Part Deux-Demi “Reflections on Part One”

After reading the responses of a few of those on SUFA, I can see that some did not accept the message in my article “Political Reality”

I named the post “Political Reality” for a reason. The reason: because this was the reality.

I did not post it as an assumption. I did not post it as an expectation.

I posted it because it was the world right now.

It was long because I wanted to present a complete picture with the necessary evidence of this reality.

But, for some, it completely missed.

There are still some on SUFA that believe dancing and singing around Federal politics will achieve something. Worse, there is still a belief that their own  dancing and singing will achieve some change in Washington.

I posted comprehensive and coherent reasons why this is a fool’s errand.
I posted why a fool’s errand at this point in the nation’s life is dangerous.

It appeared for some to have no effect.

When a presentation that is comprehensive and coherent is ignored, there can only be two reasons.

The presentation was too complex, or the people are living in denial.

I will address each.

(1) Too complex, so a short review

Politics in America is totally based on providing benefits to a minority while spreading the costs broadly.

Example, Social Security. The actual beneficiaries represent 12% of the population – the cost is spread among the 88% of the rest.

The political power: 12% of the population is a huge swing vote. Any politician who dares mention a reduction in Social Security will never get elected.

Politicians need to be elected.

Therefore, no politician who wants to be elected will make cuts to Social Security

Everyone agree? Anyone disagree?

The next step in the reasoning: all the big government programs deliver benefits to a minority – but a large enough minority as to be absolutely politically powerful as a swing vote.

Thus,  no big government program can be cut by a politician who wants to be elected

Therefore, no big government program that needs to be cut will be cut

Note, I did not make any reference to any political party or political movement, because this Iron Law of Politics is not dependent on any political party philosophy.

America has been a two party one government system for nearly 200 years.

When was the last President who was not of either major party?

Well,  he is the President everyone forgets in the Trivial Pursuit question round of “name all the Presidents” -Millard Fillmore, 1850-1853 after the death of Taylor.

But the last ELECTED third party candidate was Taylor himself in 1849 as a Whig.

The last – and only – true independent President was George Washington.

Yet, there are those that believe they can elect an independent  candidate to the Presidential office – something that arguably has only happened once, 220 years ago!

Yet, there are those that believe they can elect a third party candidate to the Presidential office – the last time was  160 years ago!

By what electoral magic does anyone believe that this will happen in 2014? Three years to organize a third party or independent presidential candidate with sufficient electoral draw to win?

If anyone believes this, they are naive.

Since 1855, when was the last congress elected with a majority of independents?


The 56th Congress in 1899 was the most non-two party Congress with only 11 sitting Representatives not aligned with either party.

By what electoral magic does anyone believe that  an introduction of independent and/or third party candidates will displace either major party in Congress?

If anyone believes this, they are naive.

If anyone believes the two-party-one-government system of Washington can be changed at either the Congress or the Executive level is naive.

Without a change in the two-party-one-government system of Washington, no change is possible in Washington.
There will be no change to the two-party-one-government system until the system is wholly discredited.
Discrediting this system will take time – a long time after the reckoning – it will take bankruptcy and a whole lot more.

The more? You cannot beat something with nothing.

If there is nothing to replace the system, the system will remain.

If there is anything that can replace the system and nothing other than that, that is what will replace the system.

If that system is immoral and corrupt, the new system will be immoral and corrupt.

But if there is nothing else, that is what you will get

How will any alternative to an immoral, corrupt system happen?

By preparing a moral system right now capable of replacing the failed.

Who disagrees?

(2) Living in denial, grief.

When a situation of enormous and critical concern happens, such as this coming reckoning, often the immensity of the issues and the undeniable conclusions often will invoke the same feelings of grief as from a death. In fact, many will begin feel the same as if a death occurred – a death in the way of life that they were taught would exist for as long as they lived.

We are all generally familiar with the 5 stages of grief:

  1. Denial—”It’s fine.”; “This can’t be happening, not to us”
    Denial is usually only a temporary defense for the individual. This should be wholly relieved by now two posts with a preponderance of background support. It will happen here and sooner then later.
  2. Anger—”Why us now? It’s not fair!”; Who is to blame?”
    Once in the second stage, the individual recognizes that denial cannot continue. Because of anger, the person is very difficult to reason with for due to misplaced feelings of rage.  Any individual that offers reasons for the event, dialogues philosophy and principles about the cause and consequences – any energy about the reckoning  is subject to projected resentment.
  3. Bargaining—”We can figure this out”; “We have options, if we can vote in the right people”
    The third stage involves the hope that the individual can somehow postpone or delay. Psychologically, the individual is saying, “I understand it will happen, but if we could just have more time…maybe someone will fix it”
  4. Depression—”I’m so sad, why bother with anything?”; “What’s the point?”; “I miss what was my country” “I want my Constitution and my country back!”
    During the fourth stage, the person begins to understand the certainty of the reckoning. Because of this, the individual may become silent, refuse dialogue and refuse to discuss other options that may prepare for times after reckoning. This often leads back to denial.
  5. Acceptance— “I can’t fight it, I may as well prepare for it.”
    In this last stage, the individual begins to come to terms with his situation and begins to work for the new changes required to survive and thrive in a new world.

If you are in any of these stages other then (5), you are becoming trapped – trapped by time.

Moving through these stages into actually doing something functional for the future is vital, because this “doing something” requires a lot of work in advance of the coming reckoning.

Delays here could be fatal, as time is fleeting and the coming day of reckoning is completely uncertain – it could be tomorrow.

To be clear, I will not participate in any dialogue or discussion  regarding the politics over Washington. I have no time for such sick entertainment.


  1. BF- Do you think there is any way to predict how long the troubled times would last after bankruptcy of the government? I.E- for how long would we have to be prepared to provide our own foods and the like until some kind of “business” would be able to re-open?

    • Morning, Matt. How are you this morning?

      • Fine and with an inquiring mind! And you d13?

        • Hanging in there….sir…hanging in there. Trying to figure out the difference between intervention in Iraq and intervention in Libya. We are now sending advisors on the ground to help these so called Rebels. First a no fly zone, then advisors, next troops…will we ever learn. Since Obama cut back so much on finding the military, we dont even have new toys to play with in Libya…..sigh.

          • Sorry…finding=funding. Even with a DP, stupid keyboard. If it were a Red Bull, it would look like…. hdioajfdkjfhadiusgf;asdjhf.!!!!&^#$#^%&^~

    • Matt,

      “How long in the trouble times?”

      Depends on the trouble.

      Between now and default/hyperinflation:
      High Inflation – the FED and the government dance between Inflation/Recession/Stagflation trying to reconcile the large debt, and the large budget.

      This lasted about 90 days back in the late 1970’s early 1980’s. Expect wage/price controls – which will mean massive shortages of all goods.

      So 90 days to 120 days of goods should suffice until….

      If the government defaults – which means the FED has stopped buying T-bills – a massive Greatest Depression will occur. This Depression will last for as long as the excesses of the past governments back to 1914 are reconciled.

      This could take maybe 5 years.

      If during this time, the government -once again as they did in 1933- interfere with this reconciliation – it could last 15, 20, 30 years.

      But there would be sufficient stores and goods – cheap – but not much money to buy them. Currency and cash in hand will be king during these times.

      If the government refuses to default, and instead inflates – high inflation would (15% to 20%) would suddenly burst into hyper-inflation (100% to 1,000,000% and beyond) – and money would die with 60 days.

      This has never happened in an advanced economy nation that didn’t lose a war.

      The consequences would be about equal to losing a nuclear war.

      All commerce would stop. The US inventory of goods exists merely on the transport trucks traveling. This is about a week of goods. Within a week, nothing – and I mean nothing – would be bought or sold, either because there is nothing, or it can’t get to you.

      Within two weeks, people will begin to die.

      Within a month, tens of thousands will be dead.

      Within two months, millions will be dead.

      Withing three months, those not yet dead will begin to rebuild.

  2. I do not think there is anybody that did not get it, BF. You were plain. I just do not think that there were very many that agreed with you….and now everyone that has a different thought or opinion is naive.

    You say “To be clear, I will not participate in any dialogue or discussion regarding the politics over Washington. I have no time for such sick entertainment.”

    D13 says: Cool.

    • Oops. BTW…Hope your injuries are getting better.

    • D13,

      I just do not think that there were very many that agreed with you

      I have no problem with disagreement.

      I have a problem with disagreement, but no reason for the disagreement.

      Do you believe you can change either the Dem/Rep party core?

      If so, how?

      If not, do you believe you can change the two party politics of Washington – contrary to 150 years of historical evidence?

      If so, how?

      If not – what the heck are you disagreeing with me about?

  3. Btw- I totally agree w/the article! So many people I talk to just think if we get rid of the current politicians, we can get the country back on track. They don’t understand that both parties are in it for themselves and just have differing ways of getting there. They can’t (or won’t) try to understand just how precarious of a situation or economy and country is in. But I have to admit, even with my understanding of how things are now, I still fall into category 3 sometimes, but am happy to say that thanks to some of the eye opening articles here on SUFA, I mostly can keep my mindset in category 5.

    • Matt, I think everyone knows that BOTH parties are shit. And I think most, the greater percentage, understands the exact position this country is in….including economically. I think that what most people are doing right now is trying to figure out what to do about it…short of armed revolution. They also know that time is short. THey also know that at the local levels there is still a two party system.

      The main problem…..only the idiots and the crooks are running for any office….whether two party or three party or multi party…..the good people that should be in leasership positions are running their own business and making a living.

      The majority of this country

    • Matt, I think everyone knows that BOTH parties are shit. And I think most, the greater percentage, understands the exact position this country is in….including economically. I think that what most people are doing right now is trying to figure out what to do about it…short of armed revolution. They also know that time is short. THey also know that at the local levels there is still a two party system.

      The main problem…..only the idiots and the crooks are running for any office….whether two party or three party or multi party…..the good people that should be in leasership positions are running their own business and making a living.

      The majority of this country

      • not know what happened….posted twice without finishing…so to finish….The majority of this country is not naive…they just lack leadership and will not take it.

        @ USW…please correct my double posting. Dont know what I did but there it is.

      • d13- didn’t know which one to reply to, so we’ll try this one. I agree that most are unhappy with the choices any party puts out there these days! Seems that for as long as I have been voting, it’s always been a “who is the least worst” that we have to choose from!

        But I wonder how many people truly “get it”! I see and talk to so many people who think “if the government would just take over this” than everything would be alright. Or even the attitude of “there aren’t enough jobs, so we should just tax the businesses more so they will create more jobs” I don’t get how they can have these ideas!

        Fortunately, I am blessed to live in a region where the politicians we have to choose from are so much crap, and so open about ripping off the taxpayers, that I KNOW that government can’t be counted on to do anything besides line their own pockets b4 they’re kicked out of office or convicted of their crimes! Makes it much easier to think about devising my own plan ahead of time, so my family is prepared!

  4. Buck the Wala says:

    “When a presentation that is comprehensive and coherent is ignored, there can only be two reasons.

    The presentation was too complex, or the people are living in denial.”

    You neglect a third reason – disagreement. 🙂

    • Buck

      Actually he set the trap for you on that one with Denial.

      Try Wrong instead.

      • Buck the Wala says:

        Disagreement does not mean denial. Denial is if BF is correct and I refuse to see it; disagreement is simply I disagree. But wrong does work.

        • That’s just crazy talk. Clearly their can be no opinion but what they believe is correct.

          Wrong or denial, I’m afraid you’re going to have to pick one.

