Civil War

A forum not related to waterfowl for discussing the more controversial and hot topic issues in our world from immigration, politics, the war, etc..

Moderators: Smackaduck, MM

Re: Civil War

Postby Rat Creek » Fri Sep 20, 2013 7:28 am

Okay Spinner, I like it. And not that budget responsibility matters in the current political game, but does the math workout? :huh:

A huge flaw though. The race and welfare hustlers will quickly go back on the promise, break the law, and promise bigger handouts for votes. I just do not see how that can be stopped. :mad:

Lets not forget the Read My Lips promise of Bush I. When he broke that promise it was because he was working in a "bipartisan" manner with the leftists/Democrats. The agreement was that for every dollar of new tax revenue, the Democrats would cut one dollar from spending. :rolleyes:

We all know how that worked. Taxes were raised and the Dems never even considered reducing spending and instead accelerated the deficit machine into hyperdrive. Dems always conveniently forget the second half of the Read my Lips story. :no:
Rat Creek
Rat Creek
hunter
 
Posts: 4305
Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2004 4:11 pm
Location: Overland Park, KS


Re: Civil War

Postby SpinnerMan » Fri Sep 20, 2013 8:03 am

Rat Creek wrote:Okay Spinner, I like it. And not that budget responsibility matters in the current political game, but does the math workout? :huh:

I believe that it actually does. The numbers I have seen put our current spending on all of these things right at that level of spending. That is federal, state, and local combined. This would cut state and local spending and increase federal spending, but have no impact on the total sucked out of the economy.

I also think the complete elimination of the disincentive to earn more money, beyond all the positive social benefits, would erase any short term hit. We know the state and local government would not cut their budgets by the full amount and in places like Illinois, probably not a penny, so there would be some cost in practice. I am sure of that. Some of that would be also offset by taxes. The Obama's would have to pay a good chunk back to the government in taxes. Some of that already happens because so much of that money gets sucked up as income for bureaucrats. They may balance or may even add a little more net cost. It's hard to say.

Rat Creek wrote:A huge flaw though. The race and welfare hustlers will quickly go back on the promise, break the law, and promise bigger handouts for votes. I just do not see how that can be stopped. :mad:
I don't think that is a flaw. I think that is a positive. My plan would want to give every man, woman, and child in the black community a check, free and clear, no hoops to jump through, nothing, just every month, bam, another check from they day they are born until the day they die and it is guaranteed by the Constitution and hopefully written in such a clear way that even Justice Ginsberg couldn't misinterpret it. Before it got to that point, the people that gain their power from the poor, would be staunchly opposed to this and the people in "their" community would certainly be for it, granted not all of them and they would lie just like they do now, but done right, like any politician on the right would do that :sad: it would be a wedge between the race hustlers and their victims.

Rat Creek wrote:Lets not forget the Read My Lips promise of Bush I. When he broke that promise it was because he was working in a "bipartisan" manner with the leftists/Democrats. The agreement was that for every dollar of new tax revenue, the Democrats would cut one dollar from spending. :rolleyes:
This is why it must be a Constitutional amendment written so clearly that even Justice Ginsberg couldn't find a way to misinterpret it without being shown for the hack that she is. Same with the Chief Justice.

It cannot be a law. It must be a Constitutional amendment that restricts Chicago, Detroit, Illinois, California, etc. and not just the Congress.

The fatal flaw and exposing this would have great value even if it ultimately failed is that Obama et. al. want the power. They don't want to end poverty. They cannot even risk ending poverty. This would end statistical poverty by definition and it would return the value to hard work, self reliance, calculated economic risk taking, getting married, and generally just doing the right thing unlike the current system that provides strong and sometimes insurmountable financial incentive to do the wrong thing while living in fear that some evil Republican will take your economic life line away. That life line will now be enshrined in the Constitution. Not because it is right, but for the same reason as slavery was, it is simply the practical reality of what must be done to create a strong and prosperous nation.
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 15810
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: Civil War

Postby ScaupHunter » Fri Sep 20, 2013 8:39 am

SpinnerMan wrote:I propose a compromise. The core issue is the so-called War on Poverty. Obama et. al. believe they have a right to take one person's stuff and give it to another solely for the benefit of that person. By any rational definition, that is stealing, even if done "legally" as slavery was done legally. We've lost the war. It's time to propose a cease fire agreement and I believe I have one that would stop destroying society and end the social decoy driven by the perverse incentives created by system we have.

The truce agreement is the following. A constitutional amendment that ends all means tested benefits whether cash or services at all levels of government and requires the federal government to pay every American living in America or Americans and their family working directly for America outside the U.S. (military, diplomats) 1/4th of the family of 4 poverty rate and that payment is treated as taxable earned income.

This would 100% end statistical poverty. Victory on the War on Poverty could be declared.

It removes all the perverse incentives that come with revocation of benefits as you try to improve your quality of life by working longer and harder.

It bans all the insanity that gets into every new law that is suppose to "help" people.

There would be all kinds of big and little benefits with no downside from WHERE WE ARE TODAY. For example, it gets rid of all the beggars that are lying about being willing to work for food because you know they are not poor, which they often are not anyways.

And when the liberals completely reject it, it proves that they have no desire to end poverty, but only to extend poverty and profit politically from it.



Spinner have you been smoking Jim's good stuff? :beer:

Totally wrong answer. The deadbeat fix is simple. Drug testing for all welfare recipients on a quarterly basis. Positive for drugs and your off the system forever. If you want welfare you work for it. Clean parks, roads, daycare for those that can qualify to watch the other deadbeats brats. Have the work be designed in a job training format. We haven't lost the war, we never started fighting. Want a war. Fire every damn politician at the federal level. Replace every senior leader and then cut the umbilical cord and let them starve. That is war. Never ending increases of funding and options for handouts is exactly what you will get with your idea. It is also what we have now. Amendment or no Amendment nothing will change if we don't change the leadership.
Bella's
Decoy Setting Pro Staff
Boat Operator Pro Staff
Duck Shooting Pro Staff
Warm Towel Pro Staff
Snack Supply Pro Staff

He works for free! Who's the B now?
User avatar
ScaupHunter
hunter
 
Posts: 6401
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 5:57 am

Re: Civil War

Postby SpinnerMan » Fri Sep 20, 2013 9:15 am

ScaupHunter wrote:Drug testing for all welfare recipients on a quarterly basis.
There are a whole lot of deadbeats that are NOT on drugs. My guess is the vast majority of them are not on drugs. We have 40+ million people on food stamps. A very large fraction of them live in the suburbs or in rural economically depressed communities. They white semi-rural deadbeats I am familiar with, very few are junkies, most never use, and those that do would stop before they stopped taking the check because its a casual thing.

ScaupHunter wrote:f you want welfare you work for it. Clean parks, roads, daycare for those that can qualify to watch the other deadbeats brats. Have the work be designed in a job training format. We haven't lost the war, we never started fighting. Want a war. Fire every damn politician at the federal level. Replace every senior leader and then cut the umbilical cord and let them starve. That is war. Never ending increases of funding and options for handouts is exactly what you will get with your idea. It is also what we have now. Amendment or no Amendment nothing will change if we don't change the leadership.

So where are you going to find the politicians to agree to this. If anything, you are smoking the same or better stuff than me.

My key point is that we have lost the war on poverty. The community organizers have won. We need to negotiate a cease fire and not let the country be destroyed as we stand on our moral high horse. It's doomed to failure, just as fighting for the rights of the slaves would have doomed our entire nation when the Constitution was written and enacted. They hold the cards. They will not agree to what you propose. It would literally require war to force them to submission as it did with slavery. I know people claim that was not true, but we will never know.
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 15810
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: Civil War

Postby assateague » Fri Sep 20, 2013 10:18 am

I don't negotiate with terrorists.
WOLVERINES

Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Let a man vote to give himself a fish and he eats until society collapses.
User avatar
assateague
Emu hunter extraordinaire
 
Posts: 21277
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 12:25 pm
Location: Eastern Shore, People's Republic of Maryland

Re: Civil War

Postby ScaupHunter » Fri Sep 20, 2013 10:27 am

SpinnerMan wrote:
ScaupHunter wrote:Drug testing for all welfare recipients on a quarterly basis.
There are a whole lot of deadbeats that are NOT on drugs. My guess is the vast majority of them are not on drugs. We have 40+ million people on food stamps. A very large fraction of them live in the suburbs or in rural economically depressed communities. They white semi-rural deadbeats I am familiar with, very few are junkies, most never use, and those that do would stop before they stopped taking the check because its a casual thing.

