Striper Talk Striped Bass Fishing, Surfcasting, Boating

     

Left Nav S-B Home Register FAQ Members List S-B on Facebook Arcade WEAX Tides Buoys Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Right Nav

Left Container Right Container
 

Go Back   Striper Talk Striped Bass Fishing, Surfcasting, Boating Striper Chat - Discuss stuff other than fishing ~ The Scuppers and Political talk Political Threads

Political Threads This section is for Political Threads - Enter at your own risk. If you say you don't want to see what someone posts - don't read it :hihi:

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
Old 10-20-2010, 09:53 AM   #1
RIJIMMY
sick of bluefish
iTrader: (1)
 
RIJIMMY's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: TEXAS
Posts: 8,672
Important - please read

This is a great read, I agree 100% with the article. No mention of Dems or Repubs, just some hard to swallow truth. People think this is a game, that some of us are just racist, small minded robots. The policies this country is putting in place will ruin it. History repeats itself. Keep putting in govt polices that "help" everyone and you destroy the ability to help yourself. Want an example? Think of Western Expansion in the US a few hundred years ago. What percentage of the people that packed up and moved to the unsettled west LIVED? I bet its the minority. Starvation, Indian raids, etc - claimed most. If that was today's world, the govt. would institiute regulations on who could move west, add all kinds of red tape, all kinds of oversight. We'd never be able to realize the potential of the west because we are too concerned with helping everyone, removing all risk, and thus removing all gain! Americans are RISK takers, get back to your roots!
I've rambled enought...please read below!



The Rise and Fall of America
by Robert Kiyosaki
Monday, October 18, 2010
ShareretweetEmailPrintAlexander Tytler (1747-1813) was a Scottish-born English lawyer and historian. Reportedly, Tytler was critical of democracies, pointing to the history of democracies such as Athens and its flaws, cycles, and ultimate failures. Although the authenticity of his following quote is often disputed, the words have eerie relevance today:

A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government.

A democracy will continue to exist up until the time voters discover they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by dictatorship.

The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the beginning of history has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence:

From bondage to spiritual faith;

From spiritual faith to great courage;

From courage to liberty;

From liberty to abundance;

From abundance to complacency;

From complacency to apathy;

From apathy to dependence;

From dependence back to bondage.

Tytler's Cycle and the U.S.

In looking at American history, we can see Tytler's sequence in action. In 1620, the Pilgrims sailed to America to escape the religious bondage imposed by the Church of England. Their spiritual faith carried them to the new world.

Because of their deep faith, the Pilgrims left England in spite of the high percentage of deaths incurred by earlier American settlements. For example, when Jamestown, Virginia, was founded in 1607, 70 of the 108 settlers died in the first year. The following winter only 60 of 500 new settlers lived. Between 1619 and 1622, the Virginia Company sent 3,600 more settlers to the colony, and over those three years 3,000 would die.

In 1776, the Declaration of Independence was signed. From spiritual faith the new Americans were garnering great courage. By crafting the Declaration of Independence, the colonists knew they were essentially declaring war on the most powerful country in the world -- England.

With the onset of the Revolutionary War, the colonists were moving from courage to liberty, following Tytler's sequence. By demanding their independence and being willing to fight for it, a new democracy was born. This new democracy grew rapidly for nearly 200 years.

Then, in 1933, the U.S. was thrown into the Great Depression and elected Franklin Delano Roosevelt as president. Facing total economic collapse, Roosevelt took the U.S. dollar off the gold standard. At the same time, Germany, also in financial crisis, elected Adolf Hitler as its leader. World War II soon followed.

In 1944, with WWII coming to an end, the Bretton Woods Agreement was signed by the world powers and the U.S. dollar, once again backed by gold, became the reserve currency of the world.

After the war, America passed England, France, and Germany to become the new world power. Having entered the war late, the U.S. emerged as the creditor nation to the world. Our factories weren't bombed and the world owed us money. The U.S. grew rich financing the rebuilding of England, France, Germany, Italy, and Japan. The American democracy was transitioning from liberty to abundance -- maybe too much abundance.