        • Buck

          I agree. I was just trying to anticipate the trap of the word game. The fact is one can use the accusation of denial to eliminate any discussion.

          I wish I had a nickle for every time a lefty used in on me instead of arguing core principles.

          The other one I love, well hate, goes like this:

          Conservative/Republicans/Tea Baggers are ignorant. The proof is that they vote against their own self interest when they vote to cut taxes for the rich or to cut entitlement programs.

          Another is that one or all of the above suffer from “congnitive disonence” or “psychological disorders” all for the same reasons. Or that their opposition to Obama alone is proof of such.

          These are exactly the same ploy are they not?

          • variations on a theme.

            It’s always easier to shut down argument rather than duke it out on the merits. JAC made a good point, but it doesn’t matter because he’s (in denial / off his meds / et cetera).

    • Or D, alien mind control utilizing Beck & Rush.

      I am with you Buck, I have read and understood. I think Flag is correct on some points, but is wrong on this. I think changing our system will be forced by the voters and be done within the system.

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        Keep dreaming, Life of ILLUSION. 🙂

        • Peter

          I think LOI is correct. Change will occur within the system.

          The unanswered question is changed to what?

          I believe that is the crux of the chore before us.

          • PeterB in Indianapolis says:


            Any change within the system will only lead to another corrupt and broken system. If you wish to keep and endless parade of corrupt and broken systems one after the other, then by all means, please spend your time working for “change within the system”.

            I you wish to ever have something that has a hope in hell of having at least a vague chance to succeed, then working within the system (especially at the Federal level) is a waste of time.

          • JAC,

            The unanswered question is changed to what

            There are many questions, actually.

            * Changed to … what? Can’t beat something with nothing, so better have something or nothing will change.

            * Change to …. where? Do you believe Washington will change? If so, how – given that 150 years has proven this to be impossible

            * Change …. how? What is the strategy that is applied that will take the “something” and apply it “somewhere”

    • Buck

      As I said with D13:

      I have no problem with disagreement.

      I have a problem with disagreement, but no reason for the disagreement.

      Do you believe you can change either the Dem/Rep party core?

      If so, how?

      If not, do you believe you can change the two party politics of Washington – contrary to 150 years of historical evidence?

      If so, how?

      If not – what the heck are you disagreeing with me about?

      • “what the heck are you disagreeing with me about?”

        Just to be disagreeable.LOL

        Sorry, having a Monday again. I am hoping the left has overreached itself and as a consequence, more sheeple are waking up to what is being done to the country. GOOOH, the TeaParty and others can have an effect, and they will elect people who will cut even entitlements.


        • LOI,

          Anything dealing with Federal politics is a no-show. Impossible. Won’t happen. Can’t happen. Dreamer on the other side of a rainbow.

          As I posted, it has never happened.

          It is naive to believe it can without systemic change.

          Systemic change will occur after collapse.

          Then anything can happen.

          • If something has never happened then it can not happen? I thought that you had read the Black Swan.

            • Jennie,

              Black Swan events are a consequence of enormous distortions in a system, and are NOT a normal consequence.

              It is the system – suddenly and systemically – correcting over the distortion.

              We are talking about a change in government BEFORE the correction (or Black Swan if you like). This has never happened

              Massive changes in government have occurred AFTER a crisis, such as a major war (1776,1865,1914,1945)

              So, no, never ever ever ever has government changed its way voluntarily or in foresight. It always gets turned over as a consequence to a major crisis.

              I posted in the “Grave Danger” a couple of books of the French Revolution.

              An adviser to the French King, seeing he and his government reacting to the coming crisis said of the Royals:

              They learn nothing and forget nothing

              and as such, the crisis went “Black Swan” and they all lost their heads.

              No government will with foresight change its current ways in avoid its own demise

    • Bottom Line says:


      Mankind is doing everything backwards, and it has led us into a situation of serious inescapable consequence that hasn’t yet fully manifested. Mankind has phuqed itself because nobody gets it.

      Flag is very thorough in his thinking. He tends to be fact based and thinks things through to their conclusion, hence why he gets it as well as the importance of getting it…hence why he tries to enlighten others.

      I get it too, or most of it anyway…enough to enlighten others and get them thinking about it. I myself have tried to enlighten others and find his listing the steps of grief as humorously accurate.

      From what I’ve gathered through my experiences, he is dead on when he explains that they’re either incapable of understanding or in denial.

      If you spell it out/break it down for them with simple undeniable logic, and they STILL don’t get it, it is either because they can’t, or they won’t.

      If they’re incapable, don’t try – it’s a waste of time. If they are at least moderately reasonable and intelligent and won’t get it, they are likely in denial for sake of some rationalized idealistic version of reality that has been developed since birth and must be broken in order for them to truly get it. This proves difficult.

      Disagreement has root causes like denial or incapacity.

      You fall into the denial category as I once did. You’re still rationalizing the justifications for violating individual rights. The basic premise of your idealism is not in concert with the natural order of the universe as it does not fully recognize, value, or respect the natural inherent unalienable will and right of the individual to be free, thus making it flawed, incorrect.

      Mankind MUST be free to thrive and prosper, nature says so.

      Recognizing that your idealism, which you’ve developed over a lifetime, is fundamentally flawed, and divorcing yourself from it, …is a real pain in the ass.

      But it necessary for those like yourself(reasonable/smart) to do so if we are ever gonna evolve as a species, if we are going to leave something besides a big ass mess and no clue for future generations.

      • Buck the Wala says:

        I will direct your attention to Mathius’ post to BF regarding the world in black and white vs. shades of gray, to there being only one truth vs. there being more than one truth.

        You, like BF, are quick to explain away disagreement as to being caused solely by denial of the ‘truth’. As opposed to my being in denial, or rationalizing away this ‘truth’, perhaps I just don’t come to the same conclusions as you.

        • Buck

          are quick to explain away disagreement as to being caused solely by denial of the truth

          No, sir.

          I throw any disagreements away when they are delivered without reason.

          Irrational arguments that disagree with me tend to prove me right.

          • Buck the Wala says:

            Irrational arguments that disagree with you cannot prove you right. They can only prove irrationality exists.

            • Buck,

              I said tend to ….

              …whereas irrational points never prove you right.

              Still waiting, Buck…..

              • Buck the Wala says:

                Never said an irrational argument could or would prove me right. Then again I never put forth an argument, so you can’t exactly accuse me of irrationality to begin with.

              • Buck,

                exactly accuse me of irrationality to begin

                No, that is a description of the past arguments you at times presented.

                Now, you are in either Denial or what I posted is over your head.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                I’ll say it again — I am not in denial and yes, I do understand your posts. I don’t always feel like reading through your monstrosities, but I do understand your points when I do have the inclination.

                Once again you seem incapable of understanding that not everyone reaches the same conclusion as you do. I know your response is going to be something along the lines of me clearly being in denial as evidenced by my failure to put forth a rational (or any) argument against your own. But suffice it to say, I can, and will, simply say I disagree with your conclusions. This is not irrational, nor is it indicative of any denial of your ‘truth’ on my part, other than my denial at this time to put forth an argument.

              • Buck,

                My complaint has not be answered.

                You disagree, but provide nothing.

                You are in denial.

              • Buck the Wala says:


                I am not sure if you are deliberately making this remark to goad me into making an argument, or if you honestly do not understand the difference here.

              • Buck,


                Positing a disagreement that is empty is the same as denial.

                “I disagree, so there”
                “Why do you disagree”
                “…because why?”
                “Just because”

              • Buck the Wala says:

                I disagree.

        • Bottom Line says:


          When concerning truth and logic, there is always a definitive answer. If you’re seeing gray, something is wrong or incomplete.

          If your premise is flawed, everything developed on such premise will be flawed as well.

          If your premise is built upon observation of truth/reality, then everything developed from it will be consistent, absolute.

          Your idealism contradicts itself because it cannot consistently observe and recognize reality.

          Fact/universal truth – Self preservation exists naturally. The natural instinctual will to do what is necessary to survive and live freely is inherent in all creatures.

          Greater good fairness entitlement social philosophy requires theft/coercion/violence to function, thus compromising respect for natural rights.

          But nature dictates that mankind must be free to thrive and prosper.

          Do you see the conflict?

          If you see two “truths” that contradict each other, one of them is not true. If you see them as both true, then you are rationalizing truth, hence “gray area”.

          The plus sign(+) is a function of logic and always means addition no matter what numbers you use it with.

          It doesn’t mean add when used with these numbers under these circumstances but divide, subtract or multiply when placed with those numbers under those circumstances…

          It always means to add.

          If your arithmetic recognizes true functions of logic(+-x/) and the true values of numbers, and uses them accurately and consistently, your arithmetic will be accurate.

          If you disagree with the numbers 0,3,4,6,9, and the definition of plus(+), and rationalize the logic to your convenience so that nothing ever uses or equals 0,3,4,6,9, then you will always get the wrong answer.

          • Buck the Wala says:

            Your Truth: Self preservation exists naturally. The natural instinctual will to do what is necessary to survive and live freely is inherent in all creatures. That mankind must be free to thrive and prosper.

            You believe this necessitates no government, as only then can individuals be free. I believe this necessitates government – that having some form of government is essential to survival and, yes, freedom as well. How is it that your belief is automatically correct and in tune with the stated truth?

            • Bottom Line says:

              Buck – “Your Truth: Self preservation exists naturally. The natural instinctual will to do what is necessary to survive and live freely is inherent in all creatures. That mankind must be free to thrive and prosper.”

              BL – No, Buck, it’s not just “My” truth.That’s what I meant when I specified it as a “universal truth”.

              What creature do you know of that willingly submits to eminent danger? Does fight/flight/asymmetrical response(play dead) not exist? What creature does not avoid being eaten? Why?

              What creature do you know of that has babies so that predators can eat them?

              Which zebra, when faced with a stalking lioness, sacrifices itself to the lion so the herd can be free and safe?

              What species of hen seeks out the fox to sacrifice itself for the greater good?

              What creature does not naturally do what it needs to do in order to survive and exist freely?

              Your denial of this universal fact that natural individual rights exist as an absolute is what allows you to rationalize your justifications. It is how your gray areas are created. It is how Mathius comes up with his “sometimes” property rights BS.

              Buck – ” You believe this necessitates no government, as only then can individuals be free. ”

              BL – I recognize that government is inherently coercive and is thus a violation of natural rights. I see the conflict.

              Which is right? …nature/the universe, …or the guy with the gun telling me what to do?

              Buck – ” I believe this necessitates government – that having some form of government is essential to survival and, yes, freedom as well. ”

              BL – That is because you are in denial of the universal truth of how the universe and human nature works. You are rationalizing the justifications for violating people’s rights as for freedom and security.

              Buck – ” How is it that your belief is automatically correct and in tune with the stated truth? ”

              BL – Because mine is not a “belief”, but rather an observation of reality.

              You’re free to believe that gravity is a myth as it is what nature dictates, but gravity is as natural as your freedom to deny it. You can only watch something fall so many times while still being in denial.

              Truth is absolute. That’s how you know it is the truth.

              • BL,

                Keep this up and people may start to believe I hijacked your ID.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                I am not denying that self-preservation is not a natural right or truth. I am denying your belief that government contradicts with this natural right. And this does not mean that I am in denial and unable to see the ‘truth’; it just means that I disagree with your conclusions on the matter.

                Has there ever been a society without any form of government?

                Yes there are truths. But there are also opinions. You need to separate the two.

