Bankrupt Cities
Dec 20, 2010 Political
So, the city of Central Falls, RI, says that they cannot continue to exist because they simply cannot afford to. They need to merge with a larger city AND receive state help (cash), or they will collapse fiscally.
Oh, and the state already took over their school system and gave the city $604 million in the past 2 decades. The city says they need $2.1 million immediately from the state. Oh, and the city has a $48 million unfunded pile o cash that they owe to government employees. Oh, and another $36 million they owe in government employee health care payouts.
The city has only 19,000 subjects and owes $80 million that they don’t have. In case you’re interested, that’s over $4,000 for every man, woman, and child in the city, that they owe right now, not including ANY current obligations or to keep the city running. Quick: what’s the solution?
Of course, it’s make other taxpayers give them money. The state, the feds, other cities, whatever. Just take the money and give it to them because they want it.
The other solution, a nice, freedom-based solution, would be to let the city go bankrupt. And I don’t mean one of these halfway bankruptcies, where they continue to exist and just don’t pay back loans and that stuff. Let the city cease to exist. Other than government employees, do you think anyone would notice? I bet not.
Of course, if the city did just disband, opportunities would abound. People could start up schools without government interference (well, maybe not, because of state laws). People could create businesses to do the things the city was doing (like trash collection) at a lower rate (well, it is a union state, so they might not be allowed to). Arrests would likely go down because police would not be spending all their time trying to raise revenue for the failing city.
In the end, if a city should cease to exist, I think most non-government employees honestly would not care and would, in fact, be MUCH better off than being forced to continue to support a failed system. Sadly, in America today, a country based on government control and power, that will never happen. Instead, tax rates will be raised and other people will be forced to pay to continue the pointless city of Central Falls. Why? Because government employees will continue to use force to rationalize (and pay for) their own existence.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: bankrupt cities, government, money, taxpayer bailout
Rights-Free Zones
Dec 17, 2010 Political
I find it interesting, but also quite consistent, to note that another government agency has decided to set up an area where people do not have rights. This time it’s the Washington Metro. After all, claim the police, you don’t HAVE to use the Metro, so they’re not taking away your rights — instead you’re volunteering to give them away — to use a government service.
We have already created numerous places where you have no First Amendment rights — courthouses, public gatherings, places where government officials gather, and “free speech zones” during times of meetings.
We’ve created other zones where you have no Second Amendment rights — near government employees, post offices, banks, anywhere near schools or children, etc.
We now also have places where you have no Fourth Amendment — airports, courthouses, and now the Washington Metro. Why not?
Do you notice one of the similarities between all these places where you have to surrender your rights (voluntarily, of course)? Nearly all of them are places that are built with taxpayer dollars, and/or include people who are paid with taxpayer dollars. And that, of course, is the absolutely opposite of what was intended by the Constitution. But hey, the US Constitution hasn’t been used in decades, so why start now?
Side note: 5th amendment doesn’t apply any more — you can be literally deprived of liberty without cause (arrested without being charged with a crime); 6th amendment doesn’t apply: impartial juries are outlawed in many places today (see FIJA); 7th amendment varies, you can be “administratively” fined without jury; I could easily go on.
I do wonder why they skipped the third amendment. After all, we could save a lot of money if we’d just force people to quarter military members in their homes. I mean, have people “volunteer” to house soldiers.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: government, rights, taxpayers
People: Slavery Okay When It’s For A Nice Reason
Oct 6, 2010 Political
I’m not really amazed at the reaction to most people to the fire in Tennessee, I just wish more people would think with their minds instead of their hearts. I wish people would do what they wanted to, but at the same time allow me to be free. Sadly, I’m in a tiny minority in America today.
In case you missed the “front page” news, a man in Tennessee burnt down his house. Now he, and a lot of other people, are mad that there weren’t slaves there to extinguish the fire for him. In fact, on the web site linked, the simple poll there indicates that 75% of people who read the story and voted, fully support slavery and believe that everyone (except themselves, presumably) should be slaves in America instead of free.
Here is the story, in brief: A man was offered insurance on his house. For $75 a year, a group of people would provide a fire truck, firemen, and a method to attempt to extinguish his house, should it catch on fire. The man made the choice to not pay the $75. Then, when his house caught on fire, he (and many others) are very angry that some people were not forced at gunpoint to pay for putting out the fire in his house.
Hey, Mr. Cranik, I’m real sorry that your house burnt down. No, I’m serious. I wish it hadn’t happened. And in fact, if I were in position to, I’d be glad to help you out now. However, at the moment, I’m losing about 50-70% of the earnings I make to the government, so I’m kinda broke. I would suggest you head on over to your local church and ask for help, I bet they’d be happy to help you.
But sadly, so many people, Mr. Cranik included, think that they are owed things by “the government.” People are upset and angry that “the government” didn’t show up to save Mr. Cranik’s home. This is just another illustration of people today that expect that things should be handed to them, and they shouldn’t have to do anything to get them. He was offered fire coverage, and he refused it. But now its government’s fault that they didn’t show up and give him something for free.
The part that so many people ignore or don’t care about is that government is literally incapable of producing anything. Instead, the ONLY way that government can provide anything to anyone at any time is to first take that something from someone else by force. In simple terms, the only way government could have showed up and put out Mr. Cranik’s fire would be for government to first come to my house with guns and take money from me to pay the firefighters and pay for the equipment. It indeed shows how far from freedom we have come to know that so many people believe that it is “right” to steal from me to provide for Mr. Cranik.
Certainly, some liberals will attempt to take this post and make moronic claims like, “Oh, gee, you don’t care about Mr. Cranik, and you want people to die in fires” and “How would YOU feel if YOUR house got burned down?” But of course, that’s all self-projection and outright lies. I honestly care about Mr. Cranik. But I also care about freedom. And I think freedom is a hell of a lot more important than feeling good about yourself at the expense of others.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: fire, government, insurance
Why Would Birther Issue Matter?
Sep 27, 2010 Political
The Dem Whip, James Clyburn, is worried that if the Republicans regain control they will issue birther subpoenas which will grind the government to a halt.
House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.) warned Republicans will investigate President Obama’s birthplace if they take over Congress.
Clyburn, the third-ranking Democrat in the House, said Republicans will grind the government to a halt by issuing subpoenas against the Obama administration over a number of issues if they take power. He predicted that “gridlock” in Congress would “define” Obama’s first term if Republicans win the House, but expressed confidence his party would prevail. The Hill
Before I get to the main point, it would not be a bad thing for government to grind to a halt. The less they can do the better it is for us. The only safer time is when they are not in session.
As for the issue that concerns Clyburn, why does it matter and why would it grind things to a halt? I don’t think that these so called birther subpoenas will be issued but let us assume they will be. Why would it have such a devastating effect on Congress and the government?
If a subpoena were issued then the appropriate documentation could be produced and the matter laid to rest. If it so happens that Obama has his papers in order then it would become a moot point and make some folks in Congress look rather foolish. Since Democrats keep telling us all is in order, how could this be a negative for them? They could campaign for two years on the folly of the birther subpoenas.
Is there some other reason that Clyburn is worried? Grinding government to a halt is not a concern because it can be solved in a few moments so why would Clyburn worry? Why use this tact to scare people into voting against Republicans? This concern makes it look like Clyburn is saying; “Don’t vote for them because if they take control they will find out the truth about Obama.”
I just don’t understand the reasoning. It sounds more like a concern about what will be discovered should these alleged subpoenas be issued rather than any concern about halting government.
What does James Clyburn know that we don’t?
Cave Canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: birther, democrat whip, Democrats, government, james clyburn, lies
Money; That’s What I Want
Sep 7, 2010 General, Political
Movie Trailer for I Want Your Money. This contrasts Ronald Reagan and Barack Obama and different versions of America, one involving freedom and one involving being shackled to the government.
Here are other money related items for your enjoyment.
Money, That’s What I Want (Politician’s Theme Song)
Money (Wall Street Theme Song)
Money For Nothing (Welfare Theme Song with the Bill Clinton Verse ‘Chicks for free’)
Big Dog salute to DEG.
Cave Canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: government, lies, money, Obama, reagan, redistribution, taxes