Let's make some changes here.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------





NEW PREAMBLE TO THE CONSTITUTION


This is probably the best e-mail I've seen in a long, long time. The following has been attributed to State Representative Mitchell Kaye from GA. This guy should run for President one day... AMEN




'We the sensible people of the United States, in an attempt to help everyone get along, restore some semblance of justice, avoid more riots, keep our nation safe, promote positive behavior, and secure the blessings of debt-free liberty to ourselves and our great-great-great-grandchildren, hereby try one more time to ordain and establish some common sense guidelines for the terminally whiny, guilt ridden, delusional, and other liberal bed-wetters. We hold these truths to be self evident: that a whole lot of people are confused by the Bill of Rights and are so dim they require a Bill of NON-Rights.'


ARTICLE I: You do not have the right to a new car, big screen TV, or any other form of wealth. More power to you if you can legally acquire them, but no one is guaranteeing anything.


ARTICLE II: You do not have the right to never be offended. This country is based on freedom, and that means freedom for everyone -- not just you! You may leave the room, turn the channel, express a different opinion, etc.; but the world is full of idiots, and probably always will be.

ARTICLE III: You do not have the right to be free from harm. If you stick a screwdriver in your eye, learn to be more careful; do not expect the tool manufacturer to make you and all your relatives independently wealthy.


ARTICLE IV: You do not have the right to free food and housing. Americans are the most charitable people to be found, and will gladly help anyone in need, but we are quickly growing weary of subsidizing generation after generation of professional couch potatoes who achieve nothing more than the creation of another generation of professional couch potatoes . (This one is my pet peeve...get an education and go to work....don't expect everyone else to take care of you!) WHEN YOU NEED TO BE SUBSIDIZED, YOU GET YOUR TUBES TIED!!


ARTICLE V: You do not have the right to free health care. That would be nice, but from the looks of public housing, we're just not interested in public health care.


ARTICLE VI: You do not have the right to physically harm other people. If you kidnap, rape, intentionally maim, or kill someone, don't be surprised if the rest of us want to see you fry in the electric chair. IN THREE MONTHS, NOT EIGHT YEARS!!


ARTICLE VII: You do not have the right to the possessions of others. If you rob, cheat, or coerce away the goods or services of other citizens, don't be surprised if the rest of us get together and lock you away in a place where you still won't have the right to a big screen color TV or a life of leisure.


ARTICLE VIII: You do not have the right to a job.. All of us sure want you to have a job, and will gladly help you along in hard times, but we expect you to take advantage of the opportunities of education and vocational training laid before you to make yourself useful. (AMEN!) UNFORTUNATELY, THEY TOOK VOCATIONAL TRAINING OUT OF THE SCHOOLS!!


ARTICLE IX: You do not have the right to happiness. Being an American means that you have the right to PURSUE happiness, which by the way, is a lot easier if you are unencumbered by an over abundance of idiotic laws created by those of you who were confused by the Bill of Rights.


ARTICLE X: This is an English speaking country. We don't care where you are from, English is our language. Learn it or go back to wherever you came from! (Last....)


ARTICLE XI: You do not have the right to change our country's history or heritage. This country was founded on the belief in one true God. And yet, you are given the freedom to believe in any religion, any faith, or no faith at all; with no fear of persecution. The phrase IN GOD WE TRUST is part of our heritage and history, and if you are uncomfortable with it, TOUGH!!!! GET OVER IT !!!




If you agree, share this with a friend. No, you don't have to, and nothing tragic will befall you if you don't. I just think it's about time common sense is allowed to flourish. Sensible people of the United States speak out because if you do not , you know who will!!!



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

545 PEOPLE
By Charlie Reese

Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.

Have you ever wondered why, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, WHY do we have deficits?

Have you ever wondered why, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, WHY do we have inflation and high taxes?

You and I don't propose a federal budget. The president does.

You and I don't have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations.

The House of Representatives does.

You and I don't write the tax code, Congress does.

You and I don't set fiscal policy, Congress does.

You and I don't control monetary policy, the Federal Reserve Bank does.

One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one president, and nine Supreme Court justices 545 human beings out of the 300 million are directly, legally, morally, and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.

I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered, but private, central bank.

I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason. They have no legal authority. They have n o ability to coerce a senator, a congressman, or a pr esident to do one cotton-picking thing. I don't care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. The politician has the power to accept or reject it. No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator's responsibility to determine how he votes.

Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party.

What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall. No normal human being would have the gall of a Speaker, who stood up and criticized the President for creating deficits. ; ; The president can only propose a budget. He cannot force the Congress to accept it.

The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating and approving appropriations and taxes. Who is the speaker of the House? She is the leader of the majority party. She and fellow House members, not the president, can approve any budget they want. If the president vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto if they agree to.

It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million cannot replace 545 people who stand convicted -- by pr esent facts - - of incompetence and irresponsibility. I can't think of a single domestic problem that is not traceable directly to those 545 people. When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise the power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.

If the tax code is unfair, it's because they want it unfair.

If the budget is in the red, it's because they want it in the red.

If the Army & Marines are in IRAQ , it's because they want them in IRAQ.

If they do not receive social security but are on an elite retirement plan not available to the people,

it's because they want it that way.

There are no insoluble government problems!!!

Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take this power. Above all, do not let them con you into the be lief that t here exists disembodied mystical forces like 'the economy,' 'inflation,' or 'politics' that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do.

Those 545 people, and they alone, are responsible.

They, and they alone, have the power.

They, and they alone, should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses provided the voters have the gumption to manage their own employees.

We should vote all of them out of office and clean up their mess!

Old Timer wrote:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------





NEW PREAMBLE TO THE CONSTITUTION


This is probably the best e-mail I've seen in a long, long time. The following has been attributed to State Representative Mitchell Kaye from GA. This guy should run for President one day... AMEN




'We the sensible people of the United States, in an attempt to help everyone get along, restore some semblance of justice, avoid more riots, keep our nation safe, promote positive behavior, and secure the blessings of debt-free liberty to ourselves and our great-great-great-grandchildren, hereby try one more time to ordain and establish some common sense guidelines for the terminally whiny, guilt ridden, delusional, and other liberal bed-wetters. We hold these truths to be self evident: that a whole lot of people are confused by the Bill of Rights and are so dim they require a Bill of NON-Rights.'


ARTICLE I: You do not have the right to a new car, big screen TV, or any other form of wealth. More power to you if you can legally acquire them, but no one is guaranteeing anything.


ARTICLE II: You do not have the right to never be offended. This country is based on freedom, and that means freedom for everyone -- not just you! You may leave the room, turn the channel, express a different opinion, etc.; but the world is full of idiots, and probably always will be.

ARTICLE III: You do not have the right to be free from harm. If you stick a screwdriver in your eye, learn to be more careful; do not expect the tool manufacturer to make you and all your relatives independently wealthy.


ARTICLE IV: You do not have the right to free food and housing. Americans are the most charitable people to be found, and will gladly help anyone in need, but we are quickly growing weary of subsidizing generation after generation of professional couch potatoes who achieve nothing more than the creation of another generation of professional couch potatoes . (This one is my pet peeve...get an education and go to work....don't expect everyone else to take care of you!) WHEN YOU NEED TO BE SUBSIDIZED, YOU GET YOUR TUBES TIED!!


ARTICLE V: You do not have the right to free health care. That would be nice, but from the looks of public housing, we're just not interested in public health care.


ARTICLE VI: You do not have the right to physically harm other people. If you kidnap, rape, intentionally maim, or kill someone, don't be surprised if the rest of us want to see you fry in the electric chair. IN THREE MONTHS, NOT EIGHT YEARS!!


ARTICLE VII: You do not have the right to the possessions of others. If you rob, cheat, or coerce away the goods or services of other citizens, don't be surprised if the rest of us get together and lock you away in a place where you still won't have the right to a big screen color TV or a life of leisure.


ARTICLE VIII: You do not have the right to a job.. All of us sure want you to have a job, and will gladly help you along in hard times, but we expect you to take advantage of the opportunities of education and vocational training laid before you to make yourself useful. (AMEN!) UNFORTUNATELY, THEY TOOK VOCATIONAL TRAINING OUT OF THE SCHOOLS!!


ARTICLE IX: You do not have the right to happiness. Being an American means that you have the right to PURSUE happiness, which by the way, is a lot easier if you are unencumbered by an over abundance of idiotic laws created by those of you who were confused by the Bill of Rights.


ARTICLE X: This is an English speaking country. We don't care where you are from, English is our language. Learn it or go back to wherever you came from! (Last....)


ARTICLE XI: You do not have the right to change our country's history or heritage. This country was founded on the belief in one true God. And yet, you are given the freedom to believe in any religion, any faith, or no faith at all; with no fear of persecution. The phrase IN GOD WE TRUST is part of our heritage and history, and if you are uncomfortable with it, TOUGH!!!! GET OVER IT !!!




If you agree, share this with a friend. No, you don't have to, and nothing tragic will befall you if you don't. I just think it's about time common sense is allowed to flourish. Sensible people of the United States speak out because if you do not , you know who will!!!



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There isn't one thing there that I disagree with.

You realize of course, that if these amendments were actually imposed, you would squash every liberal in America's will to live.

Grim17 wrote:

Old Timer wrote:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------





NEW PREAMBLE TO THE CONSTITUTION


This is probably the best e-mail I've seen in a long, long time. The following has been attributed to State Representative Mitchell Kaye from GA. This guy should run for President one day... AMEN




'We the sensible people of the United States, in an attempt to help everyone get along, restore some semblance of justice, avoid more riots, keep our nation safe, promote positive behavior, and secure the blessings of debt-free liberty to ourselves and our great-great-great-grandchildren, hereby try one more time to ordain and establish some common sense guidelines for the terminally whiny, guilt ridden, delusional, and other liberal bed-wetters. We hold these truths to be self evident: that a whole lot of people are confused by the Bill of Rights and are so dim they require a Bill of NON-Rights.'


ARTICLE I: You do not have the right to a new car, big screen TV, or any other form of wealth. More power to you if you can legally acquire them, but no one is guaranteeing anything.


ARTICLE II: You do not have the right to never be offended. This country is based on freedom, and that means freedom for everyone -- not just you! You may leave the room, turn the channel, express a different opinion, etc.; but the world is full of idiots, and probably always will be.

ARTICLE III: You do not have the right to be free from harm. If you stick a screwdriver in your eye, learn to be more careful; do not expect the tool manufacturer to make you and all your relatives independently wealthy.


ARTICLE IV: You do not have the right to free food and housing. Americans are the most charitable people to be found, and will gladly help anyone in need, but we are quickly growing weary of subsidizing generation after generation of professional couch potatoes who achieve nothing more than the creation of another generation of professional couch potatoes . (This one is my pet peeve...get an education and go to work....don't expect everyone else to take care of you!) WHEN YOU NEED TO BE SUBSIDIZED, YOU GET YOUR TUBES TIED!!


ARTICLE V: You do not have the right to free health care. That would be nice, but from the looks of public housing, we're just not interested in public health care.


ARTICLE VI: You do not have the right to physically harm other people. If you kidnap, rape, intentionally maim, or kill someone, don't be surprised if the rest of us want to see you fry in the electric chair. IN THREE MONTHS, NOT EIGHT YEARS!!


ARTICLE VII: You do not have the right to the possessions of others. If you rob, cheat, or coerce away the goods or services of other citizens, don't be surprised if the rest of us get together and lock you away in a place where you still won't have the right to a big screen color TV or a life of leisure.


ARTICLE VIII: You do not have the right to a job.. All of us sure want you to have a job, and will gladly help you along in hard times, but we expect you to take advantage of the opportunities of education and vocational training laid before you to make yourself useful. (AMEN!) UNFORTUNATELY, THEY TOOK VOCATIONAL TRAINING OUT OF THE SCHOOLS!!


ARTICLE IX: You do not have the right to happiness. Being an American means that you have the right to PURSUE happiness, which by the way, is a lot easier if you are unencumbered by an over abundance of idiotic laws created by those of you who were confused by the Bill of Rights.


ARTICLE X: This is an English speaking country. We don't care where you are from, English is our language. Learn it or go back to wherever you came from! (Last....)


ARTICLE XI: You do not have the right to change our country's history or heritage. This country was founded on the belief in one true God. And yet, you are given the freedom to believe in any religion, any faith, or no faith at all; with no fear of persecution. The phrase IN GOD WE TRUST is part of our heritage and history, and if you are uncomfortable with it, TOUGH!!!! GET OVER IT !!!




If you agree, share this with a friend. No, you don't have to, and nothing tragic will befall you if you don't. I just think it's about time common sense is allowed to flourish. Sensible people of the United States speak out because if you do not , you know who will!!!



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There isn't one thing there that I disagree with.

You realize of course, that if these amendments were actually imposed, you would squash every liberal in America's will to live.

They would have to learn to deal with it. Wouldn't they??

HOW LONG DO WE HAVE?

This is the most interesting thing I've read in a long time. The sad thing about it, you can see it coming.

I have always heard about this democracy countdown. It is interesting to see it in print. God help us, not that we deserve it.

How Long Do We Have?

About the time our original thirteen states adopted their new constitution in 1787, Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at the University of Edinburgh , had this to say about the fall of the Athenian Republic some 2,000 years earlier:

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

"A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury."

"From that moment on, the majority always vote for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship."

"The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years"

"During those 200 years, those nations always progressed through the following sequence:

1. from bondage to spiritual faith;

2. from spiritual faith to great courage;

3. from courage to liberty;

4. from liberty to abundance;

5. from abundance to complacency;

6. from complacency to apathy;

7. from apathy to dependence;

8. from dependence back into bondage"

Professor Joseph Olson of Hemline University School of Law, St. Paul, Minnesota, points out some interesting facts concerning the 2000 Presidential election:

Number of States won by:

Democrats: 19

Republicans: 29

Square miles of land won by:

Democrats: 580,000

Republicans: 2,427,000

Population of counties won by:

Democrats: 127 million

Republicans: 143 million

Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by:

Democrats: 13.2

Republicans: 2.1

Professor Olson adds: "In aggregate, the map of the territory Republican won was mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens of this great country. Democrat territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in government-owned tenements and living off various forms of government welfare..." Olson believes the United States is now somewhere between the "complacency and apathy" phase of Professor Tyler's definition o f democracy, with some forty percent of the nation's population already having reached the "governmental dependency" phase.

If Congress grants amnesty and citizenship to twenty million criminal invaders called illegal's and they vote, then we can say goodbye to the USA in fewer than five years.

WE LIVE IN THE LAND OF THE FREE,
ONLY BECAUSE OF THE BRAVE

True statement enough but....more so because of the Grace of God.

Old Timer wrote:
Professor Olson adds: "In aggregate, the map of the territory Republican won was mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens of this great country. Democrat territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in government-owned tenements and living off various forms of government welfare..." Olson believes the United States is now somewhere between the "complacency and apathy" phase of Professor Tyler's definition o f democracy, with some forty percent of the nation's population already having reached the "governmental dependency" phase.

If Congress grants amnesty and citizenship to twenty million criminal invaders called illegal's and they vote, then we can say goodbye to the USA in fewer than five years.

WE LIVE IN THE LAND OF THE FREE,
ONLY BECAUSE OF THE BRAVE

True statement enough but....more so because of the Grace of God.

There's a confounding variable that the author has not taken into account - democrats tend to win in areas of high population denisty. That's the most logical reason why murder rates are higher, not because they are voting democrat.

Also, blue states tend to pay more tax and receive fewer benefits than red states. I don't think that's particularly indicative of anything to do with whether or not the residents are democrats or republicans, but then neither is the author's unsubstantiated claim that republicans are the tax-payers and democrats are leeching off the system.

Kazza wrote:

Old Timer wrote:
Professor Olson adds: "In aggregate, the map of the territory Republican won was mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens of this great country. Democrat territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in government-owned tenements and living off various forms of government welfare..." Olson believes the United States is now somewhere between the "complacency and apathy" phase of Professor Tyler's definition o f democracy, with some forty percent of the nation's population already having reached the "governmental dependency" phase.

If Congress grants amnesty and citizenship to twenty million criminal invaders called illegal's and they vote, then we can say goodbye to the USA in fewer than five years.

WE LIVE IN THE LAND OF THE FREE,
ONLY BECAUSE OF THE BRAVE

True statement enough but....more so because of the Grace of God.

There's a confounding variable that the author has not taken into account - democrats tend to win in areas of high population denisty. That's the most logical reason why murder rates are higher, not because they are voting democrat.

Also, blue states tend to pay more tax and receive fewer benefits than red states. I don't think that's particularly indicative of anything to do with whether or not the residents are democrats or republicans, but then neither is the author's unsubstantiated claim that republicans are the tax-payers and democrats are leeching off the system.

i can't disagree with any of this. both parties believe in big government now and they both corode civil liberties and increase the size of government. bottom line is both parties are composed of state-ists, by and large. more democrats then republicans, however, usually are mistaken in assuming that big government and all of its programs are of benefit to them; and, historically, they do take advantage or partake, might be a better way of putting it, in these programs more than republicans. that is most likely due to a matter of class/status.

HotParadox wrote:and, historically, they do take advantage or partake, might be a better way of putting it, in these programs more than republicans. that is most likely due to a matter of class/status.

I wonder how this would compare if things like agriculture subsidies were taken into account? After all, they're still a form a welfare.

Kazza wrote:

HotParadox wrote:and, historically, they do take advantage or partake, might be a better way of putting it, in these programs more than republicans. that is most likely due to a matter of class/status.

I wonder how this would compare if things like agriculture subsidies were taken into account? After all, they're still a form a welfare.

Do you mean pillage in the name of tillage?

Theophilus wrote:

Kazza wrote:

HotParadox wrote:and, historically, they do take advantage or partake, might be a better way of putting it, in these programs more than republicans. that is most likely due to a matter of class/status.

I wonder how this would compare if things like agriculture subsidies were taken into account? After all, they're still a form a welfare.

Do you mean pillage in the name of tillage?

On the prowl for the plow?

Kazza wrote:

HotParadox wrote:and, historically, they do take advantage or partake, might be a better way of putting it, in these programs more than republicans. that is most likely due to a matter of class/status.

I wonder how this would compare if things like agriculture subsidies were taken into account? After all, they're still a form a welfare.

but here's the very important difference, k. the independent farmer wouldn't really be able to exist w/o subsidies. if anyone, be it an individual or failed banks etc., should be getting perks from the government, it should be farmers who are such an industrious, vital part of the us economy. it's hard, though, to equate what farmers are getting from the government with what people who don't/won't work for a living, get from the government. without subsidies, the us farm could not exist and farms would, then, belong to and be run by the government.

folks should remember just where the food on their table comes from and leave the farmer alone to do what he does best, feed us. And if he gets a little help so what. It is better than going hungry isn't it?

Old Timer wrote:folks should remember just where the food on their table comes from and leave the farmer alone to do what he does best, feed us. And if he gets a little help so what. It is better than going hungry isn't it?

And boy oh boy do they work for that help. They aren't flying all over the world with that money, they are putting it into their equipment and land.

you two boys are exactly right. you cannot compare individual welfare to the us subsidizing the farming industry. if, as i say, the farmers did not receive these monies, they could not exist. the government would have to take over and control our farms and that would be truly the end of our form of government.

HotParadox wrote:you two boys are exactly right. you cannot compare individual welfare to the us subsidizing the farming industry. if, as i say, the farmers did not receive these monies, they could not exist. the government would have to take over and control our farms and that would be truly the end of our form of government.

Personally I do think that a lot of folks should remember this old saying, myself included, when making statements about which they have no actual first hand knowledge.

PLEASE MAKE SURE BRAIN IS ENGAGED BEFORE PUTTING MOUTH IN MOTION.

It seems to be that all to often we say things without having any real knowledge on the subject. When in fact all we are doing is ofering an opinion, and trying to make like we really are a world class expert on the subject when effect all we really know is what we are told and a lot of time what we are told is just someone elses opinion to. I can say that I am not a farmer, never have been and never will be. But there have been several farmers and ranchers in my family. I have known these folks to work from before sun up to after sun down year after year and never make much money. Why. Because it is the life that they chose and love it. So the next time you set down to a meal, just look at it and think about what would not be there on the table for you to eat if the farmer just quit. Or that rancher raised no more chickens or cattle. So the way I see it is that if the farmer gets a subsidy to keep him in the business of growing food so I and my family can to to the store and buy food to eat who am I to complain.

I think they should set up the welfare system so those collecting checks will have to put in a certain amount of hours working on the farms and doing stuff like road clean up to get those checks. That way they have to work for it anyway, they may as well try a little harder to get a job where they are not sweating their butts off.

Old Timer wrote:

HotParadox wrote:you two boys are exactly right. you cannot compare individual welfare to the us subsidizing the farming industry. if, as i say, the farmers did not receive these monies, they could not exist. the government would have to take over and control our farms and that would be truly the end of our form of government.

Personally I do think that a lot of folks should remember this old saying, myself included, when making statements about which they have no actual first hand knowledge.

PLEASE MAKE SURE BRAIN IS ENGAGED BEFORE PUTTING MOUTH IN MOTION.

It seems to be that all to often we say things without having any real knowledge on the subject. When in fact all we are doing is ofering an opinion, and trying to make like we really are a world class expert on the subject when effect all we really know is what we are told and a lot of time what we are told is just someone elses opinion to. I can say that I am not a farmer, never have been and never will be. But there have been several farmers and ranchers in my family. I have known these folks to work from before sun up to after sun down year after year and never make much money. Why. Because it is the life that they chose and love it. So the next time you set down to a meal, just look at it and think about what would not be there on the table for you to eat if the farmer just quit. Or that rancher raised no more chickens or cattle. So the way I see it is that if the farmer gets a subsidy to keep him in the business of growing food so I and my family can to to the store and buy food to eat who am I to complain.

You got it nailed OT.

I'm not suggesting that farmers don't work hard, not at all. I'm fully aware of just how difficult that life is.

But any way you choose to roll the dice, the fact is that the work that farmers are doing is not valued highly enough by the population for them to do it and make a profit.

If I collect a welfare cheque and spend my day running my home-based plastic key-chain trinket factory, is that ok? What if I work from sun up to sun down like the farmers do? No one is buying my $5 key-chains because they can get them imported from overseas for $2, but that doesn't matter. The government subsidises the farmers for the same reason, so why not me?

And there would still be food if the farmers weren't subsidised, it would just be imported, that's all. The reason farmers need subsidies is not so that you have food at all, it's so that they can compete with overseas food. If people really wanted to buy their food locally, and were willing to pay full price for it (which they do anyway, since they're paying taxes), then the subsidies would be unnecssary. Instead you have to force people to buy locally, and create surpluses that are dumped on the world market at such undervalued prices that it results in millions of third world farmers being unable to sell their goods at a reasonable price.

/devil's advocate

Kazza wrote:I'm not suggesting that farmers don't work hard, not at all. I'm fully aware of just how difficult that life is.

But any way you choose to roll the dice, the fact is that the work that farmers are doing is not valued highly enough by the population for them to do it and make a profit.

If I collect a welfare cheque and spend my day running my home-based plastic key-chain trinket factory, is that ok? What if I work from sun up to sun down like the farmers do? No one is buying my $5 key-chains because they can get them imported from overseas for $2, but that doesn't matter. The government subsidises the farmers for the same reason, so why not me?

And there would still be food if the farmers weren't subsidised, it would just be imported, that's all. The reason farmers need subsidies is not so that you have food at all, it's so that they can compete with overseas food. If people really wanted to buy their food locally, and were willing to pay full price for it (which they do anyway, since they're paying taxes), then the subsidies would be unnecssary. Instead you have to force people to buy locally, and create surpluses that are dumped on the world market at such undervalued prices that it results in millions of third world farmers being unable to sell their goods at a reasonable price.

/devil's advocate

Point well taken, but without the American farmer, the price of imported food would more than likely be so high that not everyone could afford it. In time or things such as war, which in all probability will happen again, we will need to be self sustained as much as possible.

Kazza wrote:I'm not suggesting that farmers don't work hard, not at all. I'm fully aware of just how difficult that life is.

But any way you choose to roll the dice, the fact is that the work that farmers are doing is not valued highly enough by the population for them to do it and make a profit.

If I collect a welfare cheque and spend my day running my home-based plastic key-chain trinket factory, is that ok? What if I work from sun up to sun down like the farmers do? No one is buying my $5 key-chains because they can get them imported from overseas for $2, but that doesn't matter. The government subsidises the farmers for the same reason, so why not me?

And there would still be food if the farmers weren't subsidised, it would just be imported, that's all. The reason farmers need subsidies is not so that you have food at all, it's so that they can compete with overseas food. If people really wanted to buy their food locally, and were willing to pay full price for it (which they do anyway, since they're paying taxes), then the subsidies would be unnecssary. Instead you have to force people to buy locally, and create surpluses that are dumped on the world market at such undervalued prices that it results in millions of third world farmers being unable to sell their goods at a reasonable price.

/devil's advocate

Food vs Keychains? Come on Kazza, you can do better than that.

How about you're selling an herbal treatment for cancer or something?

CarolinaHound wrote:I think they should set up the welfare system so those collecting checks will have to put in a certain amount of hours working on the farms and doing stuff like road clean up to get those checks. That way they have to work for it anyway, they may as well try a little harder to get a job where they are not sweating their butts off.

i like it.

i can't wrap my brain around the plastic key-chain trinket analogy. sorry.

HotParadox wrote:

CarolinaHound wrote:I think they should set up the welfare system so those collecting checks will have to put in a certain amount of hours working on the farms and doing stuff like road clean up to get those checks. That way they have to work for it anyway, they may as well try a little harder to get a job where they are not sweating their butts off.

i like it.

What can I say? Sometimes my brain farts smell ok.

HotParadox wrote:i can't wrap my brain around the plastic key-chain trinket analogy. sorry.

That's ok, I can't even remember what the point of this discussion was anymore . Farmers are anti-abortion or something, right?

Kazza wrote:

HotParadox wrote:i can't wrap my brain around the plastic key-chain trinket analogy. sorry.

That's ok, I can't even remember what the point of this discussion was anymore . Farmers are anti-abortion or something, right?

Not if they're egg farmers.

CarolinaHound wrote:I think they should set up the welfare system so those collecting checks will have to put in a certain amount of hours working on the farms and doing stuff like road clean up to get those checks. That way they have to work for it anyway, they may as well try a little harder to get a job where they are not sweating their butts off.

We have that over here, it's called "Work for the dole", or something like that ("The dole" is what we call welfare).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_for_the_dole

Those unemployed for 12 months or more and who have been assessed by their Job Network Member as having a "pattern of work avoidance" may be referred to a program called "Full Time Work for the Dole". This offers no additional payment, but increases the required total participation time to 1,100 hours, with a minimum of 50 hours per fortnight. It usually takes about ten months to complete.

People usually work part-time on the work-for-the-dole program. The reason they only work part time is that they're also expected to be seeking full time jobs.

CarolinaHound wrote:

Kazza wrote:

HotParadox wrote:i can't wrap my brain around the plastic key-chain trinket analogy. sorry.

That's ok, I can't even remember what the point of this discussion was anymore . Farmers are anti-abortion or something, right?

Not if they're egg farmers.

Kazza wrote:

CarolinaHound wrote:I think they should set up the welfare system so those collecting checks will have to put in a certain amount of hours working on the farms and doing stuff like road clean up to get those checks. That way they have to work for it anyway, they may as well try a little harder to get a job where they are not sweating their butts off.

We have that over here, it's called "Work for the dole", or something like that ("The dole" is what we call welfare).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_for_the_dole

Those unemployed for 12 months or more and who have been assessed by their Job Network Member as having a "pattern of work avoidance" may be referred to a program called "Full Time Work for the Dole". This offers no additional payment, but increases the required total participation time to 1,100 hours, with a minimum of 50 hours per fortnight. It usually takes about ten months to complete.

People usually work part-time on the work-for-the-dole program. The reason they only work part time is that they're also expected to be seeking full time jobs.

How long is a fortnight?

But that's the way it should except after 6 months at the most. Over here they just keep re-qualifing and are on it for life. Having babies between each so they can qualify for more $$. I mean they do give free rubbers away in the same building, two floors down.

Kazza wrote:

HotParadox wrote:i can't wrap my brain around the plastic key-chain trinket analogy. sorry.

That's ok, I can't even remember what the point of this discussion was anymore . Farmers are anti-abortion or something, right?

ya, it goes like that.

whatsa fortnight?

HotParadox wrote:whatsa fortnight?

A night at a fort?

fort⋅night   /ˈfɔrtˌnaɪt, -nɪt/ [fawrt-nahyt, -nit] Show IPA
–noun the space of fourteen nights and days; two weeks

CarolinaHound wrote:

HotParadox wrote:whatsa fortnight?

A night at a fort?

oh ya. true.

CarolinaHound wrote:fort⋅night   /ˈfɔrtˌnaɪt, -nɪt/ [fawrt-nahyt, -nit] Show IPA
–noun the space of fourteen nights and days; two weeks

it's 2 wks? why bother with the medieval talk then? it's 2 wks and be done w/it.

HotParadox wrote:

CarolinaHound wrote:fort⋅night   /ˈfɔrtˌnaɪt, -nɪt/ [fawrt-nahyt, -nit] Show IPA
–noun the space of fourteen nights and days; two weeks

it's 2 wks? why bother with the medieval talk then? it's 2 wks and be done w/it.

And this coming from someone from Boston. "We had chowda in the yad."

CarolinaHound wrote:

HotParadox wrote:

CarolinaHound wrote:I think they should set up the welfare system so those collecting checks will have to put in a certain amount of hours working on the farms and doing stuff like road clean up to get those checks. That way they have to work for it anyway, they may as well try a little harder to get a job where they are not sweating their butts off.

i like it.

What can I say? Sometimes my brain farts smell ok.

just so you know. i hate that word.

CarolinaHound wrote:

HotParadox wrote:

CarolinaHound wrote:fort⋅night   /ˈfɔrtˌnaɪt, -nɪt/ [fawrt-nahyt, -nit] Show IPA
–noun the space of fourteen nights and days; two weeks

it's 2 wks? why bother with the medieval talk then? it's 2 wks and be done w/it.

And this coming from someone from Boston. "We had chowda in the yad."

shut uuuuppp.

You'll like the other one I use for it even less.

HotParadox wrote:

CarolinaHound wrote:

HotParadox wrote:

CarolinaHound wrote:fort⋅night   /ˈfɔrtˌnaɪt, -nɪt/ [fawrt-nahyt, -nit] Show IPA
–noun the space of fourteen nights and days; two weeks

it's 2 wks? why bother with the medieval talk then? it's 2 wks and be done w/it.

And this coming from someone from Boston. "We had chowda in the yad."

shut uuuuppp.

CarolinaHound wrote:

HotParadox wrote:

CarolinaHound wrote:

HotParadox wrote:

CarolinaHound wrote:fort⋅night   /ˈfɔrtˌnaɪt, -nɪt/ [fawrt-nahyt, -nit] Show IPA
–noun the space of fourteen nights and days; two weeks

it's 2 wks? why bother with the medieval talk then? it's 2 wks and be done w/it.

And this coming from someone from Boston. "We had chowda in the yad."

shut uuuuppp.

you're a baby.