                As Mathius pointed out earlier: “Government is necessarily evil” or in this case, “Government is a violation of natural law” — this is an example of an opinion, not a fact.

              • Bottom Line says:


                Not trying to be a shadow. I can’t help it.

                When a presented with comprehensive and coherent information, I chose to analyze and interpret rather than ignore and/or deny it. I have been paying attention and thinking things out to their conclusion. I’ve subsequently evolved.

                I get it, and I’m in the zone.

                The floor is yours if you care to take over. Feel free to butt in any time…otherwise, I have a liberal lawyer I feel compelled to enlighten.


              • Bottom Line says:

                Buck – ” I am not denying that self-preservation is not a natural right or truth. I am denying your belief that government contradicts with this natural right. ”

                BL – Again, I come to this conclusion as an observation of reality.

                Understand the relationship between governance and coercion/violence.

                Governments make laws that are enforced through coercive means that ultimately end with violence.

                If you get caught disobeying the law, there is a penalty. If you insist on disobeying and resisting the law, the penalties increase respectively to ultimately include violence/death.

                Obey or else = Coercion

                Coercion and violence against the non violent is a violation of natural rights.

                Government, being inherently coercive, is therefore a violation of natural rights.

                Do cops NOT carry guns? Why?

                When you vote for someone to represent YOU, you are supporting and legitimizing someone making laws according to YOUR wants/needs.

                But everyone cannot be represented simultaneously. Someone ALWAYS loses out. There is no such thing as the “greater good” as good can only be defined subjectively. Definitions of good vary upon individual.

                Representatives make laws on YOUR behalf, which are enforced through coercive means, thus violating the right of another to NOT live as you dictate through government.

              • BL,

                Oh, no! Continue… I am done with Buck.

  5. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    Let’s give example #1 here. It is clear, it is obvious, it is ridiculous:

    Current DEFICIT (not debt, just one fiscal year deficit) 1.4 Trillion or more (probably more).

    Republicrats want to cut 61 billion (out of 1,400 billion) of this deficit (or 4.3%). Is 4.3% of this ridiculously huge deficit even significant in the least??

    Demicans say that cutting 61 billion (out of 1,400 billion) of this deficit would be IRRESPONSIBLE and would “hurt the poor and the old and the children” (of course!), so they are only willing to agree to cuts of 10 billion (out of 1,400 billion) or 0.714%.

    Now, never mind that that is only 0.714% of the deficit, the DEBT (The real number we have to worry about) is over 50 Trillion. The debt including “unfunded mandates” (the real REAL number we have to worry about) is well over 100 Trillion!!!!)

    10 Billion in budget cuts out of 100 Trillion PLUS in actual debt is not even a drop in the bucket. It is not even a drop in the OCEAN.

    It would be like you having a personal debt of 1 million dollars, and claiming that cutting your personal spending by ten dollars a year was somehow going to help you out of your mess.

    WAIT – What was that again??

    So if any of you persist in believing that this can “somehow be fixed through our action at the Federal Level” please put down the Kool Aid and start really THINKING.

    • Peter

      The truth is it can ONLY be fixed at the Federal Level.

      But it also takes the LOCAL level to feed the change needed.

      We are also guilty at times of judging futility by our little glimpse of time. Think BIG and thing LONG.

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:


        The truth is that in spite of the fact that this can only be fixed at the Federal level, IT NEVER WILL BE FIXED AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL, which is why you are wasting your time trying to change anything on that level.

        My example just shows that there is no willingness on either side of the aisle on the Federal level to enact meaningful change!

        When you have an overall national debt of 111 Trillion Dollars including unfunded mandates, and you have one side proposing a 61 Billion Dollar budget cut, and the other side demanding that only 10 Billion Dollars be cut, explain to me how that is meaningful in any way, shape or form.

        Then, explain to me how you are going to elect politicians that actually will vote for meaningful change at the Federal level.

        There are enough people in this country that DO NOT WANT Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Income Assistance Programs to change, that you are NEVER going to be able to elect a big enough majority to Congress to ever enact meaningful change, and if by some miracle you do actually manage it, 2 years later there will be a huge swing in the other direction and anything you just “accomplished” will be reversed.

        • Peter

          Is change possible? Yes, thanks to our system of govt. That must be protected at all cost or change will come in a different form.

          10 or 20 years….Very Possible.

          TIME my friend is part of the equation as well.

          If you think nothing will change then I ask you, did you think 2 yrs ago you would see the Dems agreeing to a 10 billion cut in a budget that only has 6 months to live?

          Ask an old person if they are willing to give up their SS and they will say no.

          Ask them if they intend to make their children and grandchildren pay for this and you get a different answer.

          While I disagree with Mathius’ premise that the world is all gray, I do think that we oversimplify the political at times. Politics is about human nature, and in our case American human nature. Right now there is still enough of the American Idea left to save the day.

          It is shrinking all the time and so it must be nurtured quickly to keep it large enough to use when the time is right.

          Peter, let me be clear on this. I am not nor have I ever said that dealing with Congress and the President is THE solution or that it would resolve our underlying problems.

          Remember where I started when I first came here. We still need a solid philosophical foundation to build from. That is STILL essential.

          What I am saying and have said is that we can not abandon any of the fronts in this war. We must fight on all of them but do so in a smart way so that we do not exhaust our army.

          We need to fight at the Federal level TODAY because it is the only way to buy us the time we need to build the foundation and the strength at the local and state level.

          As long as we recognize that the Federal fight is a holding action for now we will be OK. But if we start to think it will SOLVE the problem then we will be lost. Because when it doesn’t work the cynics will help destroy the remaining fight in the citizens.

          • JAC

            You say you need 25 years.

            It hasn’t happened in 150 years.

            It will not happen. The Federal government will collapse first. It does not have 25 years, let alone 150.

            • You have no more idea WHEN the Federal Govt will collapse than I do.

              In fact, I submit that if you think it will actually collapse then it is you who is naive.

              Exactly what part of the Federal Govt do you think is going to collapse?

              • JAC,

                I have already -in volumes- explained what “collapse” means, and how it will play out.

                I have already -in volumes- explained why it will collapse.

                I have already -in volumes- explained why it will collapse sooner than later – and further, -in volumes- why how long it will take does is irrelevant since the fundamental changes cannot happen without a collapse.

              • Black Flag

                Actually I don’t recall you have ever described what you mean by Government collapse.

                You have described/defined what you mean by bankruptcy and what you see as possible scenarios of economic collapse.

                But I have yet to see what you mean by Federal Govt Collapse. Perhaps a hint of some regional restructuring by certainly not volumes nor any rational explanation as to why one scenario would occur over another.

                If you did I obviously missed it so perhaps you could share it again.

  6. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    Actually, let me rephrase that last part:

    Actually, it would be like you having a million dollars of debt, with a projected FURTHER DEFICIT of $15,000 for this year, and a projected FURTHER DEFICIT of $16,000 for the following year, and believing that cutting your projected spending by $10 would do you any good whatsoever.

    There, that is WAY MORE accurate.

  7. Peter says:10 Billion in budget cuts out of 100 Trillion PLUS in actual debt is not even a drop in the bucket. It is not even a drop in the OCEAN.

    D13 says: You give too much credit….at least a drop in the ocean is still relative… about a fart in a whirlwind. It dissipates immediately and the tempest keeps going.

    I have read several things about how to fix it. But BF is quite right in approaching the reality. The reality is economic and the drive by the left to socialize which will end this economy. The only way, that I see, short of armed revolution like some third world country, is to start at the local levels….which will affect the Federal level, HOWEVER, local level politics is just as nasty and just as bad and just as corrupt and just as greedy. Again, short of armed revolution, the local people that should be running for office are working and running business’. HOw do you propose getting people to run at the local levels THAT should be there to avoid this trap? BF’s world will never happen…at least not in several generations if ever….so realistically….what would you do at the local level?

    • TexasChem says:

      PapaDawg submitted a post yesterday asking when the populace was going to get off their glutes and do something. I agree with him. What I see lacking with his idea is the lack of leadership. Who is going to be the first and risk their freedom?The average American middleclass man and woman is too busy working trying to make money to provide for their families to do anything. Thats how the government wants it to be. Our entire debt based culture demands this equation. Debt=Time=Money. It is a fricking nightmare. Untill the time comes when households are directly influenced in a negative manner by the loss of the essentials such as food, water, electricity there will be no large scale movement towards “fixing” our government.

      • TC

        Untill the time comes when households are directly influenced in a negative manner by the loss of the essentials such as food, water, electricity there will be no large scale movement towards “fixing” our government.

        So if you believe this is true, do you:
        (1) Waste your time trying to “fix” Federal Politics
        (2) Prepare for the eventuality?

    • D13

      .. local level politics i…

      So you do agree with my assessment that Federal political reality?

      • BF…I have never disagreed with your assessments. The only place you and I disagree is the result. The Fed political machine (that is what it is) is totally out of control….and that is the reality. The local level is the place to start. My assessment is that the local levels are two party and I do not see a third or fourth party taking any leadership at all. Perhaps one day. I do not see the populace “having” had enough and all banding together in anyform of anarchy…like refusing to pay taxes. You and I agree mostly on things economic….just the way to fix it is where we part ways…we even agree on the end game if things go whacko….it is the middle part that I am not willing to give up on yet but it does not start with Fed level at all.

        • D13,

          The local level is the place to start. My assessment is that the local levels are two party and I do not see a third or fourth party taking any leadership at all

          What are you thinking the “local level” means?

          • Hmmmmm….I am thinking politically of course. I am not thinking no government at all. Having said that, local level in politics means the water board on up to the Mayor. School board etc. ( Case in point…mid 80’s….running for school board in District six in Fort Worth…There were three of us. I did NOT have a party affiliation…this was a school board after all….I received 32 percent of the vote the other two candates got 33 and 34…..with one percent going to write ins…I was told by the Editorial Board of the Fort Worth Star Telegram that I lost for two reasons… party affiliation and I was a Vietnam Veteran and still in the reserves.) Point being that down to the school board elections in the friggin 80’s, it was still a two party affiliation.

            • D13,

              local level, like water board, up to mayor

              Please review Part Two:
              What Americans need is a political philosophy based on county and city rights.

              …and think about that when Part Three is posted.

  8. I’m a #4

    I believe we can fix it. Chris Christie is standing up for New Jersy..Kasich in Ohio..Walker in Wisconsin..Snyder in Michigan.

    If they can do it with the support of the people in the states then it can be done at the federal level too.

    Just need someone with the guts to Stand up for America.

    Palin/Bachman 2012

    • Buck the Wala says:

      Now there are some real winners…

      • One of them potentially is. If you sell her short you may be calling her Madam President.

        • Buck the Wala says:

          Which one in your opinion – palin or bachman?

          • Bachman!

            Palin could, and I say COULD, remain a force in fundraising and grassroots recruitment. I am not sure yet she will.

            As of today I think Bachman’s only real hurdle is her stance on the “social issues” with the “moderate” voters. If she keeps here attacks on abortion, gay marriage, etc focused on Federal Funding and not laws to abolish then she may have a good chance.

            She is the litmus test that will reveal the status of the internal battle in the Republican party.

            • Buck the Wala says:

              Don’t think that’s her only real hurdle. Dont’ forget her whole lack of credibility, lack of intelligence, lack of charisma thing.

              • Attack the messenger much? You sound like you came straight off the pages of HuffPo

                What is the problem with the message?

              • Buck the Wala says:

                Forget the message for a second – do you believe Bachman is a viable candidate for President? Why or why not?

                I do not believe she is. I feel she lacks credibility, intelligence, charisma, intellectual curiosity. These are all important qualities that people look for in a presidential candidate. Do you disagree? If so why?

              • I actually like her, but it has been some time since someone from her side of the Congress has been elected President. That is elected to the position straight from the House of Representatives. James Garfield was the last, and maybe only one to do so. Others have been members of the House Of Representatives at some point…but did not go to the POTUS straight from there.

              • Besides, your buddy already proved that two of the three are not required to be elected.

                That leaves charisma.

                Those I’ve talked to that have actually met the lady say she has it big time.

              • I actually don’t think Bachman has a “lack of intelligence”.. I think she’s just nuts.

                I also think she’s far too extreme for the moderates.

                I also think she’s sooo anti-gay that she’s instantly lose the entire gay population of the country (a not insignificant block) and sooo anti-abortion, she’ll lose broad swaths of women voters (a majority of whom are strongly pro-choice).

                You say “if she keeps here attacks on abortion, gay marriage, etc focused on Federal Funding […]” as if any sane opponent would allow her to control the debate so absolutely. As if she won’t have to throw out mass-quantities of red meat to win the primaries. As if she can control herself for a full two years in the run-up to the election enough to avoid pissing off these two key demographics. HA!

                But all that is nothing compared to this.


              • TexasChem says:

                Yeah Buck…
                Too bad she’s not as beautiful as Obama and his wife…

            • Just out of curiosity, how, exactly, do you see Palin getting the votes of independents? She currently scores, I’m not making this up, lower than Charlie Sheen.

              Bachman has a back catalog of crazy so big, it’s got it’s own wing of the library of congress.

              Run either of those two yahoos, and you’ll be handing Obama a second term on a silver platter.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                On second thought, yes, lets put forward a Palin/Bachman ticket…

              • I’m just seeing both of them as not being afraid to stand up to the establishment and work toward limited government.

                You guys need to get off the “dumb blond” train. That’s as old as being racist, and takes from your own credibility.

              • Mathius

                I made no such claim regarding Palin.

                Bachman has no more crazy behind her than any other. By the time the Real race starts it will vanish, just like Obama’s history.

                As I said, just keep discounting her and you may well be scratching your head in two years wondering WTF happened.

              • I’m pretty sure I didn’t say either of them is dumb. In fact, though I do think Palin is, in many ways, ignorant, that’s a far cry from dumb. I think both are smart and motivated. I think they both have created personas that may or may not be authentic, but which are tailored to a specific demographic (extreme conservatives).

                I just think that they’re either nuts or pretending to be nuts to such an extent that they are not even remotely electable.

    • Anita,

      So you believe you can …what?…. change the core of the Rep. party – that has been locked for 100 years.


      you believe you can …what?…. elect a majority of independents to Congress?

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:


      I am sorry that you are a #4.

      Whoever gets elected in 2012 will be an irrelevant footnote to what is happening in this country.

      Even if the Repubs win the Presidency, a Super-majority in the Senate, and a substantial majority in the House, there is going to be too much opposition to cutting the big 6 which make up most of the Debt, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Income Assistance Programs, the Military, and Federal Worker Pensions.

      If they actually managed to pass SIGNIFICANT (read over 10%) cuts to ALL of these programs (and I mean real cuts, not simply “reductions in the rate of growth”) then in the next election (or perhaps even before that) you would see a VIOLENT (and I mean literally violent) swing in the opposite direction, and the cuts would be reversed.

      • With all due respect Peter:

        How do you know that? You like the analogy of a pebble creating a ripple effect. Look at NJ, WI, OH, MI. The governors are standing up for a change. Some folks are PO’d..many are they see the writing is on the wall. There is grumbling going on..sure.. we expected that…but look at the response to people like Christie..he is being straight forward about the problems and forging ahead with his solutions ..and he is still alive! Why can’t that happen at the federal level? It Can.

        People can handle the truth..just give it to them! It may BF has suggested in the past… that people will have to accept extended family into their homes to make it thru.. but it can happen. It took how long to get here?

  9. Mr. Flag,

    Has it ever occurred to you that there are other intelligent people in this world? That, given a similar set of fact, they may reach differing conclusions than your and that, though you make a good case, they may also have a legitimate claim to the truth? In fact, that there may be no single “truth” at all.

    You write with the absolutist certainty that you so markedly disdain in those who oppose you, yet you dismiss opposing views as symptomatic of denial or irrationality or an incapacity to follow your arguments. This is not the case.

    Arguing with you is difficult because you are such a knowledgeable and skilled debater, because you can drag out minutia and nuance like a true artist. But this does not make you right by virtue of this fact alone.

    You remind me of a fanatic, claiming the corner on truth, who proclaims that all who disagree with him are madmen or fools. A fanatic who looks at a set of facts and reaches a different conclusion, but insists that he alone is right and that, beyond being wrong, those who disagree have no merit to their assertions whatsoever.

    “It’s a young woman, and anyone who says it’s an old hag is a fool in denial,” you assert. But why can’t it be both? Or neither?

    The world is not black and white and your insistence that it is is troubling to the rest of us. It forces a dichotomy of choices where none exists – either the government is pure and absolute evil or it is pure and absolute good, and since it is not pure and absolute good, it must be evil. But that is not the whole story.

    At least, that is not the whole story to those of us who choose to see shades of gray.

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      “In fact, that there may be no single “truth” at all.”


      I realize you refuse to see absolutes. Unfortunately, there are these pesky things called laws of the universe (also known as natural laws), and when a man’s “truth” does not conform to the laws of the universe, the universe usually has a nasty habit of rejecting that so-called truth in ways that can be markedly unpleasant.

      • Truth: the universal wave-function

        Opinion: Government is evil.

        Truth: You can’t respect a man who carries a dog.

        Opinion: The government is close to collapsing

        I know the difference is subtle, but hopefully you can see it.

  10. TexasChem says:

    Ron Paul/Herman Cain is the winning ticket.

    • And let’s just see how that works out when Paul is incapable of stopping himself from saying that SS should be abolished…

      • There are a growing number of people saying that now Matt.

        It’s not such a far fetched goal anymore.

        • Sure it is. What percentage of those people belong to the group of people cashing the checks?

          And, by the way, it wouldn’t matter if he was elected. The President doesn’t have a magic wand to wave and make SS disappear – he’d have to ram it through congress which would NEVER, not ever, let that happen.

          For what it’s worth though, I think SS should be a means-tested disability security net. If you have money or if you’re still able to work, why should I pay for you?

          But the seniors vote. En masse. And they will not be kind to anyone who threatens their hand-outs.

          • Mathius,

            he President doesn’t have a magic wand to wave and make SS disappear – he’d have to ram it through congress which would NEVER, not ever, let that happen


    • TexasChem says:

      And Puhhleease don’t believe the kool-aid drinking media that says they are unelectable. That is coming from both the republicans and democrats because…they are really sleeping in the same bed.
      Paul has smoked the repub straw polls and Herman Cain has some of the best ideas to put this country back on track I have ever read. I have been raving over Cain before he even became popular with the Tea Party movement.

      • Regardless. You tell me how the math works out when he tells 12% of the population that if he wins, their checks will stop.

        That’s 12% that don’t have jobs, so they have plenty of time to go to the polls.

        This was, god I hate to admit this, Flag’s point:

        “Example, Social Security. The actual beneficiaries represent 12% of the population – the cost is spread among the 88% of the rest.

        The political power: 12% of the population is a huge swing vote. Any politician who dares mention a reduction in Social Security will never get elected.

        Politicians need to be elected.

        Therefore, no politician who wants to be elected will make cuts to Social Security

        Everyone agree? Anyone disagree?”

        • TexasChem says:

          The federal government should be concerned with paying back the money they took from SS for those that are still alive and have payed into it. Screw the US war machine. Keep enough military to protect our borders and strategic assets throughout the world.If you didn’t pay into SS tough tittie said the kitty when the milk went dry! At least untill we get it safely our of the red. This entitlement mentality seriously pisses me off. If the damned corporate tax rates werent so high then we would have never lost our production base here in the US and the unemployment rate, food stamp rate, wellfare rate would not be high as it is. It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out what needs to be done to put the nation on track. These politicians know what needs to be done but are not doing it for fear of losing their special interests backing. Hint kickbacks. Our government reps are guilty of criminal actions against the citizens of the U.S. of A.
          The factories being moved out of the USA to less industrialized countries has been planned out as a form of world wealth redistrubution in my opinion. This shit was set in place by manipulations of legislative policy and tax codes over many years with a purpose. A common purpose shared by the wealthy elite obsessed with power with the intent of implementing their vision of world politics. How hard is it to figure this shit out people? Everything happens for a reason. Just because you don’t know the reason does not mean there is not one.
          Bah…sorry rant off. I’m just sick of manipulated minds trying to justify the beliefs they “think” are theirs but actually belong to a group without any positive interest in their lives. In other words they dont give rats pink arse about you. My pickle is officially dilled when dealing with folks who still believe you can put a square peg in a round hole.
          Learn to chop your own wood people as it will warm you twice.

          • TexasChem says:

            And 100% of citizens should pay taxes.
            Not 50% pay taxes to provide a lifestyle for the other 50%.
            Stop giving my money to people that do not produce or provide anything into the SYSTEM.This ignorance has created the welfare culture.
            If you’re not a US citizen why the hell should you be given tax money taken from US citizens?
            Why do we give money to the people of other nations that want to chop our heads off and shoot rockets into civilian cities?

          • “The federal government should be concerned with paying back the money they took from SS for those that are still alive and have payed into it.”


            “This entitlement mentality seriously pisses me off.”


            Ok, once again (attempt #8028): Your money is gone. It’s not paying you back your money, it’s paying you someone else’s money. Your money was spent on current retirees. If you’re getting payments, it’s not “getting your money back,” it’s wealth redistribution. I work and pay in, if you take out, that’s not your money coming back, that’s my money going to you. If you think you are “entitled” to it, you are guilty of the very thing you say “seriously pisses you off.”

          • TC

            The federal government should be concerned with paying back the money

            Who cares? They will not act to do this, so why waste time dithering and posting about it?

            • TexasChem says:

              They will act if enough people are educated and informed as to the extent of the theft and wrongs that are and have been committed against them.
              I don’t care if it is by forcing them out by elections or by the right to assemble or if it is by the right afforded to them by the 2nd amendment at this point. Our government has become a tyrannical out of control beast.

              • TC

                hey will act if enough people are educated and informed

                Who has listened up to now?

                Why would they start listening now?

                Do you believe the message is different than it was -say- two years ago?

                If they didn’t listen then, why now?

        • I disagree.

          They have made them in the past and they will do it again.

          And they will still get elected.



          • JAC

            They have made them in the past and they will do it again

            When in the past?

            • BF

              I believe the last great change was under Mr. Reagan.

              Is that not when they extended the retirement age and expanded those who have to contribute? Oh and of course adding the means testing.

              They are preparing to do the same again. There will be the usual whining and sniveling but the changes will be made and most who vote for them will get re-elected.

              Come on Flag, voters are Frogs. Just raise the water temp a little at a time.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                I can be convinced to get behind any changes to SS that do NOT include raising the retirement age. Doing so only serves to hurt the poor and blue collar workers.

              • JAC,

                I believe the last great change was under Mr. Reagan.

                Is that not when they extended the retirement age and expanded those who have to contribute? Oh and of course adding the means testing.

                Oh, you mean the guy who grew the Federal debt faster than any other President before him?