ScaupHunter wrote:f you want welfare you work for it. Clean parks, roads, daycare for those that can qualify to watch the other deadbeats brats. Have the work be designed in a job training format. We haven't lost the war, we never started fighting. Want a war. Fire every damn politician at the federal level. Replace every senior leader and then cut the umbilical cord and let them starve. That is war. Never ending increases of funding and options for handouts is exactly what you will get with your idea. It is also what we have now. Amendment or no Amendment nothing will change if we don't change the leadership.

So where are you going to find the politicians to agree to this. If anything, you are smoking the same or better stuff than me.

My key point is that we have lost the war on poverty. The community organizers have won. We need to negotiate a cease fire and not let the country be destroyed as we stand on our moral high horse. It's doomed to failure, just as fighting for the rights of the slaves would have doomed our entire nation when the Constitution was written and enacted. They hold the cards. They will not agree to what you propose. It would literally require war to force them to submission as it did with slavery. I know people claim that was not true, but we will never know.


For your point to be valid we would have to actually engage in a war on poverty. That has never happened. War is fought with a set goal, defined end results, and maximum violence on target to achieve the goal with minimum losses. The "War on Poverty has been fought with no real goals, no real plans, and no end of wasteful spending. If this nation actually focused on poverty and tried to fix it we could do a damn good job of it. Instead we blather about it and do nothing but throw more money at it.

There are alway people willing to step up and lead. The first step is firing the idiots we have now. That is as simple as firing eveyr incumbent in the next 4 elections at the local, state, and federal levels.

Ass,

I love negotiating with terrorists. I am a firm believer in long rang negotiation. I believe that my personal tool of choice travels at 2,400 fps. :thumbsup:
Bella's
Decoy Setting Pro Staff
Boat Operator Pro Staff
Duck Shooting Pro Staff
Warm Towel Pro Staff
Snack Supply Pro Staff

He works for free! Who's the B now?
User avatar
ScaupHunter
hunter
 
Posts: 6401
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 5:57 am

Re: Civil War

Postby assateague » Fri Sep 20, 2013 11:31 am

I'm closer to 3,200.
WOLVERINES

Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Let a man vote to give himself a fish and he eats until society collapses.
User avatar
assateague
Emu hunter extraordinaire
 
Posts: 21277
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 12:25 pm
Location: Eastern Shore, People's Republic of Maryland

Re: Civil War

Postby SpinnerMan » Fri Sep 20, 2013 11:49 am

ScaupHunter wrote:For your point to be valid we would have to actually engage in a war on poverty. That has never happened. War is fought with a set goal, defined end results, and maximum violence on target to achieve the goal with minimum losses.

What do you mean there were no goals, now defined end results, no maximum violence? :huh:

The goal

Image

the end results

Image

the violence

Image

ScaupHunter wrote:The "War on Poverty has been fought with no real goals, no real plans, and no end of wasteful spending.
The goals and plans were real. They were just not to end poverty. They were to profit politically from it.

ScaupHunter wrote:There are alway people willing to step up and lead. The first step is firing the idiots we have now. That is as simple as firing eveyr incumbent in the next 4 elections at the local, state, and federal levels.
It took a nation founded on the principles that all men are created equal and that all men are endowed with the right to life, liberty, and property 150 years to end slavery. This is entrenched even deeper and not so obviously abhorrent. It will not end overnight or in our lifetime. Well, not end well. It could end badly.

As long as Obama, Pelosi, and Reid are credible leaders of the Democrats and their voters don't laugh them out of office, there is no way to build the coalition of voters necessary to do that. Can it be built to do what I propose? I seriously doubt it, but it could expose that the War on Poverty was all about amassing power and not ending poverty.
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 15810
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: Civil War

Postby ScaupHunter » Fri Sep 20, 2013 1:27 pm

That is why is was not a war. Never has been and never will be a war on poverty. Now if they wanted to call it a war on national and individual success. I would agree they not only have waged it and done well, they have almost succeeded in destroying us as a nation.
Bella's
Decoy Setting Pro Staff
Boat Operator Pro Staff
Duck Shooting Pro Staff
Warm Towel Pro Staff
Snack Supply Pro Staff

He works for free! Who's the B now?
User avatar
ScaupHunter
hunter
 
Posts: 6401
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 5:57 am

Re: Civil War

Postby SpinnerMan » Fri Sep 20, 2013 1:51 pm

ScaupHunter wrote:That is why is was not a war. Never has been and never will be a war on poverty. Now if they wanted to call it a war on national and individual success. I would agree they not only have waged it and done well, they have almost succeeded in destroying us as a nation.

Which is why a cease fire agreement may be in order before they go from almost succeeding to fully succeeding. I think my terms will work and would completely turn the momentum. Offer them everything they claim that they wanted and watch them squirm when it is blatantly obvious that they were lying about what they wanted.
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 15810
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: Civil War

Postby assateague » Fri Sep 20, 2013 3:59 pm

No. Because the goalposts move. That is why you don't negotiate with terrorists.
WOLVERINES

Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Let a man vote to give himself a fish and he eats until society collapses.
User avatar
assateague
Emu hunter extraordinaire
 
Posts: 21277
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 12:25 pm
Location: Eastern Shore, People's Republic of Maryland

Re: Civil War

Postby SpinnerMan » Sat Sep 21, 2013 6:17 am

assateague wrote:No. Because the goalposts move. That is why you don't negotiate with terrorists.

We negotiated with slave owners. Did the goal posts move in the wrong direction? :huh:

This is why it MUST be a Constitutional amendment and it must be written so clearly that even a hack like Ginsberg or a go-along-to-get-along like Roberts cannot move it.

This is not the first time we agreed to a terrible wrong for the good of the nation. It has been tried and demonstrated to work. Would this ultimately end in another civil war? I think just the opposite because it would bring much greater prosperity to every American than our current system can.
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 15810
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: Civil War

Postby WTN10 » Sat Sep 21, 2013 7:48 am

Anybody who thinks they're going to transform into a freedom fighter when Obama or whomever else breaks the "last straw" is fooling themselves. Things are worse by orders of magnitude now than they were back in 1776 and 1861 as far as government encroachment and taxes go.
2014 Season Totals:
Mallards: 243
Redheads: 114
Woodducks: 119
Grebes: 36
Blue Geese: 134
Snow Geese: 178
Hawks: 4
User avatar
WTN10
hunter
 
Posts: 14016
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2010 1:02 pm
Location: Western Tunisia

Re: Civil War

Postby SpinnerMan » Sat Sep 21, 2013 8:10 am

No doubt.

Image
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 15810
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: Civil War

Postby aunt betty » Sun Sep 22, 2013 8:55 am

Suppose Illinois had a mini revolution/civil war...
Chicago vs. Everone else. Who wins? Most likely everyone else would simply cut the roads and bridges leading to there.
Chicago besieged...
Thats the civil war I imagine happening.
Burn Chicago again!
INTERNET CREDIBILITY is...an OXYMORON. :moon:
User avatar
aunt betty
hunter
 
Posts: 9992
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2010 8:09 pm
Location: Go HOGS!

Re: Civil War

Postby Grossy23 » Sun Sep 22, 2013 6:22 pm

I don't know about Chicago burning again but it damn sure would help the rest of the state if they were their own state .
Grossy23
hunter
 
Posts: 389
Joined: Sat Oct 29, 2011 1:37 pm

Re: Civil War

Postby Chilidawg » Sun Sep 22, 2013 8:45 pm

ctdeathfrombelow wrote:
black_duck wrote:What are the chances that in the near future that another civil war will brake out in America. America is so divided right now between democrats and republicans that I see it almost impossible to avoid. Kinda sad but thats the way I see it.

You know the difference between a "civil war" and a "revolution"?
In a civil war, the government wins.
In a revolution, the government is overturned.

I'd rather see a revolution!



Why?

We have the best country in the world. What would you replace it with> A theocracy? A fascist state? Anarchy?

Please be detailed in how you thing society and the government should work in your fantasy world.
Chilidawg
hunter
 
Posts: 257
Joined: Mon May 13, 2013 6:24 am

Re: Civil War

Postby Chilidawg » Sun Sep 22, 2013 8:48 pm

SpinnerMan wrote: Illinois, definitely two states. The Chicago politicians don't want to go to Springfield. Make Chicago the capital of Chicagoland and set the rest of Illinois politically free.


So all the money would be in Chicago and the suburbs. The rest would be a bunch of dumb poor farmers.
Chilidawg
hunter
 
Posts: 257
Joined: Mon May 13, 2013 6:24 am

Re: Civil War

Postby ohioboy » Sun Sep 22, 2013 9:45 pm

Chilidawg wrote:
SpinnerMan wrote: Illinois, definitely two states. The Chicago politicians don't want to go to Springfield. Make Chicago the capital of Chicagoland and set the rest of Illinois politically free.


So all the money would be in Chicago and the suburbs. The rest would be a bunch of dumb poor farmers.



you cant eat money.
User avatar
ohioboy
hunter
 
Posts: 2297
Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 9:28 pm
Location: MoCo, MD

Re: Civil War

Postby clampdaddy » Sun Sep 22, 2013 10:56 pm

Chilidawg wrote: So all the money would be in Chicago and the suburbs. The rest would be a bunch of dumb poor farmers.

Are you one of those city folks who think that milk and meat are made at the supermarket?

The people with money in the suburbs would be solely on the hook for the welfare of the dirt broke people of the inner city. Within a week Chicago would be a war zone. Hope you have a good recipe for sewer rat.
User avatar
clampdaddy
hunter
 
Posts: 3595
Joined: Tue May 24, 2011 9:23 pm
Location: Where spoonies go to die

Re: Civil War

Postby SpinnerMan » Mon Sep 23, 2013 6:43 am

Chilidawg wrote:
SpinnerMan wrote: Illinois, definitely two states. The Chicago politicians don't want to go to Springfield. Make Chicago the capital of Chicagoland and set the rest of Illinois politically free.


So all the money would be in Chicago and the suburbs. The rest would be a bunch of dumb poor farmers.

Wow. Just bunch of dumb poor farmers. I hope that was intended to be provocative and not your ignorance.

Let's take a look at those poor dumb farmers. So what is the average size of a farm around here, 640 acres? Maybe more. Good farm land is at least a few thousand per acre. That makes the average poor dumb farmer a millionaire just in land.

Don't get me wrong, there are a lot of poor dumb farmers, but there are just as many poor dumb small businessmen in the city and vastly more people that are just poor and dumb and willing to rob, rape, and even murder their neighbors. Never ran across a poor dumb farmer that wouldn't help out a neighbor.

Of course, where do you think the refineries, power plants, manufacturing, etc. are located and where the knew ones will be built? :huh:

The outer suburbs don't want to be part of that city. Granted the inner suburbs have been infected by what plagues the cities. Enough people moved here to stay the hell away from the city and Crook county, we wouldn't want to be part of it. The money is fleeing the cities and the crime and corruption is flowing in. Been that way for a long time. The problem is that the crime and corruption can control the state government and you can't get away without leaving the state and they are making a pretty good go of taking over the federal government forcing people to leave the country to get away. At that point it is game over.

If they had all the money like you suggest, why would they be the ones most opposed to this idea? :huh: They must not have as much as it seems.
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 15810
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Previous

Return to Controversial Issues Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests