes, but does not have cancer. Person A pays $150 a month. Person B pays $250 a month. You do see that person B pays $100 more a month than person A, right? You do see, however, that person A costs the industry more. Which SHOULD lead you to a logical conslusion that person B is being singled out due to the the unpopular opinion of smokers and that $100 more a month that he pays DOES NOT go towards his health care costs, he costs less. Instead it goes towards covering the difference between HIS LOWER costs and the person A's HIGHER COSTS. And third. Why should I pay health care costs for someone who can't afford it? Why should the money that I have worked for, and earned, be taken from me, and go towards paying for someone elses living? You do know what slavery is, right? You do know that slaves were made to work, yet didn't get to keep what they have earned. Why don't you read up on legislative slavery. When you gain some knowledge on such things, then you can try and give me a logical argument as to why I should be paying health care costs for another, instead of trying to argue it with "they can't afford it, and not paying for them is just selfish". It's the same way you are trying to argue increasing costs on smokers, but leaving the costs on other problem categories the same, "it's for the best, smoking is bad, and we don't like it". What a shame that people born in the United States, don't even know how, why, and on what principles this country was founded, and don't even bother to learn the Constitution and try saying such things as "the rights of people born with inherited disease are protected by the Constitution, and they shouldn't pay higher health care premium costs, since it's not their fault". Which leaves WHOM to pay for their higher bills? You keep saying that nobody pays. Why don't you use logic instead, and try to understand, that if the costs are not covered, then the products and services can not be rendered. Money, products, services, NONE of those things appear out of thin air, so SOMEBODY HAS to pay. If the ones who actually require more medical care don't pay more, then WE DO. Hope that was simple enough. If you like national health care, wellfare, and other social programs where 70% of your paycheck goes to pay for everyone else. May I suggest a move to Canada or Europe. I however, value my own skills, knowledge and abilities. And as such, knowing my own worth, I do not need a crutch of "if you were in their position, they would be paying for you". I earn my own money, and expect others to do the same, instead of hoping to get on other peoples backs for a free ride. Like in this case, the smokers backs, trying to make them pick up the costs for others problem cases.

What? What are you even talking about? Have you ever operated a camera? Even a simple consumer one? Do you know what optical zoom is, do you know what digital zoom is? Do you know that you can zoom in by, lets say 20x, change the direction by half a degree, and you have just moved the zone that camera is looking at by 20 feet. Are you going to notice a difference of half a degree? You won't even notice a difference of 5 degrees. This justification for government violating your rights, right to privacy, right to be presumed innocent till proven guilty. Why do you need to watch, document and follow people if they are innocent? Like I have said. You want a tag on your ear, go and sign up for one. DO NOT try to justify violations of personal rights under the banner of "safety and security". Individuals can take care of themselfs. Maybe a lot of you think you are herd animals that need to be tended to every single day. Most of us however, are self sufficient, and are being FORCED to pay for the rest of the herd animals, starting from social security and medical care, and ending up with wellfare and food stamps. Not only are we picking up their slack and taking care of them, we are also losing our rights because of them. Get it through your head. Individuals rights are NOT to be forefieted just because a couple of socialist nazzis have convinced the herd that they are safer when they can keep an eye on them 24/7, all the time from the first step out of bed, till they get back into it. Makes me sick.

We can't run our own ports? How about less outsourcing and more made in US for US.

Then you should know that if the cop is watching your house, it's ILLEGAL. It's called VOYERISM, and it is ILLEGAL. If you catch a person watching your home, you can slam them down, call the cops, have them arrested, and PROSECUTE THEM, which means jail time. You can also do the same with the cop, if he is watching your house without a cause. Can you do the same with the camera? You might feel ok with the government tracking you. Why not just start stapling tags to the ears of people who feel that safe with trusting their lives to the government. Hey, think about it, you never have to carry an ID, not a single piece of paperwork. Applying for a new job, need medical care, re-newing your drivers licence? Just tilt your head sideways and move it side to side for scanning. People like me, appreciate freedom, appreciate the Constitution, we understand what individualism is, and we are NOT like the rest of you. You all might be the same, we are different. You violate my God and The Constitution given rights, and you have another thing coming. Don't try to justify the unjustifyable, you have nothing to stand on besides the rethoric of "trust the government, they know whats best for you", "if you are not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about" and "you can't take care of yourself, the government is here to help". I stand on the grounds of logic, Constitution, Individualism, and my own two feet.

Oh, and by the way. If any of you think this article is just scare mongering, and it's not going to happen, US is going to survive come hell or high water. Here's the gold prices. http://www.kitco.com/charts/livegold.html If you really want to get a clear picture, click on 1 year gold chart, and THEN click on 5 year gold chart. It looks like it's just plain out too late. The liberals and socialists have sold US down the river of understanding and social wellfare for the whole world.

This means massive inflation and depression. This will make the 1930's depression look like the good times. Really puts into perspective the term "a dollar is not worth the paper it's printed on". An average citizen better buy a shot gun and a lot of shells. He will need them to keep the government cronies trying to reposes his home for the international loans and domestic wellfare commitments he didn't make, and looters off of his property, once Uncle Sam decides he wants YOU, to pay up.

"Neither should a camera be able..." Should and Could is two different things. Just because a camera shouldn't be looking into your house through an open spot in the blinds, doesn't mean that it wont be. If you see an officer with binoculars trained on your windows, from across the street. You are going to question him as to what the hell he wants, what his badge is, and supervisor, so that you can bring this up in court as a violation of your privacy, unwarranted visual search of your property. If you see a camera on the street lamp post. How are you even going to know if that camera isn't zooming in on your homes interior and looking someplace it shouldn't be looking.