                The guy who signed every budget Congress presented him?

                The guy who did increase the roll of SS.

                The guy whose last budget deficit was larger than Nixon’s entire budget?

                The Iron Law of Politics is the expansion of government expenditures and not a decrease.

                The last time a (non world war) budget was cut 1921. That budget represents 30 minutes of current expenditures today.

                Sir, you are naive.

              • BF

                We are talking about Social Security.

          • TexasChem says:


      • Yes we Cain! 🙂

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      It makes no more difference than a fart in the wind who the winning ticket is.

      • Actually it DOES matter.

        But NOT by itself.

        WHO wins can make a tremendous difference, but the real question is CAN THEY win?

        • JAC

          but the real question is CAN THEY win

          If you believe an independent can win, you are naive.

          If you believe you can change the core of either major party, you are naive.

          • BF

            The core of the two parties has changed several times in history.

            Hell the two parties have changed, although some time ago.

            The core of the two parties is changing as we speak. Go ask some old Democrats what they think of who is running their old party today. Same for the blue blood Republicans.

            I DO NOT think an independent can win President and few can win national office. But I do think a viable Third Party could develop in the near future. I say COULD.

            • Buck the Wala says:

              Got my agreement on that one — I would not be surprised if in the next 10 years we had a real viable third party. Who knows, perhaps even a 4th party could emerge.

            • TexasChem says:

              If given the same amount of air-time on our propoganda laden news agencies and television stations I believe a third party could readily win.

              • Buck,

                next 10 years we had a real viable third party

                You, therefore, believe that the Federal government can continue as it is for another 10 years?

              • Buck the Wala says:

                Two things:

                1) Yes.

                2) Just because it may take up to 10 years for a viable third party to emerge, does not mean everything will be the exact same over those 10 years.

            • JAC

              The core of the two parties has changed several times in history.

              When and how?

              • TexasChem says:

                oh me me me me let me answer this one. I’m gonna answer this in BF fashion so you have to figure it out for yourself and do a lil research BF! Mr. smarty pants.

                Lincoln Republican.
                Democrats lub dem some Lincoln these days.
                Deep south voted and the older generations still do Democratic.
                Which party endorsed slavery?

              • TC,

                So you point to a Civil War 150 years ago as the last time change happened.

                So, what Civil War is going on now?

                When did change happen that was not part of a war?

  11. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    I am saddened, in a way, to see just how short of a distance we have covered in my time here at SUFA. Quite a few of us agreed upon a definition of “government”, and I thought that that was a good start. Quite a few of us SEEMED to agree at one point or another, that both parties were on the same team but simply wore different color ties, and that seemed like a good thing. Quite a few of us SEEMED to agree that these factors combined were a damn good indication that the Federal government was a broken model. That seemed like progress as well.

    Today we see just how many of us persist in the belief that it is somehow possible to fix the broken model and somehow make it work.

    Well, to each his (or her) own I suppose….

    Group 1: The people that think things are basically fine, and just need a little tweaking.

    Group 2: The people that realize that things are not fine, but straightening up this mess just requires the right people to be elected.

    Group 3: The people that realize that at this point the system is badly, terribly broken, yet cling to the belief that the badly, terribly broken system can somehow miraculously again be resurrected and made healthy if we just bust our asses and work at it.

    Group 4: The Remnant.

    • I’m sorry you are sad-but answer me a question-if people agree that we need to prepare for the worse-why do you care if we waste our time-what harm can it do-and quite frankly I think you fail to acknowledge that doing nothing at the State and Federal level can make it alot worse, so if the government doesn’t fall, we are worse off. So what is the true intent of stopping people from participating on all levels? If we are working at the local level so that people will be ready to step in if government falls-we can do both. I asked this question before and all I got was -we don’t have time to do both.

      • V.H.

        we can do both.

        This is a fatal mentality.

        You can do one or the other. No more you can spend the same dollar twice, no more you can work both at the local AND at the Federal level.

        • Why? And don’t leave out State level-because that is where I personally think the biggest help will come from. I really need to read that third part before I can comment much-but what is your end game BF-the government being gone-do you think that maybe this desire -is effecting what you believe is possible or even best-even if you are right about the outcome.

          • V.H.

            The States are bankrupt – in worse shape then the Federal Gov. as they cannot print money.

            They are also organized into a two-party-one-government system.

            I posted in part two the highest level of politics that is not party-line organized.

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:


        All I can tell you is that you will get the best results by focusing your efforts at the point where you can have the most effect.

        Focusing on a point will yield results, provided that it is a narrow, specific, well-defined point. Spreading your efforts out among several different points, or along a broad spectrum, will decrease your results, often exponentially.

        Put your arms close together and try to push a heavy, but at least somewhat manageable object, and it will probably move. Spread your arms apart and try to push that same heavy but somewhat manageable object from two different directions, it will not move. Pick a huge, unwieldy object, and no matter what the placement of your arms is, it ain’t gonna move.

    • We are basically broken now.

      Time to start fixing! You can’t fix if you don’t try.

      • Anita,

        ime to start fixing! You can’t fix if you don’t try

        You cannot fix what others do not think is broken.

        Futile effort is futile and deadly.

        • Everyone sees it as broken..Ds, Rs, Is, Ts even the Charlie Stellas.

          We are already there. Time to start fixing. or what then is the alternative…shoot ourselves?

        • TexasChem says:

          Well one thing is for certain BF.
          If we sit on our asses and do nothing then only those that do something will ever be in control ehh?

          • Correct!

          • TC,

            Answer the questions:
            Fix what?
            Fix where?
            Fix how?

            • TexasChem says:

              Those questions are better off asked of someone that attained a higher payscale than a lowly E-5…perhaps you should ask that of an O-6.

              Given a bit of time and enough minds *think-tank* I wouldn’t mind answering those questions BF as I have a general idea of direction. As it stands now you ask those questions knowing full well no one can come up with a valid answer without more data in an effort to re-direct with your rhetoric!

              • PeterB in Indianapolis says:


                If you cannot answer those questions FOR YOURSELF, but instead rely on someone with more authority to answer them for you, the results you get will not be the results you want.

            • You’re the answer man. Why would you even bring up your Remnant Man (actually i like the idea) if you saw the problems to be un fixable?

    • I think I can shed some light on the evolution of why I’m somewhere in your Groups of 2 and 3.

      I was nevered really active in politics until a couple years ago – the first tea party rally on 4/15/09 was my first group event ever. Followed events and certainly didn’t like the direction (mostly the spending) that government was taking, but other than an occasional letter to editor or to my congress person, wasn’t really involved (have always voted).

      There are a lot of people just like me out there and the tea party movement, among others similar groups has had an impact already on elections. WI elections last November were symbolic of the people becoming more aware and educated about the danger of our bloated, power grabbing government.

      I am not naive to believe that these new politicians will be the answer and we are now good to go. Many of these new politicians are still establishment with a different letter behind their name. Some are of the tea party-like mindset.

      There’s a long road ahead and the challenge is huge. That became even more clear to me with all of the unrest and pressures of the union to maintain status quo here recently. A LLLLOOOOOOTTTTTT of people are in denial. Politicians that perhaps had good intentions will back down when their lives and those of their loved ones are threatened. The evil and destructive path of the progressive movement is much farther along and much more developed than the johnny-come lately tea party/small government movement.

      So Peter, while it may feel good to claim some moral/intelligent/educated high ground that you’ve seen the light and Group 4 is the only option, many of us that are doing battle in the trenches by showing up, are still hopeful to at least minimize the damage of what is to come.

      So that’s why I’m a 3/5er – work for change but prepare.

    • #1.5

  12. Not surprisingly, I’m a 3 – 5er. Work at getting things changed, but prepare for the inevitable.

    “Work” means attendance at tea party events, school board events, communication with my representatives and sharing information (attempts at educating!) with people.

    • Kathy

      Work” means attendance at tea party events,

      How do you believe this will do something?

      school board events,

      What are you saying here? What are they saying?

      communication with my representatives

      How do you believe this will do something?

      and sharing information (attempts at educating!) with people.

      What are you saying here? What are they saying?

      • Tea party events: government at all levels realize there is an active, involved group of citizens watching and responding to their actions and getting them where it really matters – elections.

        School board events: My attendance has been intermittant over the years and I’ve just recently stepped it up. Big mistake here on my part and all taxpayers for that matter. Can’t be afraid of retribution or being disliked by the teachers. I’m there as a voice of the taxpayers for education. I’ve been very encouraged by our board “growing a spine” and standing up to the unions in just two recent meetings because of the attendance of taxpayers in the audience.

        Communication with Reps: We are watching and we care and we remember. I think it does matter.

        Educating people: This has been one of the most rewarding personally to have others ask for clarification or for direction on reading materials, etc. to help them figure out what is going on. Whether people are involved or not, many have a sense that something isn’t right, and through some of my appearances and public letters, I’ve had several people reach out and ask for more info. (Like SUFA!)

      • Our local tea party meetings have been great forums for educating folks about the situation and presenting ideas like the need for a solid foundation.

        These folks then organize to share with others and take action on political matters of interest to them.

      • I have definately made my circle of friends stop and think. Where 2 years ago we would go toe to they really have no argument.

    • And have we not had movements in our history where the people forced a change in our government? It took years before women were given the vote. MLK and equal rights?

      Is there a reason VDLG cannot be such a movement?

      • LOI,

        Women’s vote was not a change in government. It was purposeful by government to create a larger voter class more susceptible to the Progressive’s theory. Women are easier to move with irrational appeals then men.

        Same with lowering the voting age – engage the youth who are still immature and unable to parse the irrational appeals from reasoned rhetoric.

        There were always equal rights. The ignoring and subsequent correction did not “change” government.

      • LOI,

        Oh yeah. VLDG.

        If it is applied at the Federal level, you have less than no hope. None. Zero. A complete and total fool’s errand and worse than merely a waste of time.

  13. YOU are campaigning for POTUS.

    What is your #1 main concern?

    • Getting elected.

      • Buck the Wala says:


      • Afraid to answer? No wonder we are where we are. 😦

        • Anita,

          Mathius gave exactly the right answer.

        • You asked a question, I answered. What am I afraid of?

          If you’re curious about my first priority after being elected? Hmm.. hard to say. I think gay marriage, reformed immigration policy, repealing No-Child (and the Obama version which is basically the same thing), dialing down farm subsidies, means-testing SS and eliminating the age qualification (basically, you receive it if you can’t work, not just if you happen to be 65, and working to get buck appointed to the supreme court.

          • Not one thing of which saves a dime.

            • Anita,

              To get elected, a politician cannot cut income for his constituency, therefore no cuts will happen.

            • means testing SS and reducing it to disability only saves a bloody fortune, what are you talking about?

              Farm subsidies are in the tens of billions annually alone.

              But I also forgot to mention that I’d hack away at the defense budget. I think we can protect ourselves just fine with 1/10th of the budget.

              I also forgot to mention that I’d get us the hell out of Iraq and Afghanistan – immediately. We can leave, oh let’s be generous, 10,000 troops for a while, but the rest are coming home. And everyone stationed around the world are coming home too. Troops on the Korean border can stay if Korea pays the bill – the full bill. Every red cent.

              Ooh, and before I forget, we can kill the corn ethanol BS. Not only does that cost a fortune, but it raises the cost of corn tremendously which raises the cost of meats as well. So that’s a twofer.

              Let’s see, how much more do we have to cut? The trillion dollar figures factor in the stimulus and bailouts and such, and those aren’t getting repeated, so I’d say we’re close to balancing the budget, not that that’s good enough.