In 1971 President Nixon violated the Bretton Woods Agreement by taking the U.S. dollar off the gold standard because America was spending more than it was producing and the U.S. gold reserves were being depleted.

In 1972 Nixon visited China to open the door for trade. What followed was the biggest economic boom in history -- a boom fueled by the U.S. borrowing money through the sale of bonds to China, one of the world's poorest countries at that time. The sale of these bonds financed a growing U.S. trade deficit. China produced low-cost goods, and we paid for them with money borrowed from the Chinese workers.

American factory production, which had fueled the American boom after WWII, was "shipped" overseas along with high-paying American jobs. America was shifting from abundance to complacency. Rather than produce, we borrowed and printed money to maintain our standard of living.

In 1976 America celebrated its 200th anniversary as a democracy. Rather than produce, we kept borrowing to finance social-welfare programs. Over the next three decades or so, America slid from complacency to apathy.

In 2007 the subprime crisis reared its ugly head. And by 2010, unemployment increased to double-digits, even as the rich got richer. Once-affluent people walked away from homes they could no longer afford. The U.S. moved from apathy to dependence.

Today we're dependent upon China to finance our debt as well as fill our stores with cheap products. At the same time, millions of Americans are becoming dependent upon the government to take care of them. If Tytler is correct, the American democracy is presently moving from dependence back to bondage.

Filling the Void

History reminds us that dictators and despots arise during times of severe economic crisis. Some of the more infamous despots are Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Napoleon. I find it interesting that the U.S. is now dependent upon Chairman Mao's creation, the People's Republic of China, for the things that we buy and the money that we borrow.

To me, this is spooky, foreboding, and ominous. While the Chinese people, as a rule, are good people, my business dealings with Communist Chinese officials have left me disturbed and concerned about the rise of the Chinese Empire. As you know, China doesn't plan on becoming a democracy. With money, factories, a billion people to feed, and a massive military, could they put the free world into bondage?

Although I don't like the way the Chinese do business, I continue to do business in China. I have to. They're the next world power. I cautiously believe that trade, business, and understanding offer better options for world peace and prosperity than isolationism.
Now the Western world must seek to grow stronger financially as China continues to gain power. To do this, our schools need to offer more sophisticated financial education to children of all ages.

This is not the time to be complacent or apathetic. This is the time to think globally. Putting up trade barriers would be disastrous. Instead, it's time our schools train students to be entrepreneurs who export to the world rather than employees looking for jobs that are being exported to low-wage countries.

Please be clear. I don't fear the Chinese. I fear our own growing weakness. Only a weak people can be oppressed. Today, America has too many people looking to the government for financial salvation.

In 1620 the Pilgrims fled the spiritual oppression of the Church of England. Today Americans may need to flee the financial oppression of our own government as our democracy dies. If we follow Tytler's cycle for democracy, our financial dependence will lead us to financial bondage.

making s-b.com a kinder, gentler place for all
RIJIMMY is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-20-2010, 12:33 PM   #2
justplugit
Registered Grandpa
iTrader: (0)
 
justplugit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: east coast
Posts: 8,589
Tytlers observations are right on which anyone can see
as it is based on history, common sense, and it's successive truth
is right before our eyes.

I believe we are at the point of, "from apathy to dependence."

I think this is our last chance to vote to take our government back
to it's original purpose, serving the people under the Constitution to produce Life, Liberty and the PURSUIT of Happiness.

I wonder how many people will take the time to read Tytlers work
and not just shrug their shoulders and say, "oh well".

Within the last 2 years there seems to have been an awakening that I can't remember in my lifetime, and I hope others will see the hand writing on the
wall and hold our government servants feet to the fire.

" Choose Life "
justplugit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-20-2010, 06:52 PM   #3
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 5,619
glad Franklin & Co. gave us a Constitutional Republic rather than a Democracy...but we've been dragged down the road of social democracy for the last century and it is indeed the road to ruin...
scottw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-20-2010, 07:04 PM   #4
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 2,821
Tytler's quote has, I believe, appeared here once or twice before. And the response from the more left-leaning members has been, as it is now, silence. Perhaps they think it is too absurd to merit a comment. But they usually muster a quick, snarky comment on what they consider stupid right-wingish observations. Is the quote so obviously true that they are struck speechless. Nah. Maybe the quote, and the similar sentiments made on these threads and other "right wing" sources are tainted because they are not spoken by more acceptable origins such as mainstream media, PBS, academic commentaries. There must be something suspect if something as obvious as this quote is not pouring from the lips of our current mainstream thinkers and politicians. Could someone, Spence, somebody, point out what is wrong with Tytler's observation, or, how it doesn't apply to the drift in American history.
detbuch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-20-2010, 08:34 PM   #5
Raven
........
iTrader: (0)
 
Raven's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 22,690
Blog Entries: 1
i was talking to my neighbor who told me that the Chinese had bought land in TEXAS
...to drill for oil and are sending it back to China. wtf
Raven is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-2010, 07:16 AM   #6
JohnR
Certifiable Intertidal Anguiologist
iTrader: (1)
 
JohnR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Somewhere between OOB & west of Watch Hill
Posts: 31,731
Blog Entries: 1
We may be going from abundance to apathy. We are different now than we were 50 years ago, certainly. And I don't think we are different for the better.

We need more signal, less noise.

The boomers are not living up to the high standards brought out by the "Greatest Generation" in managing our country, perhaps Gen X & Y can do a better job.

Perhaps people can be more apolitical and do things in the interest of our country rather than in interest of a party.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Raven View Post
i was talking to my neighbor who told me that the Chinese had bought land in TEXAS
...to drill for oil and are sending it back to China. wtf
Meh, let's see something official on that....

~Fix the Bait~ ~Pogies Forever~

Striped Bass Fishing - All Stripers


Kobayashi Maru Election - there is no way to win.


Apocalypse is Coming:
JohnR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-2010, 09:22 AM   #7
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 5,619
In 1942, Stuart Chase, in his book "The Road We Are Traveling" spelled out the system of planning the Fabian Socialists had in mind; the interesting thing is to look at that plan in comparison to 2010 America.

1. Strong, centralized government.

2. Powerful Executive at the expense of Congress and the Judicial.

3. Government controlled banking, credit and securities exchange.

4. Government control over employment.

5. Unemployment insurance, old age pensions.

6. Universal medical care, food and housing programs.

7. Access to unlimited government borrowing.

8. A managed monetary system.

9. Government control over foreign trade.

10. Government control over natural energy sources, transportation and agricultural production.

11. Government regulation of labor.

12. Youth camps(corps) devoted to health discipline, community service and ideological teaching consistent with those of the authorities.

13. Heavy progressive taxation.
scottw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-2010, 11:11 AM   #8
spence
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
spence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 16,885
Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch View Post
Could someone, Spence, somebody, point out what is wrong with Tytler's observation, or, how it doesn't apply to the drift in American history.
Well, if as you say human nature doesn't change and great civilizations only last 200 years...then we're done for

Generally speaking, he's just telling a somewhat spun story (Glenn Beck style even) to make a pretty simple point. I think few would argue that a financially strong US reinforced with independent and well educated people isn't a good thing.

But the implication of the article is that our current trajectory has doomed us towards bondage because of an already established cycle. We're simply following a patten set by history...ah, unless we wake up and change our course.

Do civilizations really only last 200 years and do they really always follow the same patten? That's a pretty good question to ask. Perhaps the facts are just being fit around the policy to create some intrigue.

While we certainly do have real issues in the US, I don't think we're headed for bondage any time soon. I work with manufacturing companies across many industries and see smart, hardworking Americans churning out innovations that make people's life better and drive our economy every day.

Pessimists may want to see things as America slipping but the reality is that other countries are just catching up...largely by doing what we've taught them to do. I'm not sure this is necessarily a terrible thing.

So let's spend less and focus a bit more on our future, makes sense to me, but I'm not sure we're all that off track.

-spence
spence is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-2010, 11:20 AM   #9
RIJIMMY
sick of bluefish
iTrader: (1)
 
RIJIMMY's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: TEXAS
Posts: 8,672
Oh spence, if it wasnt for those damn trees, someday you may see the forest...

Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post
Do civilizations really only last 200 years and do they really always follow the same patten? That's a pretty good question to ask. Perhaps the facts are just being fit around the policy to create some intrigue.

While we certainly do have real issues in the US, I don't think we're headed for bondage any time soon. I work with manufacturing companies across many industries and see smart, hardworking Americans churning out innovations that make people's life better and drive our economy every day.
yes- but all innovations are a risky investment. How many will fail? Most, and what if they fail BIG? Will the govt step in an bail out the companies, the investors? Will we enact legislation to protect further investment in these innovations?
And for those that succeed? Well, of course it will be more profitable to manufacture these outside the US! Blame regulation, taxes and the unions for that.!


Pessimists may want to see things as America slipping but the reality is that other countries are just catching up...largely by doing what we've taught them to do. I'm not sure this is necessarily a terrible thing.

You are absolutely correct, they're not just catching up! They're beating us! The richest man in the world is Mexican! China and other 3rd world countries are cacthing up to our GDP. And once they're with us, how much will this impact the costs for natural resources. We see it with oil (China and India) but what about rubber, wood, steel, and other raw material. And then eventually FOOD????
Their kids will become more educated, more tech savy, more demading, wanting more and more just like us. But guess what? We've grown soft, our kids are dependant on the state. Their parents didnt work to help them through college, they got grants and free rides. They didnt need jobs, they got healtcare after college. They hung out and played Wii all day and did bong hits. While all the while other countries were moving forward. The US is too busy taking care of their own and eventually? Bondage.



-spence

making s-b.com a kinder, gentler place for all
RIJIMMY is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-22-2010, 12:47 PM   #10
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 2,821
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post
Well, if as you say human nature doesn't change and great civilizations only last 200 years...then we're done for

Human nature is not dependant on civilizations. Civilizations are a product of human nature. The disappearance of a civilization does not delete human nature. The statement to which you refer is not that great civilizations only last 200 years, but that their average life has been about 200 years, implying some last longer, some less. I don't know if that's true, but I don't take that as relevent to the process of decline.

Generally speaking, he's just telling a somewhat spun story (Glenn Beck style even) to make a pretty simple point. I think few would argue that a financially strong US reinforced with independent and well educated people isn't a good thing.

An INDEPENDENT people being the goodest thing.

But the implication of the article is that our current trajectory has doomed us towards bondage because of an already established cycle. We're simply following a patten set by history...ah, unless we wake up and change our course.

Sort of . . . not that the "cycle" is established or that a pattern has been set by history . . . but that democracy, inherently leads to its own destruction through its potential to give the masses the collective power to vote for those who promise to give them unearned wealth redistributed from the public treasury, which leads to financial collapse due to loose fiscal policy.

The wisdom of our founders was to create a Republic rather than a democracy, and create a judicial branch of government that would impede such rush to collective dependence. Unfortunately, they trusted too much in the "honor" of justices to adhere to the Constitution that was supposed to garantee individual rights from being subservient to group "rights" and governmental fiat. The judges have been all too human and have deferred to the collective portion of their human nature.


Do civilizations really only last 200 years and do they really always follow the same patten? That's a pretty good question to ask. Perhaps the facts are just being fit around the policy to create some intrigue.

Again, that was an average. And he was focusing on democracies, not all civilizations. And, yeah, not all "democracies" are the same. And there may not have been any truly pure democracy. The part of his progression that intrigues me, that seems to have some credence in history, is the seduction of the polity by politicians who redistribute wealth, and the ensuing weakening of the population that accepts the goodies.

While we certainly do have real issues in the US, I don't think we're headed for bondage any time soon. I work with manufacturing companies across many industries and see smart, hardworking Americans churning out innovations that make people's life better and drive our economy every day.

Let us be wary of restricting this process from the top. Let us allow this base of American individualism continue to innovate. Perhaps, you might look at bondage on "a spectrum." There is the hard bondage of, say the slaves serving the Pharaoh, and, then, there is the consensual bondage of the soft depotism of a "benevolent" government that will take care of you if you will give it the power to determine your fate.

Pessimists may want to see things as America slipping but the reality is that other countries are just catching up...largely by doing what we've taught them to do. I'm not sure this is necessarily a terrible thing.

We are not slipping in comparison to others catching up. We are slipping in comparison to our own potential. The top down handcuffs make it difficult to be what we Constitutionally are allowed to be. If the rest of the world becomes equal to us, not only in what we've taught them to be economically, but in gaining the individual freedoms with which we have been endowed, that will be a win, win.

So let's spend less and focus a bit more on our future, makes sense to me, but I'm not sure we're all that off track.

-spence
If we can reverse the trend of seeing the Constitution as relative to changing times, and revert back to protecting and preserving it as the foundation which protects us from overbearing government rather than a means to have government do for us, I have confidence that we will remain strong and adaptive to any change.

Last edited by detbuch; 10-22-2010 at 01:19 PM..
detbuch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2010, 07:17 AM   #11
spence
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
spence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 16,885
Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch View Post
Human nature is not dependant on civilizations. Civilizations are a product of human nature. The disappearance of a civilization does not delete human nature. The statement to which you refer is not that great civilizations only last 200 years, but that their average life has been about 200 years, implying some last longer, some less. I don't know if that's true, but I don't take that as relevent to the process of decline.
The point I was making is that if human nature doesn't change, and the 200 year cycle is correct, then we're set up to be at the end of the cycle. Without this device the piece is far less interesting.

Quote:
An INDEPENDENT people being the goodest thing.
As opposed to bondage, of course

Quote:
The wisdom of our founders was to create a Republic rather than a democracy, and create a judicial branch of government that would impede such rush to collective dependence. Unfortunately, they trusted too much in the "honor" of justices to adhere to the Constitution that was supposed to garantee individual rights from being subservient to group "rights" and governmental fiat. The judges have been all too human and have deferred to the collective portion of their human nature.
Excellent point, although I'm not sure all if this should be considered a failure. Some aspects of judicial activism I think can be seen as having benefited society and some as a detriment. Hindsight is always 20/20.

Quote:
The part of his progression that intrigues me, that seems to have some credence in history, is the seduction of the polity by politicians who redistribute wealth, and the ensuing weakening of the population that accepts the goodies.
Agree, there certainly is some truth here that is probably fed by human nature. The outstanding question may be what's really sustainable? Socialism doesn't work, but does that mean some socialistic elements are always negative... or perhaps could they be a positive buffering element in a free market society?

Quote:
Let us be wary of restricting this process from the top. Let us allow this base of American individualism continue to innovate. Perhaps, you might look at bondage on "a spectrum." There is the hard bondage of, say the slaves serving the Pharaoh, and, then, there is the consensual bondage of the soft depotism of a "benevolent" government that will take care of you if you will give it the power to determine your fate.
I think the right mix may be optimal. For instance, I believe that Federal funding for university based R&D has produced dramatic returns in innovation that have benefited independent businesses.

The use of the "spectrum" is appropriate here. I approve.

Quote:
We are not slipping in comparison to others catching up. We are slipping in comparison to our own potential. The top down handcuffs make it difficult to be what we Constitutionally are allowed to be.
Are we any less handcuffed than we were 50 or 100 years ago? I'm not sure we are, but I would agree we can achieve more.

Quote:
If the rest of the world becomes equal to us, not only in what we've taught them to be economically, but in gaining the individual freedoms with which we have been endowed, that will be a win, win.
Most definitely.

Quote:
If we can reverse the trend of seeing the Constitution as relative to changing times, and revert back to protecting and preserving it as the foundation which protects us from overbearing government rather than a means to have government do for us, I have confidence that we will remain strong and adaptive to any change.
As would be expected, I'm all for balance here as well, although I also believe that relativism (moral or otherwise) if not an absolute doesn't have to be linear either.

As an aside, the Constitution was the first app I downloaded to my new iPad.

-spence

Last edited by spence; 10-23-2010 at 07:36 AM..
spence is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-24-2010, 01:27 PM   #12
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 2,821
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post
The point I was making is that if human nature doesn't change, and the 200 year cycle is correct, then we're set up to be at the end of the cycle. Without this device the piece is far less interesting.

What is interesting to me in the piece is Tytler's "cycle," and not so much Kiyosaki's application of it. Though no-one has found the quote in Tytler's works, he certainy wrote about democracy in a way that the quote could be derived.

The Founders were well read in history and may have read Tytler's sceptical views of democracy. He also seems to have been of the mind that, though democracies in the purest sense are a fiction, a republican form of democracy offers the best opportunity for individuals to rise from lower to higher classes. He, like the Founders, based his ideas on his view of human nature. Whether Tytler was influental or not, the Founders chose a republican form that, in its constitutional frame would allow governance to evolve so that, if it adhered to the fundamental guidlines of the Constitution, optimum individual freedom would be preserved. In essence, the Founders created the path that breaks the cycle. We will be sucked into the vortex of Tytler's cycle if we stray from the path.


Excellent point, although I'm not sure all if this should be considered a failure. Some aspects of judicial activism I think can be seen as having benefited society and some as a detriment. Hindsight is always 20/20.


The problem with judicial activism is its precendent of straying from the path and the inherent danger of becoming lost. Nature is not static. It evolves constantly in the infinite directions that its minutest elements take, whether taken by accident or by "choice." Each element remains distinctly what it is by maintaining its integrity, and can become stronger by combining that integrity with another. It fails and disappears when it loses integrity. The integrity of our republic is maintained by adhering to the Constitution. Legislation that evolves over time will maintain that integrity if it stays within the "genetic code" of constitutional bounds. The SCOTUS is our republic's genetic regulator/protecter. If it allows mutations, we become other. Better or worse? Whatever we become may think it's better, but we will have wandered into another political existence and, as Obama wishes, we will be fundamentally transformed.

As for "some aspects of judicial activism" having benefited society--how so? Is a short term "gain" for some group in a society founded on individual freedom beneficial to that society if it restricts that freedom and leads the way, by precedent, to stray from the path that breaks the cycle so that more freedoms are lost and we slip onto a path to bondage?


Agree, there certainly is some truth here that is probably fed by human nature. The outstanding question may be what's really sustainable? Socialism doesn't work, but does that mean some socialistic elements are always negative... or perhaps could they be a positive buffering element in a free market society?

Which socialistic elements? Different forms of economies and governments have simlar elements. It is human nature that buffers all systems. Compassion, good will, honor, love, (and all their opposites) are inherent in our nature, not in our political/social systems. It may be argued that some system may most enable our "good" nature. I think a system derived from a society of free individuals allows human nature to be expressed in its "spectrum" of diversity, and that, on the whole, our good nature will prevail. And, IMO, in a system based on the good of the collective, human nature will be neutralized and suppressed into compliance, obedience, submission.

I think the right mix may be optimal. For instance, I believe that Federal funding for university based R&D has produced dramatic returns in innovation that have benefited independent businesses.

Federal funding, IMO, should be for areas originally in the federal domain. Federal funding for military R&D (the common defense) is good--lots of it--but not stupid waste.

Federal funding for areas outside of what is constitutionally federal leads to far more bad than good. It redistributes all the people's money in ways that favors some people over other people. It creates inflationary cycles wherein huge piles of money that were not previously available are spent and sought and prices rise and the value of money is decreased. And, worse, it constantly flows toward the prestige and dependence on central power. The diverse localities should decide how their public purse should be spent. R&D paid for by corporations, businesses, and even states or local communities will exist without the Feds, will cost much less, and, if the free market is not overly restricted, will be far more diverse than R&D financed by the bottomless pocket of the Fed.Gov. and the particular preferences of those running it at any given time.



Are we any less handcuffed than we were 50 or 100 years ago? I'm not sure we are, but I would agree we can achieve more.

We are probably more handcuffed.


As an aside, the Constitution was the first app I downloaded to my new iPad.

-spence
I approve.

Last edited by detbuch; 10-24-2010 at 01:52 PM..
detbuch is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:39 AM.


Powered by vBulletin. Copyright 2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Please use all necessary and proper safety precautions. STAY SAFE Striper Talk Forums
Copyright 1998-20012 Striped-Bass.com