Wednesday, April 20, 2011

Poll Shows Spending Cuts Are Unpopular
"Most Americans oppose the big spending cuts that many in Washington see as necessary to bring down the budget deficit, a new poll suggests, but they do support one idea for deficit reduction that President Barack Obama has pushed for years – raising taxes on the rich." ( Politico)

Let someone else pay.

Undertaxed or Overspent?
E.C. Pasour Jr.
May 1988 • Volume: 38 • Issue: 5 •

Americans and many other members of the world economic community are worried about the U.S. government s budget deficits. The deficit in any year is the amount by which Federal expenditures exceed receipts. Recent turmoil in U.S. and other financial markets has been attributed to uncertainties about whether and how U.S. budget deficits will be reduced.^[1]There is widespread agreement that the deficit should be reduced but little agreement about how to do it. Much of the disagreement has been over whether the Federal deficit should be reduced by increasing taxes or by reducing spending. The factual question of whether budget deficits during the Reagan era have risen because of lower taxes or increased expenditures is important in the public policy debate.

Historical spending and revenue data cannot be used to justify current levels of expenditures or taxation. However, it is important that thoughtful citizens as well as those directly involved in deficit-cutting legislation be informed about the origins of the deficits. Have recent deficits been the result of taxes falling more than spending or of spending increasing more rapidly than taxes?

Public support for tax increases appears to be rooted in the widely held belief that the former explanation is correct. That is, rising budget deficits during the 1980s are considered to be the fruits of one aspect of "Reaganomics"-reductions in tax rates. The following analysis, contrary to the conventional wisdom and typical news story, demonstrates that Federal budget deficits have increased since 1980 because of increases in government expenditures -- not because of reductions in tax revenues.

Federal Expenditures and Receipts Since 1960

A historical perspective is helpful in studying the relationship between Federal taxes, expenditures, and budget deficits. The budget of the federal government was essentially balanced in 1960, Except for one year (1969), there has been a Federal budget deficit each year during the past quarter century. Indeed, budget deficits during the Reagan Administration have been considerably higher than during any other presidency since 1960. The annual budget deficit as a per cent of Gross National Product (GNP) averaged 4.8 per cent during the first 6 years of the Reagan Administration. In contrast, the deficit reached 4 per cent in only one year (1976) from 1960 to 1981.

Tax receipts as a percentage of GNP averaged 18.2 per cent during the 1960s, 18.3 per cent during the 1970s, and 18.8 per cent since 1980.^[2] Thus, despite tax law changes, including significant reductions in tax rates in 1981, Federal tax receipts have increased, and have increased as a share of GNP as well, during the Reagan era. Rising tax receipts mean that increased deficits during this period were rooted in government spending policies.

There was a gradual and sustained increase in Federal expenditures during the 1960s and 1970s. Federal outlays as a per cent of GNP averaged 19.0 per cent during the 1960s and 20.7 per cent during the 1970s. Since 1980, however, Federal expenditures have increased dramaticallyaveraging 23.6 per cent of GNP.^[3] Budget deficits have increased since 1980 because Federal spending has been outstripping tax receipts even though tax receipts are higher, absolutely and as a share of GNP, than they averaged from 1960 to 1980.

Interest Payments and Social Security Expenditures

Some analysts contend that rising budget deficits since 1980 are a result of too little taxation rather than of too much spending. A 1987 study by Citizens for Tax Justice, for example, claims that spending on Federal programs (excluding Social Security and interest payments on the national debt) has declined since 1980 as a share of GNP. In support of this argument, it is shown that total spending excluding interest expense and Social Security declined from 14.9 per cent in 1980 to 14.3 per cent in 1987.^[4]Citizens for Tax Justice attributes increased budget deficits of the 1980s to tax cuts for corporations and high income individuals that began in the late 1970s and accelerated in the early years of the Reagan presidency.^{[5 ]} The prescription of the Citizens for Tax Justice group is higher taxes on corporations and wealthy individuals, instead of reduced spending for social programs to reduce the budget deficit.

The Citizens for Tax Justice analysis of Federal spending has two major shortcomings. First, even omitting interest expense and Social Security payments from Federal spending data, Federal spending as a share of GNP may not have decreased during the 1980s. For example, total spending as a proportion of GNP averaged 14.5 per cent from 1970 to 1980. Since 1981, however, it has averaged about 15 per cent. Thus, the contention that outlays on Federal programs adjusted in this way have uniformly decreased during the Reagan years is not cor rect, although this comparison is quite sensitive to the years selected. During the decade of the 1960s, for example, Federal spending, excluding interest expense and Social Security, was slightly higher (15.2 per cent versus 15.0 per cent), on average, than during the Reagan era.

The Citizens for Tax Justice approach to the analysis of government spending trends, however, ignores a more fundamental problem. Why should interest expense on the national debt and Social Security payments be omitted in analyzing trends in government spending? Net interest costs were three times as high in fiscal 1986 as in 1980 -- the last year of the Carter Administration. It is true that interest costs are determined by interest rates and the amount of debt and, in this sense, are beyond the control of Congress or the President. In a more fundamental sense, however, past government policies are responsible for the current level of debt, and present government policies influence both future levels of debt and current interest rates. Inflationary monetary and fiscal policies, for example, tend to raise interest outlays for any given level of debt.

Moreover, the distortions of economic activity associated with taxation are similar whether the tax receipts are used for interest payments on the debt or for any other program. Thus, we should include interest on government debt when analyzing trends in government spending.

The situation is similar for Social Security, even if the program is treated as a self-funding entity. From the standpoint of the individual participant, Social Security is a transfer program rather than an insurance program. Payments made to recipients are not actuarially determined by contributions, as they are in a bona fide insurance program. Thus, there is no reason to exclude Social Security taxes and payments in analyzing trends in Federal spending and taxation.

Conclusions and Implications

There is a great deal of concern but no consensus about the economic effects of increasing Federal deficits. The effects of higher deficits on economic activity, including interest rates, international trade, and private investment, are debated within the economics profession, and a summary of these issues is beyond the purview of this paper. However, Nobel Laureate James Buchanan makes a compelling argument that national debt (like private debt) incurred to finance consumption in some past period is tantamount to a reduction in net wealth. He concludes: "The issue of public debt to finance the great and continuing fiscal spree of the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s has been equivalent, in all relevant respects, to the destruction of capital value."^[6]Regardless of the economic effects of higher budget deficits, an analysis of the record of the past quarter century clearly reveals the source of the deficits. When compared with the 1960s and 1970s, Federal taxes as a per cent of GNP have not decreased during the 1980s, whereas Federal expenditures as a share of GNP have increased substantially during this period.

Thus, the evidence strongly supports the conclusion of a recent Tax Foundation analysis of the increased budget deficits of the Reagan era: "We are not undertaxed but overspent."^{[7 ]} []

1. Jeffrey H. Birnbaum and Ellen Hume, "Budget Negotiators May Try to Delay Gramm-Rudman Cuts if Accord Is Near," The Wall Street Journal, November 18, 1987, p. 3.
2. Office of Management and Budget, Historical Tables: Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 1988 (Washington D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. 1987).
3. Ibid.
4. Jeffrey H. Birnbaum and Alan Murray, "Reagan's Assumptions in Budget Cutting Talks Called Dubious by Some Involved in His Decisions," The Wall Street Journal, October 29, 1987, p. 68.
5. Ibid.
6. James M, Buchanan, "Public Debt and Capital Formation," Ch. 18 in Liberty, Market and State: Political Economy in the 1980s (New York: New York University Press, 1986), p. 201.
7. Tax Foundation, "Social Welfare Outlays Dominate Federal Government Expenditures," Tax Features 31 (September 1987); pp. 1-4.

http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/undertaxed-or-overspent/

Transportation Chief Looks for Ways to Make Flying Safer

Transportation Chief Looks for Ways to Make Flying Safer
"Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood says that while the government won't pay air traffic controllers to take naps while on duty, federal officials are open to other options to ensure aviation safety." ( Associated Press)

Here's an option: Put the airports into the competitive marketplace.

Privatize the Airports!
Economic Theory and Experience Demonstrate that Public Airports Don't Work
Lawrence W. Reed
February 1999 • Volume: 49 • Issue: 2 •

Waiting in long lines for everything from a boarding pass to a cheeseburger. Slow luggage delivery. Expensive parking. Jammed concourses. Surly workers. Small, dingy restrooms. Long walks from one flight to another that leave you worn out, with the only "consolation" being that the connecting flight is delayed anyway.

All that may sound like a scene from a Woody Allen movie set in some banana republic, but to midwestern travelers it rings with familiarity. It's just another day at Detroit Metro Airport, owned and operated by Wayne County, Michigan.

Thirty-six U.S. airports recently commissioned a survey of 90,000 passengers, who ranked Detroit dead last for overall quality. The poor rating comes despite hundreds of millions of dollars and many commendable efforts by county and airport officials to make Detroit Metro, in the words of director David Katz, "the most friendly place on the planet." Good intentions and lots of nice new carpeting notwithstanding, the aging airport is simply not keeping up with exploding traffic volume. The planned opening of a long overdue additional terminal in 2001 will help, but realizing Katz's ambition probably will require something much more dramatic and fundamental.

Twenty years have passed since Congress deregulated the domestic airline industry. With airfares down and traffic volume up considerably, airports like Detroit's have experienced problems of congestion and a general decline in the quality of services. Though the general public is aware that airlines were deregulated (specifically, their fares and routes), what is much less known and appreciated is that almost all airports remain largely outside the marketplace, hostage to political decisions and budgetary concerns of the government entities that own and manage them. For consumers, the market has worked well in the skies. It's on the ground, where politicians and their employees rule the roost, that problems often seem frustratingly intractable.

These problems don't have to exist. A growing number of governments around the world are ending similar troubles, but they're doing so by making more than cosmetic changes. They are realizing that private for-profit firms have the incentive and the expertise to operate airports better than almost any public, politicized bureaucracy. These governments are privatizing the management and in some cases even the ownership of their airports. The results are impressive: privatized airports are far more innovative, efficient, and responsive to consumers than are public ones.

Twelve years after Great Britain sold seven of its largest airports in 1986including Heathrow, Gatwick, and Glasgowthe program has proven successful by every measure. An astonishing 2.2 million citizens bought 1.4 billion shares in the newly privatized British Airports Authority (BAA). The flying public has been greeted with an aggressively entrepreneurial attitude aimed at pleasing customers. The airports themselves have undergone substantial physical improvements, and the British treasury has stopped being drained by subsidies.

The British model is spreading. Patrick Cowell, president and CEO of Airport Group International, reports that, "countries from Germany to Australia are now racing to privatize their airports." Operation and management of most of Canada's largest airportsincluding Vancouverare now in private hands, as is air traffic control. This past November, I landed at Nadi International Airport in the Fiji Islands within days after it too went private, and I survived just fine.

In the United States there have been no outright sales of major commercial airports, but contracting with private companies for many elements of operation and management is taking off. Allegheny County in Pennsylvania contracted with BAA in 1992 to have it design, build, lease, and manage a retail complex for Pittsburgh International Airport. The resulting "AirMall" of commercial businessesmany entering the Pittsburgh market for the first timehas increased per-passenger sales at the airport from $2.40 in 1992 to $8.10 in 1997, generating at least 900 new jobs.

In 1995, the city of Indianapolis turned over the day-to-day management of Indianapolis International Airport entirely to BAA. The company agreed to a performance-based contract in which certain operations and maintenance-cost savings had to be met before it received compensation. That incentive spurred BAA to work hard to cut costs dramatically. At the same time, the addition of 22 new retail stores, 2,300 new parking spaces, and a shuttle bus service boosted non-airline revenue at the airport by 20 percent, with further increases expected. The next logical stepactually selling a major commercial airport to private ownersmay occur within the next decade or so.

If Indianapolis and Pittsburghindeed, even London and Fijican privatize, why can't Detroit? One reason is the same political inertia that afflicts most government airports. As long as the airport is a patronage machine for the politically well connected, politicians naturally resist any move that diminishes their role.

Another reason that may be particularly acute in Detroit is organized labor. Excessive labor costs because of featherbedding and cumbersome work rules have characterized one Wayne County operation after another. For a privately run Detroit Metro Airport to happen, those practices must give way to more reasonable and hospitable labor-management relationships.

Yet another reason for the lack of privatization is the "Basic Agreement" that exists between Wayne County and the airlines, overwhelmingly dominated by Northwest Airlines. The agreement effectively gives Northwest a veto over the privatization option at Detroit Metro. The airline is worried about landing fees, among other concerns. (Interestingly, landing fees at Indianapolis have remained low and reasonable since BAA took over; the private company understands that gouging major customers is not in its interest.) Wayne County has done what no government should ever do: grant monopoly privileges to one firm when competition was not only possible but would surely have served the public far better.

There is nothing in the stars that ordains airports to be owned and managed by governments. Both economic theory and recent experience demonstrate that. The sooner airports are run by private enterprise, the better.

http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/privatize-the-airports/

RE: JP Imran Khan Ka Sahih Mu'akkaf

why not honest &Good person.

plz send any contact imran khan?

From: zshansiddiqui@hotmail.com
To: joinpakistan@googlegroups.com; pakistani-girls@googlegroups.com; star-friends-group@googlegroups.com
Subject: **JP** Imran Khan Ka Sahih Mu'akkaf
Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2011 23:55:09 -0400

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "JoinPakistan" group.
You all are invited to come and share your information with other group members.
To post to this group, send email to joinpakistan@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com.pk/group/joinpakistan?hl=en?hl=en
You can also visit our blog site : www.joinpakistan.blogspot.com &
on facebook http://www.facebook.com/pages/Join-Pakistan/125610937483197

New info about President Obama's birthplace!

He was born in ICELAND. His parents were refugees from Kosovo and
Iraq. His uncles and aunts are all Communists!

Donald Trumph has been notified . . .

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Weed in Massachusetts

Less than an ounce was decriminalized. I'm down wit dat.

But, yesterday the state Supreme Judicial Court ruled that the smell
of marijuana is NOT justification for a cop to order the driver to get
out of the car. OUI statutes are NOT limited to alcohol, but any
drug, and the smell of alcohol is more than enough justification for
such an order.

The ruling resulted from a cop smelling weed, and ordering the driver
out of the car. He also had a big bag of rock.

All thrown out, as the search was illegal.

Oh, and in Amherst, MA, you can't smoke cigarettes in your car, but
now weed is just fine.

Only in the liberal Nirvana known as Massachusetts.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: Wringing-the-Neck of Empty Ritual.

Jonathan: For you, anything 'right' of anarchy is socialist. I

What is it YOU imagine socialism to entail?

Regard$,
--MJ

"When the first cave man clubbed his neighbor to expropriate the food his neighbor had gathered, he gave blunt, physical expression to the essence of socialist society" Lawrence W. Reed (1978).

UN Embarrassed by Forecast on Climate Refugees

04/18/2011
Feared Migration Hasn't Happened
UN Embarrassed by Forecast on Climate Refugees
By Axel Bojanowski

Six years ago, the United Nations issued a dramatic warning that the world would have to cope with 50 million climate refugees by 2010. But now that those migration flows have failed to materialize, the UN has distanced itself from the forecasts. On the contrary, populations are growing in the regions that had been identified as environmental danger zones.

It was a dramatic prediction that was widely picked up by the world's media. In 2005, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the United Nations University declared that 50 million people could become environmental refugees by 2010, fleeing the effects of climate change.

But now the UN is distancing itself from the forecast: "It is not a UNEP prediction," a UNEP spokesman told SPIEGEL ONLINE. The forecast has since been removed from UNEP's website.

Official statistics show that the population in areas threatened by global warming is actually rising. The expected environmental disasters have yet to materialize.

In October 2005, UNU said: "Amid predictions that by 2010 the world will need to cope with as many as 50 million people escaping the effects of creeping environmental deterioration, United Nations University experts say the international community urgently needs to define, recognize and extend support to this new category of 'refugee.'"

It added that "such problems as sea level rise, expanding deserts and catastrophic weather-induced flooding have already contributed to large permanent migrations and could eventually displace hundreds of millions."

In 2008, Srgjan Kerim, president of the UN General Assembly, said it had been estimated that there would be between 50 million and 200 million environmental migrants by 2010. A UNEP web page showed a map of regions where people were likely to be displaced by the ravages of global warming. It has recently been taken offline but is still visible in a Google cache.

'What Happened to the Climate Refugees?'

The UNEP spokesman said the map had been produced for a newspaper "based on various sources." He said the map had been taken off the UNEP website "because it was causing confusion and making some journalists think UNEP was the source of such forecasts."

Given the UN's warnings of a tide of environmental refugees, the Asian Correspondent, a news and comment website, published an article this month titled "What Happened to the Climate Refugees?"

Bloggers then pounced on the prediction and heaped scorn on it. But they have encountered the same problems that scientists did in trying to forecast the impact of climate change: It is very difficult to define the term climate refugee.

Scientists have been claiming for years that some 25 million people have already been displaced by adverse environmental conditions. Drought, storms and floods have always plagued parts of the world's population. The environmentalist Norman Myers, a professor at Oxford University, has been particularly bold in his forecasts. At a conference in Prague in 2005, he predicted there would be 50 million climate refugees by 2010.

"As far back as 1995 (latest date for a comprehensive assessment), these environmental refugees totalled at least 25 million people, compared with 27 million traditional refugees (people fleeing political oppression, religious persecution and ethnic troubles)," Myers said. "The environmental refugees total could well double between 1995 and 2010."

"When global warming takes hold," he added, "there could be as many as 200 million people overtaken by disruptions of monsoon systems and other rainfall regimes, by droughts of unprecedented severity and duration, and by sea-level rise and coastal flooding." Myers' report may have been the basis for the UN statements in 2005.

Forecasts in Doubt

But Myers' forecasts are controversial in scientific circles. Stephen Castles of the International Migration Institute at Oxford University contradicted the horror scenarios in an interview with SPIEGEL in 2007. Myers and other scientists were simply looking at climate change forecasts and counting the number of people living in areas at risk of flooding, said Castles, author of the "The Age of Migration." That made them arrive at huge refugee numbers.

Castles said people usually don't respond to environmental disasters, war or poverty by emigrating abroad. That appears to be confirmed by the behavior of victims of last month's devastating earthquake and tusnami in Japan. Many survivors are returning to rebuild their ruined towns and villages.

The UNU statement from 2005 highlights the difficulties involved in predicting the impact of global warming. The Yemeni capital Sanaa was cited as an example of the threat of climate migration. Sanaa's ground water was falling "by 6 meters a year and may be exhausted by 2010, according to the World Bank," the statement said.

In 2010, the IRIN news agency, a service of the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, reported that Sanaa "may run out of economically viable water supplies by 2017." Meanwhile the city's population has increased: between 2004 and 2010, it expanded by 585,000 people to almost 2.3 million. Nevertheless, there is no sign of an exodus resulting from a shortage of water.

The same applies to other nations that were classified as particularly endangered on the UNEP map of the world, such as Bangladesh, the Cook Islands and Western Sahara. In these countries and others, the population numbers have increased, according to official data. Even the Pacific island nation of Tuvalu still has its 10,000 inhabitants, even though their relocation had already been planned. The reason may be that many low-lying Pacific islands are actually increasing in size despite the rise in ocean levels, because of a build-up caused by coral debris eroded from reefs and deposited on the islands by storms and sea currents.

Outlook for 2020

The UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which regularly issues a report summarizing the latest research, is vague when it comes to diagnosing environmental change. For example, the change in precipitation in the African Sahel zone has so far shown no clear trend. But the forecasts based on climate simulations for the next 90 years indicate drought for the region.

The UNEP spokesman said land degradation, the loss of forests and other environmental changes were accelerating, and that UNEP was concerned about the "impact such trends will have on lives and livelihoods and movements of people."

Meanwhile a new forecast is doing the rounds. At the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) in February, Cristina Tirado, an environment researcher at the University of California in Los Angeles, warned of 50 million environmental refugees in the future. That figure was a UN projection she said -- for 2020.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,757713,00.html

The EU Crackup

The EU Crackup
by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.

Political upheaval has hit Finland, and it's merely a foreshadowing of bigger changes ahead. The core issue is whether Finland ought to be paying for bailouts for other EU states. In reaction to establishment support for the bailout, voters ousted the pro-bailout ruling party and gave an upset victory to the bailout-critical conservative party. Against every expectation, the eternal rule of the social democrats is at an end.

But most striking of all are the gains made by a previously invisible party called True Finns. This is the only party to take a hardcore position: no bailouts at all. It also so happens that this party is predictably nationalist on issues of trade and immigration. But that's not the source of the appeal. The bailout is what is on everyone's mind. And you know that the anger must be palpable if it fired up the usually sleepy world of Finnish politics.

In the sweep of history, few issues are as politically volatile as tax-funded bailouts of foreign countries, especially during difficult economic times. It's a policy that provokes dramatic political change. The 20th century's most famous case was in interwar Germany, when nationwide resentment against payments to conquering allied nations ushered in National Socialist rule.

It should be no surprise that over-taxed Finns have no interest in sending their tax dollars to bail out the banking industry of Portugal, a country that is 2,500 miles and two days travel away. Even governments should have learned long ago that it is never a good idea to enact these sorts of policies. In this case, however, every EU nation is bound by a political contract to bail out any other; the bailouts are embedded in the very structure of how the political, financial, and monetary sector is currently structured.

The entire EU system is afflicted with the paper money disease. It creates a boom that balloons the banking sector, allows politicians to spend wildly, and encourages private enterprise to expand operations in an unsustainable way. Then the bust comes and everything falls apart. Government revenue crashes, banks are threatened with insolvency, and mass bankruptcies are apparent everywhere.

There is a fork in the road, one branch labeled liquidation and the other bailout. When the fiat money is availableand with their favorite interest group, the banking establishment, warning of the end of the worldguess which way the politicians choose? This is why member states are being told that they must cough up $129 billion (it will be more) to save Portugal from its own problems.

It's not that politicians all over Europe (and the US) love Portugal so much that they are glad to lavish it with more paper money. The real fear is contagion. If Portugal goes, Spain and Italy are next, and then the whole shaky system comes down, first in Europe, then in the UK, and finally in the US. This is the scenario that allows politicians once again to paper over the problem rather than confront it.

Wasn't the invention of the European Central Bank supposed to control credit expansion in Europe? Philipp Bagus, in his book The Tragedy of the Euro, identifies a fatal flaw. There is nothing that the ECB can do, even if it wanted to, about sovereign state finances or the fractional-reserve banking system that feeds on government-created debt. The ECB can control money injections, but it can't stop debt creation or the banks that thrive on it.

This debt creation generates its own unsustainable boom. A country's finances then correct to reflect reality and the banking system comes under pressure. Then the bailouts begin. What ends up happening is that the (relatively) frugal states in the European Union subsidize the less frugal ones. There is moral hazard embedded in the very structure of the entire system.

Nothing is going to fix it. Bailouts are only temporary aids until the next round of credit-fueled profligacy. And there is absolutely nothing that the ECB can do to stop it. Every profligate country knows that it is too big to fail, and that it enjoys presumed access to the financial resources of every other state in the EU. So the result is ongoing and worsening bailouts, leading to total bankruptcy.

For this reason, everyone knows that there is far more at stake than just Portugal. The entire system of European finance and monetary arrangements is broken. It can't be repaired with patchwork bailouts. At some point, the flaw in the system will have to be fixed (via a hard currency) or there will be a reversion to sovereign paper currencies and the Euro will be chalked up as yet another failed experiment in monetary and regional planning.

Keep in mind that this is the third country to be bailed out recently. Ireland and Greece came first. And those bailouts barely worked. Once we plough through the smaller countries, we will move on to the larger countries. And there is not enough money, absent hyperinflation, to bail out Spain, much less Italy.

The European Central Bank, which has been less irresponsible than the Fed in recent days, is the first world central bank to do what should have been done three years ago. It is raising rates with the intention of tightening money. The Fed should and must do the same thing. But there is a problem. If real interest rates reflected financial reality – with no presumed bailouts and no power to create new money – they would be sky high.

The Portugal case and the Finnish reaction should serve as a wake-up call. All these bailouts and stimulus packages cannot hide the fact that the governments and banking systems of the US and Europe are fundamentally bankrupt, sustained only by the power to create money out of thin air. Each intervention is working to buy time but not to deal with the fundamental problem. And each time when the problems return, they are worse than before.

It doesn't take a True Finn to recognize the injustice of bailouts for foreign governments. Neither nationalism nor bailouts will fix the real problem. We will eventually find our way back to sound money. But it is going to be terrible slogging, and real convulsions, along the way.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/the-eu-crackup178.html

Re: JP AAJ K COLUMN 20 APRIL'2011

اسلا م وعلیکم
آپ کا بہت شکریہ کہ آپ اتنی محنت سے تما م کالم جمع کر کے ہم سب بھیجتے ہیں شکریہ اللہ آپ کو خو ش رکھیں آمین
۔عینی نیازی

On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 6:02 AM, KASHIF CHATHA <kashif.chatha74@gmail.com> wrote:

ASSALAM-O-ALAIKUM
AUR
SUBAH BAKHAIR.
--

Kashif Chatha

Sheikhupura

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "JoinPakistan" group.
You all are invited to come and share your information with other group members.
To post to this group, send email to joinpakistan@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com.pk/group/joinpakistan?hl=en?hl=en
You can also visit our blog site : www.joinpakistan.blogspot.com &
on facebook http://www.facebook.com/pages/Join-Pakistan/125610937483197

RE: JP Ranger's Offer

Sahih kaha govt kabhi nahi karega gi kyunkeh agar ghair janibdarana tehkeekat ho gayi to hukumat or opposition ki apni poll khul jayegi keh woh Karachi mai kiya karte phir rahey hain jageerdarana nizam ko bachaney k liiye.

Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2011 00:19:45 -0700
From: awali3333@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: **JP** Ranger's Offer
To: joinpakistan@googlegroups.com; pakistani-girls@googlegroups.com

Impossible for Govt. without the permission of UK Headquarter..!

--- On Wed, 4/20/11, Zeeshan Siddiqui <zshansiddiqui@hotmail.com> wrote:

From: Zeeshan Siddiqui <zshansiddiqui@hotmail.com>
Subject: **JP** Ranger's Offer
To: joinpakistan@googlegroups.com, pakistani-girls@googlegroups.com
Date: Wednesday, April 20, 2011, 4:15 AM

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "JoinPakistan" group.
You all are invited to come and share your information with other group members.
To post to this group, send email to joinpakistan@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com.pk/group/joinpakistan?hl=en?hl=en
You can also visit our blog site : www.joinpakistan.blogspot.com &
on facebook http://www.facebook.com/pages/Join-Pakistan/125610937483197

JP INSAAN KI KEEMAT...

The News Tribe

Judges appointment case: SC rejects govt's review petition

Islamabad: The Supreme Court of Pakistan on Wednesday rejected federation's petition challenging court verdict of striking down decision of the Parliamentary Committee in which the NA body had rejected the recommendations of the Judicial Commission regarding appointments of judges in the superior courts.

Pakistan

ZAB case: cabinet approves questions of law

Islamabad: Federal Information Minister Firdous Ashiq Awan has said that the government adopted legal way to file reference in the Supreme Court, seeking to reopen Bhutto case. Read More →

20 killed in Indian helicopter crash

Guwahati: Twenty people were killed and three others were injured in a helicopter crash in north-east India near China border, news agencies reported on Tuesday. Read More →

UNSC fails to reach agreement on Yemen

New York: The members of UN Security Council have called for restraint and dialogue between protesters and authorities in Yemen. Read More →

DG ISI visited US after government approval

Islamabad: Pakistan Prime Minister Syed Yousuf Raza Gilani has said that Pakistan is in difficult situation because of front line state in war on terror, but Pakistan's military and political...

Japan may hike sales tax to 8 pc

Tokyo: Japanese consumers may have to help foot the reconstruction bill after last month's earthquake and tsunami caused US$300 billion (S$374.2 billion) in damage, further burdening the...

Flower, Fletcher shortlisted for Indian coaching

New Dehli: Former Zimbabwe player and English cricket team's coach Andy Flower has been shortlisted for the coaching of Indian cricket team. Read More →

Ranbir shoots item song for kids

New Delhi: Bollywood Actor Ranbir Kapoor shot a promotional video for kids' film "Chillar Party", directed by Vikas Bahl. He plays himself in the video, but his look is that...

iPhones, iPad: Apple sues Samsung for 'copying'

World popular Apple is suing Samsung Electronics for allegedly copying the design of its iPad and iPhone. It claims Samsung's Galaxy range of mobile phones and tablet "slavishly"...

10 years in a desk job can double bowel cancer risk

Here's bad news for those who sit in front of a computer all day at work. A new study has suggested...

Amazing

Dog-shaped wedding cake sets world record

London: A giant dog-shaped cake has been created in celebration of the upcoming royal marriage of Prince...

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: Can Donald Trump 'Fix' the Thin Ice that the USA is skating on?

Jonathan: Donald Trump has several things other candidates lack. I
like him because he isn't bound by mass-minded party thinking. For
years I've wondered why the USA fights expensive wars to benefit other
nations, but expects the American taxpayer to foot the bill. Iraq
(for one) OWES us trillions for kicking out their dictator. Trump,
also, realizes that the USA doesn't need China. To return jobs to
America, we must start taxing the import their of goods coming here.
Of course we can't subsidize lazy and inefficient workers. Once the
burden of over-taxation is removed from businesses, the demand for
skilled manufacturing job workers will go through the roof. NAFTA
certainly didn't help the job situation in the USA. China uses
'forced labor' (over-time) to keep their prices low. Every time you
buy something made in China it is on the backs of still oppressed
workers. A 25% import duty should be about right. Once China starts
paying its people fairly, I'll pit the productivity of American
workers against Chinese workers any day! — J. A. A. —
>
On Apr 16, 5:22 pm, Jonathan Ashley <jonathanashle...@lavabit.com>
wrote:
> Fascism, Anyone?
> By Michael Hurd
> 13 April 2011
>
> If Barack Obama hammered the nails in the coffin of the American
> republic, it will be Donald Trump who buries it.
>
> In a recent article, I wrote that Donald Trump would not be a President
> who restored capitalism and individual rights, but would be a President
> who would initiate fascism. If his attitudes and beliefs about the cult
> of personality applied to government donï¿½t convince you, then consider
> some of his policy positions reported in a recent interview Trump gave
> to the conservative publication, ï¿½Human Events.ï¿½
>
> Donald Trump favors protectionism. In other words, he advocates "free
> trade, but also fair trade." This is what socialists and fascists say;
> it's not what proponents of capitalism say. He wants a 25 percent tax on
> all products and services that come from China.
>
> Who does this punish? People who want products and services from China.
>
> Who does this reward? People who will have to work less hard to charge
> more for items that China can no longer sell in the U.S.
>
> What seems on the surface like it's harming a fascist country -- by
> making America more socialist and fascist itself -- actually hurts
> consumers in the free country. If Trump wants to hurt China, he
> shouldn't hurt the American consumer. He should lift all the taxes,
> regulations and other socialist policies hampering American business.
> Restoring capitalism in the United States is the way to defeat the
> fascist-socialist Chinese.
>
> Donald Trump says that protectionism is the solution to the exploding
> federal deficit. He doesn't care about cutting programs the government
> has no business funding. He does care about restraining trade with other
> countries because, in his mind, this will improve the economy and
> eliminate the need to cut spending. He says that the budget deficit
> isn't caused by less productive Americans mooching off more productive
> ones; he says it's caused by "freeloading" foreign countries. There's no
> talk of reducing or eliminating foreign aid, however. He wants to punish
> American business and the American consumer -- all in the "American
> interest."
>
> Donald Trump personally likes and gets along with liberals such as
> Senators Harry Reid, Chuck Schumer, and John Kerry. He expects
> Republicans to view this as a good thing. If he can get along with such
> people, then "things will get done." But what exactly will get done? The
> kind of things that John Kerry, Chuck Schumer and John Kerry want to get
> done? Things like trying terrorists in civilian courts, raising taxes,
> using the FCC to restrain freedom of speech, and socializing medicine?
>
> These are the sorts of things these men strongly and seriously support.
>
> What does it say about Donald Trump that he personally likes and enjoys
> spending time with such men? By the way, public records indicate that
> 60% of Donald Trump's campaign donations go to Democrats. If their views
> are his views, what do people who support opposite policies have to gain
> by supporting Donald Trump?
>
> Trump reversed his views on abortion, from pro-choice to "pro-life" only
> after switching parties from Democrat to Republican in 2009. No real
> reason is given, other than that's what you have to do to be a
> Republican. What does this say about his devotion to principle -- any
> principle at all? In fact, pro-choice is one of the only issues about
> which Democrats are right. How does it benefit a rational voter -- who
> wants freedom in the bedroom as well as in the bank account -- to
> support a man who reversed course in the wrong direction, on this issue?
>
> What does this say about how seriously he takes the principle that
> church and state should be separate?
>
> Trump insists that government spending is the means to greatness: ï¿½I
> want to build our highways. When I look at airports in China, at
> airports in Abu Dhabi and Qatar and the different places, [and then] you
> land in New York, at LaGuardia Airport, at Kennedy Airport, itï¿½s like a
> Third World airport system.ï¿½ For his entire adult life, Trump has
> operated in the private sector of business. He has accomplished a great
> deal, and made a lot of money. Doesn't this suggest the private sector
> is where the best, brightest and the most capable flourish? Well, for
> him maybe. But not when it comes to any future growth. In the past, a
> private sector was needed so that Donald Trump could flourish under
> capitalism. Now that Donald Trump is to be our leader -- well, the
> public sector is all we need to rebuild roads and airports. The
> government sector is infamous for its inefficiency, bureaucracy and lack
> of incentive due to the absence of profit and loss. Somehow, with Trump
> in charge, all will be different. The nature of the public/government
> sector will magically become different from what it inherently is -- if
> only Trump is in charge. Like Hitler and Mussolini, the planes and the
> trains will run on time. That is, once the great Donald Trump controls
> everything.
>
> Trump says: "When this country becomes profitable again, we can take
> care of our sick; we can take care of our needy. We donï¿½t have to cut
> Social Security; we donï¿½t have to cut Medicare and Medicaid. We can take
> care of people that need to be taken care of. And I'll be able to do
> that." With whose money, Donald? If you mean your own money, you don't
> need to be President to take care of people. Medicare, Medicaid and
> Social Security are bottomless pits. The more free money the government
> sends out, the more demand there is for still more. The demand for
> entitlement programs exceeds demand for anything private business could
> ever produce. Yet it's the private and productive sector that subsidizes
> this endless and bottomless pit. Many Republicans and even a few
> Democrats understand this. If Donald Trump doesn't, then how can he
> expect to lead Americans in facing the reality that entitlement programs
> are by their very nature unsustainable?
>
> Donald Trump shares the delusional thinking of all fascists. "If only I
> were in charge, all would be fine." The laws of nature do not apply, if
> Trump is in charge. And individual rights don't really matter, if only
> Trump is in charge.
>
> Ready for fascism, America? Ready for the Trump form of socialism? Trump
> stands ready to impose it. Barack Obama has the ideology of a fascist.
> Trump has the style and the policies to make it really happen. If Barack
> Obama hammered the nails in the coffin of the American republic, it will
> be Donald Trump who buries it.
>
> http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/politics/elections/6369-fascism-any...
>
> On 04/16/2011 01:34 PM, NoEinstein wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Can Donald Trump ï¿½Fixï¿½ the Thin Ice that the USA is skating on?
> > The contrast is striking between the potential presidential candidacy
> > of The Donald and every other might-be candidate mentioned. For one
> > thing, if The Donald says he can fix somethingï¿½like our broke economyï¿½
> > you can damn-well take him seriously! Some of you may recall that a
> > certain new ice skating rink in New Yorkï¿½s Central Park started
> > leaking water and couldnï¿½t be used. That work had been done by three
> > or four labor unions with each one pointing the fingers at the other.
> > After millions of dollars had been wasted on attempted patches, The
> > Donald took over the entire job and had happy skaters out on that ice
> > before long.
>
> > Every day when I realize how much labor unions of all kinds are
> > effectively screwing the US economy and preventing our having a really
> > ï¿½freeï¿½ free enterprise system, I think of The Donald. He has been
> > able to find considerable success working in the morass of labor
> > unions and government regulations that are found in NYC. That man
> > THRIVES on being able to get the disparate powers-that-be to get the
> > job done! Part of the secret is his charisma. But most of it is
> > because he is a trustworthy man-of-his-word. He makes sure that all
> > those involved in a project realize just what their responsibilities
> > are, and what they are expected to do if there are any glitches. In
> > short, The Donald is one of the top businessmen in the country of all
> > time. His executive experience probably exceeds that of the governors
> > of most states. Under him people do their jobs and do them well.
> > Just having The Donald as the head man improves the quality of
> > projects, because itï¿½s an honor just to be associated with one of his
> > projects!
>
> > Obviously, Donald Trump is politically conservative. But he doesnï¿½t
> > owe-his-soul to the Republican Party like most of his would-be rivals
> > do even without realizing that they do. The USA has been hamstrung
> > trying to avoid looking like a colonialist aggressor every time we
> > ï¿½invadeï¿½ other nations to help the oppressed. The reason oil fields
> > get set on fire is because those people suppose we are thereï¿½ just for
> > their oil. By destroying the oil, they believe we will simply go
> > away. The blind-leading-the-blind in our government think that the
> > USA has the financial wherewithal to finance long wars, and will have
> > enough wherewithal remaining to rebuild the busted infrastructure of
> > the invaded countries; train the new armies; and care for those ï¿½poorï¿½
> > people till they are back on their feet. All of that is being done
> > like forced charity from the big-hearted American People whose
> > standards of living keep dropping, because of the explosion in the
> > size and the over-control of our government. If The Donald can get us
> > trillions of dollars worth of oil to repay the American Taxpayers for
> > our sacrifices, Iï¿½ll vote for him!
>
> > Some good news is that Republicans now have trillions of dollars in
> > ï¿½possibleï¿½ budget cuts that might save this country. The bad news is
> > that those takes-too-long-to-happen cuts will still leave the never-
> > should-have-been-there-in-the-first-place entitlement programs being
>
> ...
>
> read more »

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: Wringing-the-Neck of Empty Ritual.

Jonathan: Jealousy does not become you! A caveman in NYC would be
living out of Donald Trump's dumpsters. — J. A. Armistead — Patriot
>
On Apr 19, 1:12 pm, Jonathan Ashley <jonathanashle...@lavabit.com>
wrote:
> **John,
>
> Not only is Donald Trump a socialist, he is also a bad businessman.
>
> *Sounding The Trumpet On RINO Donald Trump*http://www.newswithviews.com/Devvy/kidd499.htm
>
> *Donald Trump Sued In New Lawsuit Over Failed Project*http://www.luxist.com/2010/03/09/donald-trump-facing-new-lawsuit-over...
>
> *Donald Trump: Not As Great A Businessman As He Claims To Be*http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/donald-trump-not-as-great-a-business...
>
> *More Lawsuits Filed Over Trump Tower Chicago*http://cribchatter.com/?p=5953
>
> On 04/18/2011 08:48 PM, NoEinstein wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Folks: The following essay contains the first two articles of my New
> > Constitution. I'm copying it, below, so those looking in the present
> > post can find it. Hope you readers are having a great Spring!
>
> > Can Donald Trump ï¿½Fixï¿½ the Thin Ice that the USA is skating on?
>
> > The contrast is striking between the potential presidential candidacy
> > of The Donald and every other might-be candidate mentioned. For one
> > thing, if The Donald says he can fix somethingï¿½like our broke economyï¿½
> > you can damn-well take him seriously! Some of you may recall that a
> > certain new ice skating rink in New Yorkï¿½s Central Park started
> > leaking water and couldnï¿½t be used. That work had been done by three
> > or four labor unions with each one pointing the fingers at the other.
> > After millions of dollars had been wasted on attempted patches, The
> > Donald took over the entire job and had happy skaters out on that ice
> > before long.
>
> > Every day when I realize how much labor unions of all kinds are
> > effectively screwing the US economy and preventing our having a really
> > ï¿½freeï¿½ free enterprise system, I think of The Donald. He has been
> > able to find considerable success working in the morass of labor
> > unions and government regulations that are found in NYC. That man
> > THRIVES on being able to get the disparate powers-that-be to get the
> > job done! Part of the secret is his charisma. But most of it is
> > because he is a trustworthy man-of-his-word. He makes sure that all
> > those involved in a project realize just what their responsibilities
> > are, and what they are expected to do if there are any glitches. In
> > short, The Donald is one of the top businessmen in the country of all
> > time. His executive experience probably exceeds that of the governors
> > of most states. Under him people do their jobs and do them well.
> > Just having The Donald as the head man improves the quality of
> > projects, because itï¿½s an honor just to be associated with one of his
> > projects!
>
> > Obviously, Donald Trump is politically conservative. But he doesnï¿½t
> > owe-his-soul to the Republican Party like most of his would-be rivals
> > do even without realizing that they do. The USA has been hamstrung
> > trying to avoid looking like a colonialist aggressor every time we
> > ï¿½invadeï¿½ other nations to help the oppressed. The reason oil fields
> > get set on fire is because those people suppose we are thereï¿½ just for
> > their oil. By destroying the oil, they believe we will simply go
> > away. The blind-leading-the-blind in our government think that the
> > USA has the financial wherewithal to finance long wars, and will have
> > enough wherewithal remaining to rebuild the busted infrastructure of
> > the invaded countries; train the new armies; and care for those ï¿½poorï¿½
> > people till they are back on their feet. All of that is being done
> > like forced charity from the big-hearted American People whose
> > standards of living keep dropping, because of the explosion in the
> > size and the over-control of our government. If The Donald can get us
> > trillions of dollars worth of oil to repay the American Taxpayers for
> > our sacrifices, Iï¿½ll vote for him!
>
> > Some good news is that Republicans now have trillions of dollars in
> > ï¿½possibleï¿½ budget cuts that might save this country. The bad news is
> > that those takes-too-long-to-happen cuts will still leave the never-
> > should-have-been-there-in-the-first-place entitlement programs being
> > run by government. After the nearly 15 years that Iï¿½ve spent penning
> > and polishing my New Constitution, I have better than average ideas
> > how to fix our government, fast. The following 5 things arenï¿½t
> > written into the New Constitution, but are of fundamental importance:
>
> > 1. Get our government out of the entitlement business! Privatize
> > Social Security; Medicare; Medicaid; and Unemployment Insurance, etc.
> > Like the Republicans are now planning to do, protect those now in
> > programs from being hurt who are close to retirement. But unlike
> > Republicans, once and forever, get the USA out of managing the
> > entitlement business! If government pulls any of the strings, things
> > will start getting bad again, soon.
>
> > 2. Inform China and our other creditors that the USA will not be
> > paying them any interest on their loans. We will repay the principal,
> > but only when doing so wonï¿½t jeopardize our recovery.
>
> > 3. Bring home 90% of US troops within 90 days. Leave 10% of the
> > troops in bases around the world to serve as a front guard in case
> > redeployment is necessary.
>
> > 4. Stop wasting billions and billions of dollars on political
> > campaigns! That money is going into the pockets of the media. Those
> > media rascals salivate over the ad money they generate by ï¿½talking upï¿½
> > how ï¿½closeï¿½ the elections are going to be. Britt Hume, though a
> > conservative, keeps pumping air into Obama by talking about the money
> > Obama can spend (waste!) to get re elected. Barack Obama is a cash
> > cow for the media. Thatï¿½s why no one in the media will call the
> > majority of Democrats CROOKS!
>
> > 5. ï¿½Fat catsï¿½ should stop being wimps! Government has become no-
> > longer-legal STEALING from the supposed rich to give to the poor. The
> > Democrats talk about how Republicans are wanting to give tax breaks to
> > the wealthy while denying women medical screenings. Republicans
> > should be talking about how ï¿½Democrats are criminals for seeking
> > stolen benefits for themselves and other criminals!ï¿½
>
> > Be it known:
>
> > 1. The Constitution does NOT allow political parties! Those are
> > quasi governmental bodies which get to decide who our candidates for
> > public office can be, and decide who ï¿½the leadersï¿½ in Congress are.
> > Because our country was conceived as a Representative Republic, such
> > fact tacitly mandates that each representative shall have identical
> > power! Seniority nor party affiliation can give more power to ANYONE!
>
> > 2. The US Senate is an UNCONSTITUTIONAL oligarchy of elitists who
> > effectively have been running-the-USA-into-the-ground since the birth
> > of this nation. Senators arenï¿½t determined by having a parity of the
> > population which they each serve. Though the Senate was begrudgingly
> > included in the ï¿½wordsï¿½ of the Constitution, it has never been within
> > the SPIRIT of the Constitution!
>
> > 3. The principle of FAIR representation makes it UNCONSTITUTIONAL to
> > allow the State of Iowa to have more ï¿½powerï¿½ in determining who our
> > candidates for President can be. And by the same general reasoning,
> > it makes the entire primary system UNCONSTITUTIONAL, because the
> > states with earlier-dated primaries always have the most influence in
> > determining who can run.
>
> > 4. Political party conventions are UNCONSTITUTIONAL, because those
> > are ï¿½governedï¿½ by the unsanctioned and UNCONSTITUTIONAL rules of the
> > UNCONSTITUTIONAL political parties!
>
> > 5. The principle of fairness makes it UNCONSTITUTIONAL to allow any
> > individual or group to have more influence on the outcome of an
> > election or referenda than one-person-one vote. That criminalizes
> > entertainment or media celebrities who use their influence to garner
> > votes for any candidate. And it makes any groupï¿½such as labor unionsï¿½
> > who seek more ï¿½powerï¿½ than could ever be manifested by just their
> > membersï¿½ votes, criminals. Labor unions and other unconstitutional
> > group influences, effectively, have been blackmailing candidates by
> > implyingï¿½ ï¿½You vote for ï¿½usï¿½ or you wonï¿½t get elected.ï¿½ Since the
> > latter is a SUBVERSION of the Constitution that shifts the par of
> > power away from individuals and toward specific groups, the leaders of
> > such groups are guilty of TREASON!
>
> > 6. The principle of fairness makes it UNCONSTITUTIONAL to give equal
> > time to discuss any socialist idea! Since socialism and communism
> > arenï¿½t fair, then it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL to allow democrats to
> > represent anyone in Congress!
>
> > 7. Because socialism and communism are UNCONSTITUTIONAL, it is
> > similarly UNCONSTITUTIONAL to allow a ï¿½Presidentï¿½, like Barack Obamaï¿½
> > who has been masquerading as presidentï¿½to remain in the White House!
> > And it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL for our taxpayer-financed Secret Service to
> > give that socialist-communist bastard protection, when they should be
> > arresting Obama and everyone on his White House staff for TREASON!
>
> > 8. The principle of fairness makes it UNCONSTITUTIONAL to allow the
> > US Supreme Court to decide any issue in lieu of citizen-approved
> > legislation! And it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL for any President to nominate
> > justices who share socialist-communist idealsï¿½like both of Barack
> > Obamaï¿½s nominees do.
>
> > 9. The principle of fairness makes it UNCONSTITUTIONAL to continue to
> > use the now-outmoded Electoral College System for determining who our
> > President and Vice President can be. There shall be ONLY a single,
> > national popular vote tally! If such had been used in 2008, Hillary
> > Rodham Clinton would now be President. As it is, she will be fighting-
> > for-her-life for accepting bribes from Obama for ï¿½her supportï¿½ in
> > exchange forï¿½ ï¿½vice
>
> ...
>
> read more »

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: Wringing-the-Neck of Empty Ritual.

MJ: My ideal for total taxation by government (ALL government) is 10%
of the GNP. The reason the stated percentages are higher, is to allow
for a gradual down-sizing of government. I state the maximums for
taxes, not the minimums! Stop the yelling and shorten your replies.
I'll only read the first paragraph of what you write. It's not
necessary for you to copy and paste what I said. Just top post with
your comment. The readers already know what I have said! — J. A. A.
—
>
On Apr 19, 8:46 am, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> Section 6, 7 & 8: The House shall have the power to collect taxes,
> customs duties and user fees that are due from the states and
> territories, with the proviso that user fees shall not be applied to
> major areas of government services so that the total cost of federal
> government exceeds 15% of the previous year's GNP.What relation does GNP have to anything?
> Why should Government spending EXCEED 15% GNP?Additionally, the
> House shall have the power to: regulate commerce with nations, among
> states, and with Indian tribes; coin money and set the value of such,
> and of foreign money; set standards for weights and measures; punish
> counterfeiters; establish uniform rules of naturalization, but
> specifically excluding destitute persons seeking jobs and benefits at
> the expense of local, state or federal governments or the Citizens;
> establish uniform laws on bankruptcies; establish post offices; create
> tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court; punish piracies and felonies
> committed at sea, and offenses against the laws of nations; declare
> war and appropriate money for such, but for no longer than two years;
> grant letters of marquee and reprisal and make rules concerning
> capture; raise, support and maintain the Army, Navy, Marine Corp., Air
> Force and Coast Guard, and make laws regulating such, as well as the
> militias to uphold the laws, suppress insurrections and repel
> invasions; provide for organizing, arming, disciplining and governing
> those parts of the militias employed in the service of the USAbut
> each state selects its militia officers.You have lost a great deal in your translation.
> You have also created a standing army -- which the Founders PROPERLY sought to avoid.
> One would THINK you might have sought to CORRECT the misapplication of AIS8C3 and other enumerations.With assent by the apt state legislatures, the House may purchase
> property for, and have continuous authority over, all needed forts,
> magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and buildings. The House determines
> fair, maximum sentences for federal crimes, and defines and imposes
> reasonable, uniform sanctions for non criminal violations of federal
> rules and/or procedures. The House shall make laws as necessary and
> proper to execute the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by
> this New Constitution of the United States of America to any
> department or office thereof.What do you imagine these 'federal crimes' to entail?
> Jefferson, for instance, listed them in the Kentucky Resolution (nullification):... the Constitution of the United States, having delegated to Congress a power to punish treason, counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States, piracies, and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations, and no other crimes whatsoever; and it being true as a general principle, and one of the amendments to the Constitution having also declared, that "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people," therefore the act of Congress, passed on the 14th day of July, 1798, and intituled "An Act in addition to the act intituled An Act for the punishment of certain crimes against the United States," as also the act passed by them on the -- day of June, 1798, intituled "An Act to punish frauds committed on the bank of the United States," (and all their other acts which assume to create, define, or punish crimes, other than those so enumerated in the Constitution,) are altogether void, and of no force; and that the power to create, define, and punish such other crimes is reserved, and, of right, appertains solely and exclusively to the respective States, each within its own territory.What 'crimes' are you ADDING?Regard$,
> --MJ
> "All States are governed by a ruling class that is a minority of the population, and which subsists as a parasitic and exploitative burden upon the rest of society. Since its rule is exploitative and parasitic, the State must purchase the alliance of a group of "Court Intellectuals," whose task is to bamboozle the public into accepting and celebrating the rule of its particular State. The Court Intellectuals have their work cut out for them. In exchange for their continuing work of apologetics and bamboozlement, the Court Intellectuals win their place as junior partners in the power, prestige, and loot extracted by the State apparatus from the deluded public." -- Murray Rothbard

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: Wringing-the-Neck of Empty Ritual.

MJ: My being anti socialism and pro capitalism does NOT make me a
Republican! My New Constitution BANS political parties in its
preface! Unless you can stop the yelling, you will never get further
than a snail in any race to the finish line. — J. A. A. —
>
On Apr 19, 8:43 am, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> Mainly he's done that by attacking the capitalist system
> that made this country great; and by supposing that government should
> control everything (with him in charge). The fact that you even ask
> that question confirms my initial gut reaction that you are a
> socialist-communist, like 95% of Democrats are. Your silly projections notwithstanding, America's 'capitalist' system was put on its path toward elimination with the very first Republican, nails were put in the coffin during the 'progressive' era and built upon following the Government's Great Depression and every Administration following. The Republicans have done NOTHING (except talk in some instances) to curtail the efforts. What we have NOW -- regardless of whether a D or and R is displayed upon one's sweater -- is a Government that seeks to control everything with the Leader du jour in charge ... bestowing benefits and advantage to the politically favored.
> Regard$,
> --MJ
> "If you have been voting for politicians who promise to give you goodies at someone else's expense, then you have no right to complain when they take your money and give it to someone else, including themselves" Thomas Sowell.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: Wringing-the-Neck of Empty Ritual.

OK, MJ. We'll make you President for a day. Since you like to yell
all the time, not one reader in a thousand takes you seriously about
anything. Why do you YELL, MJ? Is that because you are ear deaf to
anything logical that is said? Ha, ha, HA! — J. A. Armistead —
>
On Apr 19, 8:46 am, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> Another ad nauseam approach?
> Let's see, where was that -- aaah, here:1. Get our government out of the entitlement business! Privatize
> Social Security; Medicare; Medicaid; and Unemployment Insurance, etc.
> Like the Republicans are now planning to do, protect those now in
> programs from being hurt who are close to retirement. But unlike
> Republicans, once and forever, get the USA out of managing the
> entitlement business! If government pulls any of the strings, things
> will start getting bad again, soon.Please explain how one privatizes Social Security -- or why such needs to be privatized.
> Similarly, do the SAME for Medicare/Medicaid, etc.
> These unconstitutional programs should be abolished.2. Inform China and our other creditors that the USA will not be
> paying them any interest on their loans. We will repay the principal,
> but only when doing so won't jeopardize our recovery.Will have to consider what the unintended consequences might entail ...3. Bring home 90% of US troops within 90 days. Leave 10% of the
> troops in bases around the world to serve as a front guard in case
> redeployment is necessary.What happened to that Constitution thingy? Bring home 100% of the troops ... 90 days may work. Dismantle theunconstitutionalstanding army OR pass an amendment to keep it. IMMEDIATELY slash the so-called 'defense' budget by at least half -- further cuts to follow.4. Stop wasting billions and billions of dollars on political
> campaigns! That money is going into the pockets of the media. Those
> media rascals salivate over the ad money they generate by "talking up"
> how 'close' the elections are going to be. Britt Hume, though a
> conservative, keeps pumping air into Obama by talking about the money
> Obama can spend (waste!) to get re elected. Barack Obama is a cash
> cow for the media. That's why no one in the media will call the
> majority of Democrats CROOKS!<sigh>
> Government should spend ZERO on campaigns.
> Individuals (and their created groups, etc.) have the freedom and liberty to spend as many dollars as they desire.
> Remove the ability for Politicians to peddle pull (ie. follow the constitution as written) and you eliminate the bulk. If Archer Daniels Midland, for instance, does not reap zillions in subsidies and other advantages (read: regulations), they are unlikely to be concerned with pumping millions into various campaigns. If they receive nothing, who cares if they continue to give millions.5. 'Fat cats' should stop being wimps! Government has become no-
> longer-legal STEALING from the supposed rich to give to the poor. The
> Democrats talk about how Republicans are wanting to give tax breaks to
> the wealthy while denying women medical screenings. Republicans
> should be talking about how "Democrats are criminals for seeking
> stolen benefits for themselves and other criminals!"That you fail to realize that Ds and Rs are effectively the same is troubling.
> The Income Tax should be abolished (thus ending the bulk of the class warfare). Required dollars should be apportioned between the Sovereign States -- with the States paying from dollars they raise as they choose (50 of them in competition for Citizens) coupled with an across-the-board 3% tariff. No borrowing is permissible EXCEPT for cash flow needs UNLESS War (in accordance with AIS8C11) and then all extra proceeds go ONLY to that cause.1. The Constitution does NOT allow political parties! Those arequasi governmental bodies which get to decide who our candidates for
> public office can be, and decide who "the leaders" in Congress are.
> Because our country was conceived as a Representative Republic, such
> fact tacitly mandates that each representative shall have identical
> power! Seniority nor party affiliation can give more power to ANYONE!The Constitution *does* allow Congress to make its OWN rules. Additionally PEOPLE will organize into various factions (which is their liberty to do so).
> What is needed, rather, is to eliminate the various CAMPAIGN and ELECTION laws -- which have zero Constitutional basis -- which enable the Duopoly to maintain their positions.2. The US Senate is an UNCONSTITUTIONAL oligarchy of elitists who
> effectively have been running-the-USA-into-the-ground since the birth
> of this nation. Senators aren't determined by having a parity of the
> population which they each serve. Though the Senate was begrudgingly
> included in the 'words' of the Constitution, it has never been within
> the SPIRIT of the Constitution!Huh? The Senate served as the Representatives of the States -- you know, those parties to the Constitution? Those parties that put it into effect? Those parties charged with the power/authority to amend that agreement?
> Amendment 17 (which is unconstitutional per Article V -- 10 states have STILL not ratified) should be rescinded/repealed/abolished.
> This STATE check against Federal usurpation (along with others) need to be restored.3. The principle of FAIR representation makes it UNCONSTITUTIONAL to
> allow the State of Iowa to have more "power" in determining who our
> candidates for President can be. And by the same general reasoning,
> it makes the entire primary system UNCONSTITUTIONAL, because the
> states with earlier-dated primaries always have the most influence in
> determining who can run.Again, this is part and parcel to the Election/Campaign laws which maintain the Duopoly along with the ability of Politicians to peddle pull.
> Having some utopian same date primary changes neither.
> The underlying idea of the system was to have the House choose the President from the 'search committee' provided by the various State Legislature chosen electors (remember those States who are party to that Constitution thingy). By choosing two, it was expected that the Electors would NEVER reach the required majority.
> ADDITIONALLY, having the top two vote getters (presumably persons with DIFFERENT ideals/positions) restores yet ANOTHER check eliminated.4. Political party conventions are UNCONSTITUTIONAL, because those
> are "governed" by the unsanctioned and UNCONSTITUTIONAL rules of the
> UNCONSTITUTIONAL political parties!This is nonsensical.
> Again, your problem *is* and *remains* that unconstitutional Election/Campaign laws have been made. There are no 'Federal' Elections. The ONLY thing the Congress *is* charged with concerning such is that they may set a uniform date as to when the Electors are to be chosen and other time/dates associated with those electors.5. The principle of fairness makes it UNCONSTITUTIONAL to allow any
> individual or group to have more influence on the outcome of an
> election or referenda than one-person-one vote. That criminalizes
> entertainment or media celebrities who use their influence to garner
> votes for any candidate. And it makes any groupsuch as labor unions
> who seek more 'power' than could ever be manifested by just their
> members' votes, criminals. Labor unions and other unconstitutional
> group influences, effectively, have been blackmailing candidates by
> implying… "You vote for 'us' or you won't get elected." Since the
> latter is a SUBVERSION of the Constitution that shifts the par of
> power away from individuals and toward specific groups, the leaders of
> such groups are guilty of TREASON!More nonsensical bullshit.
> As noted previously, Government becomes important SOLELY because Government has dictated rules, regulations, advantage, etc. which people seek to influence. It is GOVERNMENT which should be prohibited (which they largely are already according to the Constitution as written) from providing advantage to some at the expense of everyone else (which LIMITS Government to securing the (natural) right of ALL <period>). As long as the Government provides advantage, people will be trying to influence that process.6. The principle of fairness makes it UNCONSTITUTIONAL to give equal
> time to discuss any socialist idea! Since socialism and communism
> aren't fair, then it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL to allow democrats to
> represent anyone in Congress!Who is 'giving' this equal time? Individuals may do with their property as they choose -- if they wish to shout 'socialism' and 'communism', such is most certainly their prerogative.
> It is not 'unconstitutional' for the (socialist) democrats to represent anyone any more than the (socialist) republicans.
> <snip> too much deluded sillinessSection 9 & 10: Other than the President or his...
>
> read more »

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.