              I’d freeze discretionary spending – hard freeze – until there the national debt is paid off (completely and totally).

              I’d eliminate the penny because, well I hate pennies – they’re useless and cost more than they’re worth. By the same token, I’d get rid of the nickel (8 cents to produce). Why should we lose money when making “money”?

              Just for fun, I’d tie all government wages to the CPI.

              Then, because I’m just a crazy neurotic nut case, I’d pass a law (this is important) that the President’s schedule is published online complete with attendees for all meetings and full transcripts of anything that is not national security related, personal, or related to a reelection campaign. This would be a law so that I can’t just get rid of it once I decide it’s annoying. If I can I’ll pass the same law for every officer or chairman in the house and senate and for everyone director level position in the federal government.

              Did I miss anything? How am I doing?

              • Mathius,


                But you won’t even get on the floor of any party, let alone nominated, let alone elected.

              • Agreed.

                Oh well.

              • “Just for fun, I’d tie all government wages to the CPI.” Bad, Bad, Bad.

                But there is much in the other to work with.

                Here are your gross numbers, rounded.

                In order to pay off the existing long term obligations you need to include about 2.3 Trillion in payments to SS/Medicare/Medicaid and the existing operating debt.

                In order to freeze spending at existing levels you need another 2 to 3 trillion, depending on who is counting.

                Oh, and what were you going to do about Obamacare????

              • I really don’t know enough about ObamaCare. Let’s see what happens then axe it or leave it depending. Most likely axe it, but who can say? Not me.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                About Obamacare? Axe it along with new legislation to impose either univeral care or, at the very least, a viable public option.

              • Buck

                The goal here is to prevent Govt collapse due to financial collapse.

                Not create more freakin hand out programs.

                Put the money in the hands of the PEOPLE and they will figure it all out.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                Perhaps that is your goal. My goal, in part, as President, would be to ensure all Americans have access to affordable health care.

              • SK Trynosky Sr says:

                Just move the decimal over one place. $1,111.11 becomes $ 111.11. See, pennies have value again. Houses cost $ 20,000. Everybody’s problems are solved. Hell, we might even have penny candy again.

          • Buck the Wala says:

            That would be Justice Buck to you, thank you very much!

    • Preventing Financial Collapse.

  14. TexasChem says:

    The bias needs to be taken out of the broadcasting networks from both ends of the spectrum. I would like to see more debates among all candidates about specifics and not generalized topics. Debates that do not have the questions catered and biased towards certain individuals. News outlets need to report the news and not personal opinion all the damn time.

    • Wow.. something, at long last, that we can agree on

      • TexasChem says:

        Hrmm…You finally rid yourself of the mini-micro Michael Moore that was in your head, eating your brain? *munch*munch*munch* 🙂

        • I would love a “news source” that provides nothing but facts. Zero bias, zero opinion.

          Whatever the news story, just give me the underlying data and a summary of facts (with the ability to drill down to the raw data) and full direct quotes (with the ability to drill down to the full transcript / video).

          Sure it’d be dry reading, but I don’t like second and third hand stories – it makes it hard to find out what the real story is.

          As Harry Morgan said: Just the facts.

          • PeterB in Indianapolis says:


            I find it interesting that you want a news organization to provide you with “just the facts” while simultaneously arguing in another thread that there is no “truth”, there are only shades of grey.

            Is there a specific shade of grey that your news should be reported in so that you would regard it as “merely factual”?

            • I was referring to truths in the greater scheme of things. Flag was reaching conclusions and declaring them to be the absolute and irrefutable truth, whereas I suggested that there may be other possibilities for equally “true” conclusions.

              In terms of news, I like direct quotes and hard facts. The vote was won 55:45, not the vote was won by a landslide. And he said “[direct quote here]” not he said that [synopsis or interpretation of what was said].

              Now, if you want to get deep, yes, we can argue over what is real and what is not, did he say that or does he even exist? Are you, in fact, nothing more than a brain trapped in meat trying to interpret signals which you have no way of knowing related to a “real world”?

              But I’m willing to go on the assumption that there’s so basic level of reality that can be reported by itself, and I’ll reach my own conclusions.

              • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

                Interesting that you assert that there is some basic level of reality that can be reported as factual, yet in the same post you argue that a human being is “a brain trapped in meat trying to interpret signals which you have no way of knowing related to a “real world””.

                You sound rather conflicted here….

              • Well it’s hard to be sure anything actually exists. But if it doesn’t exist why bother learning about it? If the entirety “the world” is nothing but my brain’s interpretation of random signal noise, then (A) my brain needs something better to do than imagine me at work and (B) “the world” doesn’t matter and (C) why does it hate me enough to invent Black Flag?

                If “the world” does exist, then there are things that do and do not happen and I think that they should be reported, but building conclusions and interpreting the data past a very, very basic level should be left to the individual.

    • How about questions that are not designed to feature one party over the other. It drives me nuts when the “moderator” wants to dwell on abortion, gay marriage etc in the Republican Primary debates but never ask the same questions of the Dems.

      Or the new trick of “please raise your hands if………”

      • I’d like to see a 100 question questionnaire sent out to every candidate, filled out personally by the candidate with space for elaboration, then all the answers posted together on a website side by side.

        1) Do you consider yourself “pro-life” (0 – not at all, 10 – completely pro-choice)? ___
        If you wish to clarify your position, please do so here:

        2) Do you support gay marriage (0 – not at all, 10 – yes, completely)? ___
        If you wish to clarify your position, please do so here:

        3) Do you support “Big Government” (0 – not at all, 10 – I’m a communist)? ___
        If you wish to clarify your position, please do so here:

        and so on..

        • I don’t think that anyone expects a perfect candidate anymore. Everyone comes with baggage. With those kinds of questions you’re only going to get shallow answers. Been there. Done that.

          • Maybe, but you get 100 questions, so you can dig to more specific than that. Also, there’s the fill in portion which would clarify things.

            Mostly, I’m just interested in forcing everyone to state in black and white where they stand on the issues, no fluff, no bluster, no evasion, no hedging – this is what I think, this is what I’ll try to do if elected.

            And then you can pick between your options.

        • Sorry, but I don’t like YOUR questions.

          If you want to know what somebody thinks about an issue then DO NOT start with “do you support”.

          That is why I hate ALL political questionnaires.

          How about

          What are your views/opinion on the Gay Marriage issue? Please explain the reasoning behind your view/opinion.

  15. TexasChem says:

    Mathius Stated”You are wrong. Payroll taxes were implimented immediately, and payouts began immediately. Ergo, payouts came from other workers. Ergo, ponzi.

    Deal with it.”

    TC: I am not speaking of who pays into it! My entire bitchfest is about who takes OUT of it!
    How do you think there became an excess wayyyyy faarrrr ouutt into the beautiful green with the SS accounts?

    • What excess? Last I heard, Al Gore’s lock box was left unlocked and the scavengers picked it clean, like a maid’s cart left unattended in the hallway of a cheap hotel.

      • TexasChem says:

        During the Johnson administration, Social Security and other Federal programs that operate through trust funds were counted officially into the budget. The excess I speak of was before it became commonplace to rape the SS accounts.

        The monies in the SS fund may “be invested in securities backed by the full faith and credit of the Federal government,” such as treasury bills, treasury notes, and treasury bonds, as well as special issue bonds. So, essentially, the government can “invest” Social Security funds by lending them to itself, then spending that money on programs not related to Social Security (e.g., defense, foreign aid, education).

        Under the current guidelines solvency has no meaning for Socialist Insecurity. You are being taxed to pay your SS account back that the government has borrowed from. Not only that but income tax is now withheld from social security payments.

        A person who earns $105,000/year will pay $599,000 in payroll taxes over 46 years of work. When he retires, his annual benefit will be $30,168/year or 5.0% of his lifetime payroll taxes. He can collect this starting at age 67 if born after 1959. The 2010 website posts a study showing that I am only expected to live to the age of 68. The governments playing roulette with money you earned that is supposed to be for your retirement, betting that you will die before you can get all you paid in back.Ridiculous.

        • SK Trynosky Sr says:

          Do not forget SSI which was not intended. Do not forget cost of living adjustments which were not intended. Do not forget any change which drew down on the system without calculating how to boost the reserves.

          Yes, SS paid out its first payments at the same time it started collecting but logic dictates that sometime in the first year, the interest earned on the take more than made up for the payments. What were there out there at the time 100 contributors for every poor soul that managed to reach 65?

      • Damn…you been to the same hotels as me?

        • Mathius: And just what are you going to do with 57 shower caps?

          D13: Christmas presents.

          • A nice raptor green one for you.

            • Oh yeah….with the skinny miniature bar of Dial soap (remember that cheap hotels dont have french milled)…with paper cups and Yuban Coffee packets and a granola bar out of date. AND……for the discrimminating user……single ply paper. Dont forget the rust ring around the drain in the bathtub with the chain stopper.

  16. A Puritan Descendant says:

    After 9/11 our government stood in unison if only for a moment.

    If our government/politicians findly get scarerd enough of either seeing this country crash and burn or being thrown out of office, they have a way out. A way out they can profit from.

    They can vote in unison to cut spending in a BIG Way. The country will go into depression. Any pissed off voters will be little threat in the next election without a new party poping up.

    The unified politicians will still be in office in a time when cash is king. It would be in their own onterest to do this. The alternative of inflation/hyperinflation will bring everyone down, rich or poor.

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      “After 9/11 our government stood in unison if only for a moment.”

      In unison about what specifically? Certainly they were not miraculously in unison for that brief moment on every issue, were they?

      We wouldn’t need them to be in unison on every issue, I will admit that. However, we would need them to be in unison on the subject of what the majority of them would term “Spending Cuts that are so far beyond Draconian that we haven’t invented the Buzzword for it yet”. Politically speaking, such a stance is equivalent to cutting one’s own throat.

      What would happen, I strongly suspect, if by some miracle 60% plus of all Washington Politicians suddenly agreed to such way-beyond-Draconian cuts, is that you would see mass rioting in the streets, virtually everywhere.

      • Peter

        We have had mass rioting in the streets before. The goal is not to prevent rioting.

        Even your and BF’s view will not prevent rioting.

        • JAC

          view will not prevent rioting

          Maybe not but maybe it can….

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:


          As BTO once said, “You Ain’t Seen Nothin’ Yet”.

          What you call “mass riots in the streets” would look like a Sunday picnic compared to what would happen if entitlements were massively cut.

          Will my view or BF’s view prevent rioting? Maybe not, although I can hope. The question is, will yours?

      • A Puritan Descendant says:

        What would be their alternative, assuming they could all see reality?

        • A Puritan Descendant says:

          politician’s alternative

          • Puritan,

            Politician’s alternatie:

            Deny there is a problem, continue to grow the debt to buy off the voters one more time….. repeat as necessary.

            • A Puritan Descendant says:

              They are playing a game of high speed chicken while locked onto a train track.

              • Puritan,

                But as I’ve described – the “game” is to delay the crash until the next election when it will be “the other guys” problem.

                Then that guy plays the same delay game.

                There is no problem today as long as the delay game works.

                It is a more of a game of musical chairs.

              • A Puritan Descendant says:

                Or, where each newly elected politician must play Russian Roulette with one more additional bullet in the gun.

      • TexasChem says:

        Peter B Stated:”What would happen, I strongly suspect, if by some miracle 60% plus of all Washington Politicians suddenly agreed to such way-beyond-Draconian cuts, is that you would see mass rioting in the streets, virtually everywhere.”

        So what Peter.
        Go buy a gun. Go buy some canned goods and water. Stay with and protect your family. Let the riots run their course.
        You and BF want to climb out of the ruins as the “Remnant” anyways. This should be right up yalls alley! Yall should already be prepared for this since yall are doing nothing but preparing for the inevitable failure of the economy…

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

          I won’t be climbing out of any ruins, I will be as far from the ruins as humanly possible.

          When the shit hits the fan, it is prudent to be as far from the fan as possible.

          As BF stated, everything is “ok for now” as long as the delay game works. The delay game may well work beyond my lifespan, so in that respect, I MAY have nothing to worry about. The important thing is that I recognize the delay game for what it is… a FUTILE attempt to postpone the inevitable. That futile attempt buys time (how much time no one can say) but it only exacerbates the problem, it does nothing to alleviate, much less solve the problem.

  17. Canine Weapon says:

    Thought for the day:

    The opposite of upside down is not down side up. It’s upside up.

    • Canine,

      That is redundant.

      The opposite of upside down is right side up

      • Canine Weapon says:

        You presume that there is a “right” side to a object? You make an assertion about the value or correctness of a side of something where none may exist.

        There is only the up-side and the down-side, no right, no wrong. And the up-side can either be up or it can be down.

        As with a buttered piece of bread, the up-side always lands facing down. There is nothing intrinsically “wrong” with this, though it is assuredly upside down.

        The canine has spoken.

        • CW,

          “Right” as in “proper side”

          Thing “upside down” indicates an abnormal orientation

          “The car is upside down”

          “The bread fell upside down”

          The Normal or “proper” orientation is the “right” (as in normal/correct) side.

          • Canine Weapon says:

            Normal or proper asserts a value judgment where none can be considered to be intrinsic to an item. That is, the proper side of a piece of break is neither the buttered nor the plain except when considered as oriented with the floor. The bread, itself, is indifferent with regards to the “proper” orientation. And, as it is a cosmic law of the universe that the buttered side should always land facing the ground, it seems that this could be construed as “normal” within that frame of reference.

            Thus: Upside down (ie, in the improper order) would mean for the buttered side to be facing up. But that is not what is meant, now is it?

            Therefore we can only utilize an externally imposed frame of reference which abstains from a value judgment of what is right or proper on behalf of the object. Only the intention that one side be up and the other down should be considered within the hypothetical – since this draws from an external source. The buttered side, as intended, is the up-side, not right or proper. (consider that the non-buttered plain side is the “right” side to be facing down).

            So when the upside is down, then it is in the sub-optimal positioning. When the upside is up, then the optimal positioning is attained. To say “right side” is non nonsensical as there is no “right” side, not inherently, anyway – only as a referential state in consideration of the whole system.

    • A Puritan Descendant says:

      How we gonna agree on anything if we can’t agree on the meanings of up/right/down ? 🙂

      • Puritan,

        CW appears bored.
        Just wait, he will attempt to argue boredom doesn’t exist – it is merely a transitional state between extremely excited states and is a state of excitement by degree, wholly subjective and immune to measure.

        • Canine Weapon says:

          Well that’s true. Such a state is defined only as the absence of another requisite state. It cannot be independently observed or measured or quantified. It exists only subjectively in the mind of the individual.

          But when I, subjectively, of course, get bored, I either chase my tail or destroy a couch. 🙂

  18. JAC

    Collapse –

    – Government checks do not buy anything.
    – Government bankruptcy; renege on SS, Healthcare, Medicaid, etc.
    – Staggered; not all in one day – some bills will be paid, others not paid.
    – Renege on bonds and T-bills.

    • From Part One:
      Only one thing will stop it: the bankruptcy of the Federal government. This has not happened since 1788. Since then, it has avoided it.

      But the numbers tell us that this will end.

      It could end in hyperinflation.

      It could end in outright bankruptcy: a refusal to pay interest on the debt.

      It could end by hiking the Medicare age limit, or rationing health care.

    • That my friend is NOT the collapse of a Govt.

      Especially a Govt consisting of people elected from the general population.

  19. TexasChem says:

    Peter B Stated:”TC,

    If you cannot answer those questions FOR YOURSELF, but instead rely on someone with more authority to answer them for you, the results you get will not be the results you want.”

    TC: I never said I couldn’t answer those questions. In order to answer them with a solvent answer that had achievable goals it would take a few weeks. It’s not something solvable on a political blog in just a few sentences hence my accusation at BF of using re-direct for his rhetoric.
    Plain and simple, cut and dried.To the point. My answer.
    The E-5 to 0-6 answer I gave above is in reference to someone such as a Colonel taking a leadership role. Someone used to command and having authority of Men. It was a kind of inside jab I was taking at a member here on SUFA. 🙂

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      Oh, I understand, but it is pretty darn important to at least have the basics of these answers readily available for yourself and your family.

      I also suspect that your answers are going to be at least somewhat different than my answers, although hopefully not worlds apart 🙂

  20. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    Statistically, the National Debt increases by 4.1 Billion Dollars per DAY. FIX IT! GO GO GO!

  21. BF, pardon my pun butt – PROGRESSIVE politics in America is based on . . . . etc. etc.

    The origin of this country was a CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC. And it is my firm belief that that is what we need to get back to.

    FYI, my friendly adversary, I DO NOT DANCE (never have been able to even though I am married to a dance instructor – and I have a niece who teaches ballroom dancing, and yes even she has given up on my ever learning how to dance).

    • Papa,

      CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC is what got this mess going.

      • No, it didn’t.

        If we would have taken our first Presidents advice in the first place and did away with political parties like he wanted us to, the Progressives would not have had a base of political power with which to spread their particular brand of corruption that has this nation within its insidious grip today.

        Perhaps if we start at dismantling all political parties and PAC’s, we might be able to start on the road to recovering our once great nation.

        • Papa,

          You can’t even get a balanced budget passed, but you believe you can institute core fundamental changes to political parties.

          You are trapped in phase #3 above.

          You have to start moving on, Papa.

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      We can try to go back to being a Constitutional Republic if you like. By some miracle, we might even make it back to that.

      Now, your problem becomes, how do you prevent that Constitutional Republic from once again degenerating into what we have now?

      I am not asking that to be flippant, I really do want you to think about that.

      • You change the Constitution.

      • TexasChem says:

        Well one thing that would help tremendously to prevent the degeneration would be teaching our children the Arts in school. As much as a lot of you harp on religion I would like for you to understand that if you teach the youth of a society the good and the bad of all religions idealogy, the good and bad of all philosophical beliefs, the good and bad of all cultures of the world, historical mistakes and historical advancements then eventually one would have a heavy base of knowledge upon which to infer a belief system that could easily and logically deduce between right/wrong, good/bad…up/down. 🙂

        • Buck the Wala says:

          The good and bad of all cultures…

          If you do not belong to a culture, how can you know the good and bad? Seems like a recipe for disaster to me, judging the good and bad of another’s culture based on what? Your own interpretation of that culture based on your own cultural norms?

          • TexasChem says:


            It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to come to the conclusion that the Jivaroan tribes of the Amazon were a lil’ off base by incorporating cannibalism and headhunting into their societies culture now does it? *sigh*

            • Buck the Wala says:

              Based on your own cultural standards, yes, that would seem off base.

              Do you know of the reasons as to why cannibalism and headhunting were incorporated into their culture?

              • TexasChem says:

                Once again I state that there has to be a standard to pull from in order for a society to complete its weaving of a moral fabric to bind its members together. Quite simple logic I say.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                But the standard for your society can easily be different from the standard for another society.

          • TexasChem says:


            Why do you support a statist view if you are going to use an arguements conclusion that no one has the right to judge right or wrong?
            Do you ironically believe its your way or the highway?
            I am confused here!
            Does the state get to tell its citizens what is right or wrong?
            Based upon your statement above I would be tempted to view you as an anarchist rather than as a statist my good fellow! 🙂

            • Buck the Wala says:

              You misjudge me.

              In the context of whether another culture is ‘right’ or ‘wrong’, I would argue that you have no right to judge that society. For how can you judge that society fairly? You would necessarily be brining in your own cultural norms to reach your judgment.

              This is very different from the passage of laws in one’s own society. And, as I’ve long argued, I am against certain laws that infringe on someone’s own actions that do not impact another (for instance, drug laws).

              • TexasChem says:


                *blink* *blink*


                You are telling me that I have no right to judge and yet you are making judgement?

                I would not be brining in just my own cultural norms if I were educated as to all societies cultural beliefs now would I?

                Incidentally I agree with you in regards to victimless crimes.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                It would be hard to brine in one’s cultural norms…

                But my point is, even if you are educated in all cultural norms and beliefs, not being a part of a given culture would preclude you from passing judgment on those cultural norms as to being ‘right’ or ‘wrong’.

  22. PeterB in Indianapolis says:


    I saw above where you would tie government wages to the CPI… interesting idea.

    I would be willing to bet HEAVILY that as soon as you did that, “food” and “energy” costs would MIRACULOUSLY reappear in the governmental CPI calculations 🙂

    • well, I think that’s fine. The CPI should be a reflection of what it costs “to live” and “consume”.. the problem would be when they start forcing the CPI to over-compensate, such as switching from hamburger to fillet Mignon in the calculations.

      I see the hazard in this, so tell me what alternative you suggest. It has to be indexed or wages will either stagnate or rise too fast. Maybe they should be indexed against mean national salary with pay grades? ie, director of the CIA gets paid 500x national average income, janitor gets .75x national average income? Come up with a whole series of paygrades as a percent of average – that way congress gets paid more only when people are making more, and only in real terms? Put it on a one-year lag?

      I’ll open to suggestions..

      • Mathius,

        Any government program indexed to inflation will cause hyperinflation.

        • Putting aside your disdain for government and your personal philosophies for the moment, given your understanding of both human nature and economics, what would you consider to be the most effective and fairest way of (A) limiting growth in government salaries (B) ensuring that government salaries do not stagnate and (C) extra credit if you can generate positive externalities.

          Pretend, for a moment, that you believe in government. I have no use for obfuscation and no desire to try to pin you down. Answer as intended or just say “pass.”

          • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

            I am not BF, but I pass. You cannot force effective and/or fair into an equation which they are not part of.

            • The question was real: what is the best of the bad options?

              But that’s fine if you want to pass.

          • Mathius,

            most effective and fairest way of (A) limiting growth in government salaries (B) ensuring that government salaries do not stagnate and (C) extra credit if you can generate positive externalities.

            These are trade offs, not conditions.

            You cannot limit the growth in government salaries to any measure – there is no economic measure to know if these “employees” are economical or not.

            Thus any wage increase is completely arbitrary and will happen whenever the “wheels get squeaky” – which is every year.

          • Mathius

            User fees for the service provided.

            It is the only way to establish anything close to the value of the labor and thus service provided. Those considered valuable will get raises. When the cost gets to high the consumer will stop buying and the adjustment is made.

            Other wise you are stuck with addressing one but not all of your criteria. You control costs by using the tax payer’s willingness to pay. Leave it up to the bureaucrats as to how much the wages will be.

            Whether Govt salaries stagnate or not depends on “inflation”. If we lick inflation then they don’t need to increase.

            Externalities for the most part are the stretching of some politician or economists dreams. So don’t worry about them. You either get what you paid for or you don’t.

  23. Esom Hill Nation says:

    Well all I can say BF, is that I believe you are right. There will be no change, except, perhaps, for the worse.

    Things have gone too far. If there was any hope (doubtful), it has passed us by.

    So I guess we’ll just have to wait and see what does happen won’t we?

  24. Buck,

    Still waiting for your answers:

    Do you believe you can change either the Dem/Rep party core?

    If so, how?

    If not, do you believe you can change the two party politics of Washington – contrary to 150 years of historical evidence?

    If so, how?

    If not – what the heck are you disagreeing with me about?

    • He and I disagree that any major change at the core of the Democratic party needs to be made. So, given that, it’s just a question of getting enough blue-shirts elected.

      • Buck the Wala says:

        And ensuring those blue-shirts are really blue. Can’t have those pesky blue dogs anymore.

      • Mathius,

        So you both agree that the current politics that operates in Washington is “ok”, with minor changes at best, as I posted in Part One:

        The candidates all run on the same basis: little or no changes in Washington is all that we need to make

    • Buck the Wala says:

      You can wait all you want, and I can understand you getting frustrated with me or not understaning my refusal to get into the debate at this time.

      Suffice it to say though that I do disagree with your reading of our ‘reality’ and your conclusions on the matter.

      Briefly on your question of whether or not the Dem/Rep party core can be changed: Yes, the party core can be changed (as has happened in the past) How? Time, an evolving electorate, new sources of contributions, etc. Regardless of whether the party core can be changed, or how long this will take, though, I still register my disagreement with your reading of our ‘reality’. As Mathius posted above, I am a proud 1.5’er.

      • Buck

        You can wait all you want, and I can understand you getting frustrated with me or not understaning my refusal to get into the debate at this time.

        I am not frustrated.

        I hoped to hear some valid arguments so to generate thinking.

        But I see that you are a waste of time.

  25. Dread Pirate Mathius says:

  26. TexasChem says:

    I like this ending to the discussion a lil’ better Mathius… 🙂

  27. JAC,

    Missed this:

    We are talking about Social Security.

    No, he increased the size of Social Security roll, and added a tax.

    The net – he generated more tax revenue in the general fund and made the Social Security system worse.

    To a point – you pay more tax and Social Security is bankrupt – it now pays out more than it takes in, and requires funding FROM the General Revenue (that is, the FED buying T-bills to pay for it)

    • Buck the Wala says:

      BF, do you have a citation for SS paying out more than it taking in at this moment? I thought this was an eventuality (absent any changes to SS) that would occur in 2018 (perhaps a bit sooner due to higher unemployment), but nonetheless a point we hadn’t yet reached.

  28. Buck

    It has been insolvent for years.

    The Trust Fund that pays Social Security already is running red ink by the billions. The interest paid by the Treasury to the fund is red ink. The fund is selling off assets, which means that it is swapping IOUs for money, FICA taxes no longer pay the bills.

    There are no “real” assets.

    The “assets” are T-bills from the Government. SSDI has to return these T-bills for “real” money – digitally printed by the FED. The FED is merely buying T-bills allocated into the SSDI “Trust Fund”, but those T-bills are government debt.

    In other words, the government printed a T-bill to itself. Do you think you are funding your retirement program by writing an IOU from Buck to Buck and putting that IOU in a drawer?

    It doesn’t work for you – it doesn’t work here either – though it does work in fooling the People

    There is no source of money from the sale of these legally nonmarketable IOUs other than telling the Treasury to credit the Trust Fund’s account with money from the general fund. “Buck to Buck: Here is your IOU. Send money. Oops, FED – print some money”

    The Trust Fund assets legally have no market value. This is no surprise. The market cannot value them, no more than your IOU to yourself could be deposited in a bank.

    But as the graph show, the SSDI cannot fund itself – and 2011 will be worse as the job market deteriorates and the FICA revenue drops….

  29. gmanfortruth says:

    Great discussion today! Good article Flagster 🙂 I’m a solid #5 in thei discussion. Whether I agre or disagree with Flags premise is rather immaterial. My belief is that it can happen, as nothing is impossible these days. I’m ahead of the game because I’ve been a #5 for over two years, and have enjoyed preparing for the worst case scenario. I like gardening, so I have a big productive garden, combined with the local farm markets, veggies have been very cheap and available. I like canning, so the veggies are canned and shelved for use when we choose to use them.

    If Flags predictions come true, I won’t go hungry. If they don’t come true, then my grocery bills will be must less expensive for a very long time, a win – win situation. One cannot lose by being prepared for bad things to occur, as preparedness will alwys make the worst of times less devistating, and in some cases, no harm will happen at all.

    Where you stand concerning Flags position is your choice, if you chose to do nothing, and nothing happens, you were right and Flag was wrong. If you choose to do nothing, and Flag is right, what will you tell your family when everyone is very hungry and they find out you were warned?

    I fear that those on the left will suffer greatly if the worst happens. This American won’t.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Now if this possessed keyboard would work right, things would be spelled correctly 😦

    • A Puritan Descendant says:

      Stockpiling food is very smart! It is a safe bet in case of depression, or hyperinflation. While cash in hand is king in a depression, cash in hand becomes worthless during hyperinflation. Food can be used as ‘cash’. Just where to store it all?

      • gmanfortruth says:

        Easy answer. most stuff in a closet is rarely used. So we took what we need for use, dress clothes, suits ect, put them in one big walk in closet and turned the rest into shelved storage for canned goods. The stuff we didn’t need in the closets either went to charity, or was stored in air tight plastic containers and put in the rafters in the barn. We have a whole two containers, which we switch summer wear and winter wear as the seasons change.

        This has it’s limitations, called wives, 😆

        • A Puritan Descendant says:

          hmmm.. I wonder if I can fit the contents of the kids bedrooms in our barn rafters …….. 🙂

        • Yeah, FYI, my shoes are not going in any barn rafters. My husband’s closet, however, I could probably find some room…..

          • gmanfortruth says:

            Can’t help but laugh 🙂 I hope you have a good recipe for shoes, you may need one! 😆

  30. Nothing about abortion is funny-but this tickled me-didn’t like the other poster-okay what’s not true or wrong with this one.

    US Irony: New Pro-Life Billboards Feature President Obama

    * Posted on March 29, 2011 at 7:45am by Jonathon M. Seidl Jonathon M. Seidl

    How’s this for irony: a new set of pro-life billboards is set to debut today in Chicago, and they’re featuring abortion advocate Barack Obama.

    The ads are from the same group, Life Always, that caused a ruckus in New York last month when it used a stock image of a young black girl on a billboard with the phrase, “The Most Dangerous Place for an African American is in The Womb.” The ad was eventually removed by the ad company after intense pressure.

    The group’s new ads will feature a graphic of Obama next to the statement, “Every 21 Minutes, Our Next Possible Leader Is Aborted.” Over 30 of them will appear on Chicago’s South side — a predominately black area.

    “Our future leaders are being aborted at an alarming rate,” Life Always board member Reverend Derek McCoy said in a press release. “These are babies who could grow to be the future presidents of the United States, or the next Oprah Winfrey, Denzel Washington, or Maya Angelou.”

    The billboards are meant to target the disproportionate number of abortions in the black community, which the group says comprises 13 percent of the population but 36 percent of abortions.

    “The potential of a community lies in its children,” said fellow board member Pastor Stephen Broden. “If we aren’t having them, our potential is lost.”

  31. 🙂 for comments and as a shameless plug for a new post over at gman’s findingthetruth blog.

  32. Change within the system: This will definitely happen. People will be upset at the coming changes and demand something be done. That something will, odds are, be the wrong thing. A quick fix, a short term solution that causes greater long-term problems.

    Change within the system that is a viable long term fix: Long shot. Win the lottery kind of long shot. I buy the occasional lottery ticket when the mood strikes. I do so as entertainment and because it is fun to dream. I do NOT use lottery ticket purchases as a means to acheive success or “invest” or some way to garauntee my retirement. It is possible for a third party or something like that to get into power and maintain their composure and stand on solid principles. It is possible that this leadership will lead to more of the same and the two generations it would take to fix things peacefully will actually be decades of dedication to an enlightened and free future. It is also possible that I will win 315 million dollars this week.

    But I am not betting on it, nor putting a lot of resources into it.

    System collapse. This will happen, but I am not sure that BF is right about the doomsday scenario. He is right from a purely financial standpoint. I have a feeling that we might end up in a fracture situation, with the country breaking into 5 or so smaller nations. That might be the best thing that could happen since it would mean that at least one of the nations might be able to achieve freedom, or at least something close to it. A lot of people are upset and awake. I do not think it will be possible to sedate them completely anymore than it would be possible to convince the remainder that government is not the solution.

    As far as disagreement with BF, I think some may agree that change within the system is not possible, but they do not want it to change. Sure, there are some changes we all agree on here, but I think Matt and Buck, even if they see the inevitable failure due to the mathematical reality, they will seek a different solution to the problem. It is not a disagreement about whether change within the national system is possible, it is about what changes should be made.

    • Jon,

      they will seek a different solution to the problem

      Say what?

      What different solution?

      They are mutes or mythologists.

      They have no “different” solution other than fairy tales.

      • I know that, all I was saying is do not presume that those who disagree are disagreeing about change within the system. They are disagreeing about the change itself.

        • Jon,

          You are too gracious to them.

          They can’t even put up a coherent reason to why they disagree.

          As with Buck
          “I disagree”
          “just because”

          • Buck the Wala says:

            One second there mister — I never said ‘because’ to your question of ‘why’. I never put forth an irrational or incoherent answer to the question. I just didn’t answer.

            There is a difference.

  33. So a poll:

    Who is ready to move on and not waste any more time on Federal Politics?

    Who – after the posts “Great Danger”, “Political Reality”, Remnants, Reflections, and about 800 posts in among other topic pieces still feel that Washington is their best place to make change?

    I’d like to know who is in my life boat and who is still fiddling on the Titanic.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Heck, BF, I only screw with the left for entertainment. I’m a lifeboat of my own, and will continue to build upon that. The remnant needs more than one lifeboat. But I’m prepared, what ever happens.

    • missingtexas says:

      I’m in the lifeboat. Stocking food, water and essentials here in Northern CA

    • You need to start paying better attention to what people actually say as opposed to what you assume they are saying.

      I did not see one comment to your series or today that said the Federal level was the “best place to make change”.

      What I and others have said is you can not ignore the federal entirely. You disagree but that is your right to do so.

      I would like to see the rest of your series before I spend much time on more explanations.

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      I think we have a fair amount of people here that believe ONE of the following:

      1. Goliath is just fine, except he needs a really big haircut.

      2. Goliath isn’t fine, but if we can change Goliath enough, then he might be ok.

      3. Goliath isn’t fine, but there is a chance that David can win.

      4. Goliath isn’t fine, but if we can get enough Davids, there is a chance we can win.

      5. Goliath isn’t fine, David cannot win, but I want to keep hearing about Goliath and what he is doing so I can bitch about it.

      Anyone in these 5 categories is going to want to continue to discuss the Federal Government and what is happening there. Also, even you should probably not completely ignore what is going on at the Federal Level, because having information about what is going on there can be very valuable, and can tip you off as to the timing of critical events.

      I don’t think we should completely IGNORE the Federal government, that would be like ignoring the 800lb. gorilla in the room. We should at least pay SOME attention, so that we know what the gorilla is up to, but we should FOCUS on other things a hell of a lot more.

    • I am in the lifeboat, but I keep jumping back in the water to rescue people.

    • excuse me….pardon…..coming through, pardon……..

      That’s my seat there, excuse me…..beg pardon. Ahhh, thanks.


%d bloggers like this: