Vanguard News Network
VNN Media
VNN Digital Library
VNN Reader Mail
VNN Broadcasts

Old January 8th, 2005 #1
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,756
Blog Entries: 34
Default facts about govt (useful for TAA)

http://www.motherjones.com/news/feat...01/12_402.html

With Bush in the White House and Republican leaders in charge of both houses of Congress, Norquist's dream of a withered, tax-starved federal government should be closer than ever to coming true. But so far, the Bush presidency has brought mixed results. Rollbacks in labor laws, environmental regulations, and social programs have cheered Norquist's corporate and conservative supporters, as have tax cuts that could top $1 trillion in the next 10 years. But at the same time, the federal deficit under Bush is set to grow to $480 billion. All told, Bush and the GOP-controlled Congress have overseen an estimated $381 billion expansion in federal spending, including the military campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan that have already required appropriations of more than $150 billion and are likely to cost tens of billions more before they're through. "We have succeeded in making Republicans anti-tax, but we haven't succeeded in making them anti-big-government," says Moore, of the Club for Growth, voicing the frustration of movement conservatives. "He [Bush] is worse than any president since Johnson on spending."
 
Old January 8th, 2005 #2
Polybius
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 175
Cool

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder
http://www.motherjones.com/news/feat...01/12_402.html

With Bush in the White House and Republican leaders in charge of both houses of Congress, Norquist's dream of a withered, tax-starved federal government should be closer than ever to coming true. But so far, the Bush presidency has brought mixed results. Rollbacks in labor laws, environmental regulations, and social programs have cheered Norquist's corporate and conservative supporters, as have tax cuts that could top $1 trillion in the next 10 years. But at the same time, the federal deficit under Bush is set to grow to $480 billion. All told, Bush and the GOP-controlled Congress have overseen an estimated $381 billion expansion in federal spending, including the military campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan that have already required appropriations of more than $150 billion and are likely to cost tens of billions more before they're through. "We have succeeded in making Republicans anti-tax, but we haven't succeeded in making them anti-big-government," says Moore, of the Club for Growth, voicing the frustration of movement conservatives. "He [Bush] is worse than any president since Johnson on spending."
Even for a college grad with some professional numbers training, the magnitude, the sheer size of what a million dollars, or a billon dollars looks like, is hard to imagine.

This may help, and it ties in with your post:
http://www.crunchweb.net/87billion/
 
Old January 9th, 2005 #3
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,756
Blog Entries: 34
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Polybius
Even for a college grad with some professional numbers training, the magnitude, the sheer size of what a million dollars, or a billon dollars looks like, is hard to imagine.

This may help, and it ties in with your post:
http://www.crunchweb.net/87billion/
Thanks.

This is the problem with these fucknuts like bush who don't read and hate those who do. It is hard to have a dim grasp of anything without reading extensively. how can bush have any idea what conservatism actually is. He doesn't. it's just a series of buzzwords that sound good to him or he thinks will sound good to his voters. The left isn't any better in the right. They're sore bush won, and still whining about stolen votes. But bushy has grown the government far more than clinton did. Bushy has pushed the progressive agenda maybe not as hard as a true believer, but a good ways down the road.

The only thing missing to completely socialize our system is single-payer health care.
 
Old January 9th, 2005 #4
Polybius
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 175
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder
Thanks.

This is the problem with these fucknuts like bush who don't read and hate those who do. It is hard to have a dim grasp of anything without reading extensively. how can bush have any idea what conservatism actually is. He doesn't. it's just a series of buzzwords that sound good to him or he thinks will sound good to his voters. The left isn't any better in the right. They're sore bush won, and still whining about stolen votes. But bushy has grown the government far more than clinton did. Bushy has pushed the progressive agenda maybe not as hard as a true believer, but a good ways down the road.

The only thing missing to completely socialize our system is single-payer health care.
You will not see a rational health insurance system until the health care delivery system breaks down to such an extent that only the rich and the super rich can afford health care. As we appraoch that future of a third world health care system in the United States you will see some mild measures to nationalize-socialize the health insurance corporations.

If a rational national or state based single payer health insurance monopoly were advocated---you would have Harry & Louise on the Talmudavision 24/7 knocking the idea.
 
Old January 9th, 2005 #5
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,756
Blog Entries: 34
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Polybius
You will not see a rational health insurance system until the health care delivery system breaks down to such an extent that only the rich and the super rich can afford health care. As we appraoch that future of a third world health care system in the United States you will see some mild measures to nationalize-socialize the health insurance corporations.

If a rational national or state based single payer health insurance monopoly were advocated---you would have Harry & Louise on the Talmudavision 24/7 knocking the idea.
We already have a socialist system in large part. Govt involvement = problems = more government involvement. It has followed that spiral since at least WWII. But pols like Hillary Clinton easily can confuse the little people about cause and effect, and get their anger trained on HMOs and insurance companies.

The takeover failed the first time back in the early nineties. But not by much. The solution is to turn it over to the market completely, and tell people they get what they pay for, and let them assess risks on their own. But that will never happen short of ZOG's ultimate destruction.
 
Old January 9th, 2005 #6
Polybius
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 175
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder
We already have a socialist system in large part. Govt involvement = problems = more government involvement. It has followed that spiral since at least WWII. But pols like Hillary Clinton easily can confuse the little people about cause and effect, and get their anger trained on HMOs and insurance companies.

The takeover failed the first time back in the early nineties. But not by much. The solution is to turn it over to the market completely, and tell people they get what they pay for, and let them assess risks on their own. But that will never happen short of ZOG's ultimate destruction.
The Clintons' couldn't put a rational single payer health insurance system together. Possibly on purpose, or by design.

Personally, I like the idea of each state having a well regulated single payer investor owned health insurance monoply in that state. I think it's in keeping with our Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Our current, as you call it "socialist" system is not working for White Americans and we end up paying both as consumers of health insurance to the insurance corporations, and as taxpayers for the uninsured-under insured!

Don't forget Kaiser Wilhelm and Chancellor Hitler were both strong advocates of national socialist health insurance...even after the Chancellor and Kaiser are long dead...Germany does have a convoluted, but, working system of national health insurance.
 
Old January 9th, 2005 #7
Phantasm
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Lightbulb

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder
...
The only thing missing to completely socialize our system is single-payer health care.
And that... is EXACTLY the point !
These “vampires” have sucked every dime of equity and value out of our system. The Federal Reserve steals the money generated by the issuance and maintenance of this Nation's currency. American citizens are taxed beyond reason. Bush and his buddies have perfected NAFTA, GATT, and the WTO with tax incentives given to companies in exchange for moving out of the US. Our markets are flooded with cheap goods and services from the third world. Uncontrolled immigration, entitlement programs, foreign aid and endless foreign wars...

But every cloud has a silver lining. This chaos and destruction will eventually be noticeable... even to the lemmings and couch potatoes. Once the Joe Sixpacks and Oprah Fans begin to feel the discomfort... things will begin to change. I just hope we're ready when the time comes to tell the REAL story... before the Jews sell their spin.

 
Old January 9th, 2005 #8
Polybius
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 175
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phantasm
But every cloud has a silver lining. This chaos and destruction will eventually be noticeable... even to the lemmings and couch potatoes. Once the Joe Sixpacks and Oprah Fans begin to feel the discomfort... things will begin to change. I just hope we're ready when the time comes to tell the REAL story... before the Jews sell their spin.
No. We must make our own breaks, and not wait for some set of economic/social conditions like some bunch of jew leftoids.
 
Old January 10th, 2005 #9
Abzug Hoffman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 3,483
Default

I called the public library to get info on homeschooling organizations in my state - the only contact they gave me was for the State Dept. of Education.
 
Old January 10th, 2005 #10
Abzug Hoffman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 3,483
Default Why this black woman home schools

From Ebony Homeschoolers page

...Race played an extremely important role in our decision. My husband and I both think that whenever possible, home education is the best educational alternative for African American children. Public school can be hard for anyone to navigate; it's harder for African American children. We were adamant about protecting our daughters from the prevailing stigma of minority underachievement and the achievement gap. Additionally, we didn't want them to feel that they are in any way intellectually inferior to other students, or only deserving of a scant cultural history.

My husband and I also chose home education because we did not want our daughters to simply learn about blacks through the lens of slavery, and then more on to the Civil Rights Movement, and that's all. Along with their other studies, our daughters are going to learn that African Americans, Africans and black people the world over have played a significant and positive role, not just in the United States, but globally and in all fields....
 
Old January 10th, 2005 #11
Phantasm
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Lightbulb

Quote:
Originally Posted by Polybius
No. We must make our own breaks, and not wait for some set of economic/social conditions like some bunch of jew leftoids.
I would tend to agree Polybius.
However, what you suggest is going to be difficult without a unified and cohesive group of Whites. I've always believed that our main goal was reestablishing the White identity along with the right to live, work and associate exclusively with other Whites... without interference from non-Whites and Jews. This objective seems simple to me. Unfortunately, so many other objectives and desires have come into play that our cause is now fragmented and marginalized.

When did we determine that criminal hero worship, hatred of Christians, promotion of violence and psychotic fantasies, ideological elitism, and hate in general... was required to be a White Nationalist? When did we decide that rejecting all societal norms and conventions was essential to our freedom? Most of the people in this cause right now reject the notion that we need to make ourselves palatable to the mainstream.

Before we can "make our own breaks..." we need to remember our "prime directive."
 
Old January 12th, 2005 #12
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,756
Blog Entries: 34
Default

[QUOTE=Polybius]

Quote:
Don't forget Kaiser Wilhelm and Chancellor Hitler were both strong advocates of national socialist health insurance...even after the Chancellor and Kaiser are long dead...Germany does have a convoluted, but, working system of national health insurance.

Doesn't matter who supports a bad idea, it still doesn't work. All single payer means is waiting lists and politicians deciding who gets coverage. It never has worked and never will work.

And when the inevitable because system-caused, systemic, problems occur, the government will blame private industry, as it always does. Single payer is just another verision of rent control, and then blames greedy landlords when they can't afford to fix their properties.

Health care market is no different from any other but government intervention makes it so.
 
Old January 12th, 2005 #13
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,756
Blog Entries: 34
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phantasm
I would tend to agree Polybius.
However, what you suggest is going to be difficult without a unified and cohesive group of Whites. I've always believed that our main goal was reestablishing the White identity along with the right to live, work and associate exclusively with other Whites... without interference from non-Whites and Jews. This objective seems simple to me. Unfortunately, so many other objectives and desires have come into play that our cause is now fragmented and marginalized.
it's only simple, like everything else, in theory. oh yeah, all we need to do is restore freedom of association. well how was it lost in the first place? jews killed it. and so rapidly one easily solved theoretical problem becomes a much more difficult, if not complex, practical-political problem.

our problem is difficult because many forces work to prevent our solving it -- and overcoming those forces is the real challenge.

we just posted something yesterday on brown vs board of education, which along with the sixties acts, killed freedom of association. it's not in the intersts of the niggers or the jew or the christians, as many of them see it, for whites to be allowed to segregate racially. if they hadn't had a problem with it, they would have left it alone in the first place. it wasn't whites who ended free association, it was jews twisting arms, and promoting apes like mlk who killed it.



When did we determine that criminal hero worship, hatred of Christians, promotion of violence and psychotic fantasies, ideological elitism, and hate in general... was required to be a White Nationalist?

that's a loaded question. when christians import monkeys as citizens and support miscegenation -- as they all do almost to a man -- hating them is natural. when jews own all the media and pass hate crimes laws, it is inevitable to draw the conclusion that they mean to make it illegal to overturn their system. when we look to anybody who has taken on the jew in history and won, we turn inevitably to NS Germany.


Quote:
When did we decide that rejecting all societal norms and conventions was essential to our freedom? Most of the people in this cause right now reject the notion that we need to make ourselves palatable to the mainstream.
this is strawman. you fail to acknowledge the judeo-system's role in infiltrating and defining our side -- and suppressing our dissent and counter-self-construction.

you seem to have an essentially conservative view, based on the planted axiom that the failure of WN is mechanical -- ie, we aren't acting right -- rather than systemic -- the intended result of a properly functioning system.

i assure you the latter is the case.

there is no god and there is no referee. we're in a dirty vicious struggle with liars and murderers, and to think we'll peace-luv-and-nice our way out is childish -- that approach, that refined civility, is a large part of what landed us in this mess in the first place.

if one side only cares about winning, and the other side cares about playing by the rules...who do you think will come out on top?

who has?
 
Old January 12th, 2005 #14
Polybius
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 175
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder
Doesn't matter who supports a bad idea, it still doesn't work. All single payer means is waiting lists and politicians deciding who gets coverage. It never has worked and never will work.

And when the inevitable because system-caused, systemic, problems occur, the government will blame private industry, as it always does. Single payer is just another verision of rent control, and then blames greedy landlords when they can't afford to fix their properties.

Health care market is no different from any other but government intervention makes it so.
We are talking about a single payer national health insurance---not about rationing. Why would taking out the middle-man, the profiteer hurt anyone? How could reducing the cost of premimums by possibly 20% hurt anyone? The doctor and the patient make the decision! These private for profit health insurance corporations are purely extraneous to the real work of health care delivery.

Germany has a convoluted national health insurance system---that consists of defaults. If one group doesn't pick your health insurance you default into another group. I don't understand the current German system---but---the Germans like it. Even if it costs them more than it should.

I do think the American health care system should be for Americans only.

I know you are wondering, well what about the darkies? Well the darkies who don't have insurance NOW get it for free either as charity or welfare...
 
Old January 12th, 2005 #15
bluedog39
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: southoffred
Posts: 197
Default

the US is a social democracy and both parties are social democratic(i.e. socilalist) - that shouldn't be hard to figure out. Economic socialism is more workable with a Euro or NE Asian population than with mestizos or blacks but it will eventually fail due to "Bastiat's Law" : in a SocDem system everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else.
 
Old January 12th, 2005 #16
bluedog39
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: southoffred
Posts: 197
Default

Quote:
I do think the American health care system should be for Americans only.
This would require a racial revolution. The current laws in effect give preference
to aliens.Because if you're an alien all you have to do is claim indigence and lack of income,assets,insurance and no social security number.Even if you are a Taiwanese millionaire the hospital will simply take your word for it and give you first- rate care for free. Can you imagine the outrcry from the ACLU and all the other jewish and christian lobbies if we tried to deny medical care to aliens?
 
Old January 12th, 2005 #17
Polybius
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 175
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bluedog39
the US is a social democracy and both parties are social democratic(i.e. socilalist) - that shouldn't be hard to figure out. Economic socialism is more workable with a Euro or NE Asian population than with mestizos or blacks but it will eventually fail due to "Bastiat's Law" : in a SocDem system everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else.
Bastiat is a new one on me...an early practioner of vodoo economics???

Did you know that John Maynard Keynes dedicated the German edition of his book on economics to German Chancellor Hitler...Hitler was a Keynesian too...
 
Old January 12th, 2005 #18
Polybius
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 175
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bluedog39
This would require a racial revolution. The current laws in effect give preference
to aliens.Because if you're an alien all you have to do is claim indigence and lack of income,assets,insurance and no social security number.Even if you are a Taiwanese millionaire the hospital will simply take your word for it and give you first- rate care for free. Can you imagine the outrcry from the ACLU and all the other jewish and christian lobbies if we tried to deny medical care to aliens?
That's a big issue in our attempt to control the cost of health care and health insurance...why should we let foreign nationals wreck our health care system?
 
Old January 12th, 2005 #19
bluedog39
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: southoffred
Posts: 197
Default A Brief Introduction to Bastiat - But feel free to refute him I'm no libertarian

http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html#container1057
When a reviewer wishes to give special recognition to a book, he predicts that it will still be read "a hundred years from now." The Law, first published as a pamphlet in June, 1850, is already more than a hundred years old. And because its truths are eternal, it will still be read when another century has passed. Frederic Bastiat (1801-1850) was a French economist, statesman, and author. He did most of his writing during the years just before — and immediately following — the Revolution of February 1848. This was the period when France was rapidly turning to complete socialism. As a Deputy to the Legislative Assembly, Mr. Bastiat was studying and explaining each socialist fallacy as it appeared. And he explained how socialism must inevitably degenerate into communism. But most of his countrymen chose to ignore his logic. The Law is here presented again because the same situation exists in America today as in the France of 1848. The same socialist-communist ideas and plans that were then adopted in France are now sweeping America. The explanations and arguments then advanced against socialism by Mr. Bastiat are — word for word — equally valid today. His ideas deserve a serious hearing.
A Fatal Tendency of Mankind

Self-preservation and self-development are common aspirations among all people. And if everyone enjoyed the unrestricted use of his faculties and the free disposition of the fruits of his labor, social progress would be ceaseless, uninterrupted, and unfailing.

But there is also another tendency that is common among people. When they can, they wish to live and prosper at the expense of others. This is no rash accusation. Nor does it come from a gloomy and uncharitable spirit. The annals of history bear witness to the truth of it: the incessant wars, mass migrations, religious persecutions, universal slavery, dishonesty in commerce, and monopolies. This fatal desire has its origin in the very nature of man — in that primitive, universal, and insuppressible instinct that impels him to satisfy his desires with the least possible pain.
Property and Plunder
 
Old January 12th, 2005 #20
bluedog39
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: southoffred
Posts: 197
Default

Quote:
That's a big issue in our attempt to control the cost of health care and health insurance...why should we let foreign nationals wreck our health care system?
Because the jews demand it and their fundie xian followers say Amen! You sound way too disingenuous -or maybe you're on the young side.
 
Reply

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:49 AM.
Page generated in 0.60239 seconds.