Why I have a magnet on my refrigerator with Bush Jr's mug on it that says "Worse Presnit Ever." And we lived on only to see him proven #2. The Horror!! The Horror!! I can go on with this but don't want to spend the rest of my life belaboring the plain truth. That it isn't plain to see by every Amurican simply rubs it in. We refuse immigrants but the rest of the world refuses emigrants from the bestest country evah. Unless you bribe your way in which poor folk can never do.
Problem is with having a fridge magnet saying "Worst POTUS Ever" is that it's missing the words "... so far." There's always room for a worse one. The concept of borders and border controls, and effect of freedom of movement is a funny thing. Playing with the World Factbook and other sources, across all countries whether developed or undeveloped, the percentage of the native population of a country that ups sticks and permanently leaves to travel to another country is... 3%. It's the same within US and EU freedom of movement zones, and across places requiring visas and residence permits. It's this trend that explains why one might find a Scotsman, Welshman, Irishman, Chinese and Indian in every English town, and yet also why there's a strong genetic similarity in the native population of that town dating back to Saxon times. Without some extreme external event (really war or famine) most people don't go far from home. It kind of makes me wonder why we bother with the whole edifice of visas, passports and so forth. The great majority of people aren't going anywhere, and the few that want to, will find a way anyway...
Because gummints MUST assert their existence (as in We exist. You only exist when the gummint says so.) To the Department of Taxes we always exist. But they have no concept of citizenship. Is being a citizen in the land area that asserts its authority over us a good thing? I have sincere doubts. Yet having no passport at all is extraordinarily inconvenient. But I needed no passport to move to Viet-Nam for about a year. See, Uncle Sam can be amazingly corrupt. Say it ain't so!
All of your post is brand new info for me. We should write to tunor and tell...never mind What's wrong with you Daniel You know tumor can't read and we all know he can't count ( See swearing in photos) Really interesting Post K.
It's just that the former country of the Republic of South Viet-Nam never existed to Our Heroic Majesties. "Hey! We're in charge here!"
If you think that's weird, travel restrictions used to be imposed to stop the local population leaving, rather than to prevent foreigners arriving. When all work was labour-intensive, availability of workers was the limiting factor and so lords would try to encourage people to settle in their fief. Passports were not a document to define a legal right to travel, but a naked threat that the traveler had an army behind him who would trash the port if he wasn't given free passage. The modern system of nation states setting entry requirements and restrictions came about following the Treaty of Versailles, and matches the point in time where the USA determined that it was wealthy with high growth potential, and was making its play for hegemony*. In fact, it took the British Imperial concept of divide and conquer, and carried it out to its logical conclusion, subtly and legalistically. It's useful to be able to track people and to stop troublesome individuals crossing borders, but restricting whole nations on the basis of nationality benefits no nation. However, no country is going to be the first to tear the whole edifice down. Instead, it has to be done equally subtly - by supranational free movement zones, like the EU. Indeed. Where Marx got it right was that, once wealth and production increased past a certain point, government would become meaningless and fade away. Hence government policy designed to beggar fully three quarters of the population in perpetuity, and to ensure that those with some money have an interest in maintaining the status quo. Yes, and it's out of date and full of supposition. I used other sources as well, like census and survey information where published. ----------- * yes, this is an oversimplification - the other signatories to the Treaty were willing accomplices, and the rise of communism was scaring the old-world nations in a way that meant that keeping foreigners out suddenly seemed like a reasonable form of self-defence.
More like nine tenths firmly under the boot heel of the rich. Been feeling kind of crushed lately. But Gawd knows I love my Massa! The only real antidote is Socialism. But Massa says he's agin' it. The South in the US was really most helpful. Talk about hanging the wrong people! Yet people won't hang themselves, even when MOST deserving of that fate. Justice in America conveniently locked up within the Department of Same. Never to be seen by the gentlefolk again.
The rich have made me happy in but one regard, They've never tried to force me to become one of them. "Tis easier for a camel to pass though the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of Heaven" J.C. "Always remember where you came from And fear money." Carlos Santana's mother.
As everyone I know feels the coming as our mountainous misdeeds. Each one declaring "We will fall on you. George, we see the strength of our democracy in that despite 50% of Americas wealth now resides in just three people. Yet We still have the option, one I embrace, to tax those three out of existence. They are not the whole problem We have accepted a level of stupidity in the voter that can never serve us well. When I was `16 American Education was number 1 in the world. We voted to fix that. Now we are the pits. What your looking at now is the urgent need to have government as a means to counter the whims of the rich. What we voted for can and will be voted against. I think there's at least a 50-50 chance the age of the billionaire is rapidly drawing to a close. Self centered people at lest tend to mind their own business. But if you are killing their planet they take notice of you. While corrupt politicians are a wonderful thing to own, As the world dies, in completely non theoretical and obvious ways their lies mean less and less to the people. Sooner or later those madmen whose weapons terrorize us as they level our schools and gathering places will turn their sights upon billionaires and their politicians Sooner or later they will realize that killing us means nothing to those who hold power. But threaten the rich and you can change the world...just not for the better. You want better start building schools.
I like your optimism that change for the better can come. I'm far from the very bottom of the heap yet feel their suffering quite easily. Or at least I think so. It's been a long time since I was broke and homeless. And if i'm not there I don't know the grinding insult and insecurity of being there. If the downtrodden don't rise up shortly in the future what will come will be extremely dark for us all. Sorry to say it, but we will deserve it. Of course the rich have much farther to fall, but the necessary g-forces will be spread to encompass all of us.
"Everything that goes to extremes meets with misfortune." This is not a matter of chance, but rather the result of going to far. To far from everything that might support a movement. Support is found in the middle. Picture me on a mountain top, way high up there. I break my leg. What are my chances of getting help? Compare that to my being at home or across the streat from a hospital. Compared to my being in the mist of humanity. Eveything that suports me is in the middle of humanity, not in the extreme of Everest. This applys to all things that relie upon support from without. You have to go to what supports you when in trouble. "all laws that do not have the support of the peole are doomed to fail. In the end they mearly cause resentment." Our drug laws are a perfect example. They spent billions to stop pot. They lied about it for 40 years and now? The law makers are investing heavely in Pot farms. It can be easy to miss the laws on extremity, as some laws work themselves out over generations rather than in just one life time. Like climate change. The truth ALWAYS will out. It just takes more time than we would like, It just costs more lives than we would like. Tumor will utterly fail. He needs no help to do so. "At first he climbed so high that he might have enlightened all with in his realm But instead he made it his business to harm and injure men; in so doing brought about his own downfall.?" These words concerning tumor were written 3,000 years ago. tens of thousands of men have fallen in that time because they did not see or understand that laws work themselves out in the lives of men as surely as they do in nature. Tumor will fall. indeed is falling now.
Not fast enough for me. But patience isn't my strong suit sometimes. It feels like I've seen his obscenity of a face for two lifetimes. Thanks for your post, it's very helpful.
In turbulent times it can become very difficult to know where the middle is. to know the minds of the people. In such a case we must wait for further development, to reveal our proper course of action. No arbitrarily choice of the way should be made here. We must wait in the calm strenth of patience for the middle way to reveal itself to us. To act now, before the time is right, would only exhaust our forces and achieve nothing. When the time of waiting has past we will be in full possession of our power and energy to take the best advantage of the coming time that is just now dawning and bring all that is good in such time to maturation. As any fighter can tell us, Timing is everything.
What we voted for can and will be voted against used against us. FTFY At times I struggle with these various comments about "the rich" as if they're somehow an external problem. I've already pointed out that on an absolute scale, absolutely every one of us on these boards is fantastically rich - at least top 10% of the global population. Ignoring that large elephant in the room, becoming "rich" isn't especially hard over time, as all it really requires is a modicum of effort and self-control - perhaps what you're really objecting to is not "the rich," who are maybe people that keep to themselves, look after their families and are just cautious with their spending and sensible with their savings. Perhaps you're really concerned by the avaricious, who have wealth far beyond their earthly wants or needs? One of the greatest swindles ever is to convince the middling rich - the working and middle classes - that their goals were aligned with the seriously rich, and that to vote for policies that would benefit the seriously rich would also benefit them. While the net benefit of having socialised healthcare, well-funded state education etc. in exchange for slightly higher direct taxation is in the taxpayer's favour all the way up to upper-middle class incomes, the middle classes are persuaded that they're actually better off "being in control" - thus financing their own health insurance, pension, private schools, etc. at enormous direct expense. Americans are somehow convinced that this equates to "freedom," and that pooling life's risks across the entire tax base is somehow "communism." We (UK) are a little less far along the slippery slope - thankfully even our rightest-wing government in centuries hasn't managed to completely disassemble the public welfare system. I think there's a 100% chance that'll never happen. Not while people still equate "public service" with "evil communism."
Americans in general are ill-educated and ill informed. With a population like this all manner of lies strewn among them are swallowed whole, with gusto. Public education was taken seriously but it's been under the hammer for decades. We don't educate the masses well enough to even work at a fairly simple job feeding machines their grist. The Rich and Powerful want it this way. And they get what they want. One person has to earn more than $100k per year to be barely middle class. The fare goes up and the people come down into the ranks of the poor. Freedom rings here in USA. Every time I hear freedom applied to the less than wealthy I laugh.
Hi K! Great to see you champion the poor. K. Saving is at lest a few steps down the road to wealth. So why aren't we the middle class rich? You skipped over the first step. One needs an income that both support one's present and leaves a decent amount that can be saved. Most lack this "active ingredient" But there is another factor. A surprising number of people "see with eyes that can't forget" A really remarkable group of people sacrifice that rosy future where all their needs are met and their money grows it self into great abundance. "so if you see your neighbor struggling Help him with his load and don't go mistaking paradise for that home across the road." Bob Dylan For many if not most the accumulation of money, the things all bright and shinny that money can buy. Is not what they wish for. Every day they give away a bit of what they wish for. For they wish to see us well. So they give their "Widows Mite" to the red cross or crescent. and make things at home last another year, They wish to see us fed and stock our food banks. They wish to see us love and so adopt the nations orphans. In short they believe not so much in money save it be money for the poor. When I speak of the rich I speak of the super rich, that can't afford to give away a single dime that does not in some way benefit them. I think we have the super rich simply because most of us don't care to be super rich. We don't think as they do. We live very different lives. While mothers were giving everything for their children the S.R. and plotting to take it from them. I think the age of the super rich will pass. I think this as I think the age of abundance is passing. Very few were ever richer than the French were when we the people started taking heads. Revolution follows famine, The masses are strong and enduring. They will put up with the insufferable rich so long as their kids are fed. Being Super Rick is a kind of sickness. They cannot leave a single crumb upon the table. They must obsessively take every thing they can. So inevitably they take to much, they boast to much, and feel to little. Inevitable that children start dying. What would you do to keep your children in life? People think that revolution comes from the lower classes. The lower classes are happy if their kids are fed and have a shot at a decent future. It i s the rich that create the necessity of Revolution. Greed and corruption will always be with us. But it will not always have the upper hand. WE don't at all need the Super Rich. They are for the most part parasites. This whole business of great wealth is a new idea. Look at any primal people, they share, period. The idea that what is needed can be hoarded, came in with agriculture. We created abundance that could be taken, could be withheld. We are still learning how to deal with the rats that flock to whatever the people have accumulated. Sooner or later it must come to "it's us or them." I'm betting on us. I'm betting on revolution that is part and parcel to every cyclic change. If a thing recurs, then that thing must have a turning point. A moment between going forward and going back. At the still point of this changing world revolution is the point of demarcation When the old must yield to the new..When the longest night must yield to the dawn. .
I post on other forums than this one, including a UK-based financial website. Not one of those testosterone-fuelled sites full of braggarts and acronyms, but a much more human one discussing simple things like shopping and housing and pensions*. One of the subforums is dedicated to people who are deeply in debt. Serious, many times one's income debt. I post as much as my temperament will allow to help where I'm able, as my maths is not awful and I do understand (now) the rules of money. The UK system is a problem. Something like 40% of Britons lack the fundamental ability to manage their money** on a day-to-day basis, and so end up borrowing to make ends meet, with the result that about 8.3%*** have problem debt. We have a welfare state, but it's imperfectly applied. It's a sure vote-winner to vilify "benefit scroungers" so that the benefits system has been amended to become punitive, rather than protective. Here's an example: If I were to lose my job tomorrow, I might choose to register as unemployed. Naturally, while I might hope that I'm re-employed quickly, the average unemployment from redundancy in the UK is 12 months. I would go, perversely, to the nearest Job Centre to register, whereupon I would be means tested. Let's now pretend I'm one of the 22%**** of adults that has less than £100 in savings, which would make me eligible for "immediate" income support. It takes roughly 6 weeks before benefits are actually paid. That's 6 weeks in which I will default on my rent and utility bills, taxes and be unable to shop for food. I would have to resort to finding a food bank that's prepared to hear me out. If I'm not one of those lucky adults with no savings, then I'd be expected to exhaust my savings before my application is processed - by which point, I'm beggared before the government's money arrives. The amount provided is low - essentially just enough to cover bare essentials. But... as soon as you're on income support, everybody starts demanding prepayment. Prepaid utilities are more expensive than post-pay. PAYG phone calls are more expensive than contract. And so forth. That means the simple act of living becomes more expensive. Then, to keep the money tap flowing, I have to apply for jobs. And I'm not allowed to turn down "reasonable" job offers. Where the UK government is concerned, it doesn't actually matter whether the job is "appropriate" so long as it's reasonable. So I, as an engineer of some experience, might be offered a job washing plates in a restaurant, which I would be forced to take. The millisecond I start working for the restaurant, the government turns off the money tap. Never mind that I might be paid monthly in arrears and so be back to having no food again for a month, as soon as I have a job, I'm ineligible for state funding. So it's back to the food bank again, or quit and start the process over, or begin the long process of falling into the benefit trap, by having to make myself as unemployable as possible to the great majority of jobs, whilst retaining just enough dignity to be employable in something that is appropriate. Circling back to the debt forum I mentioned earlier, there are a lot of people circling this particular drain. In every case. Every. Single. Case. the person started out as one of the 40% turfed out into adulthood not knowing the rules of money. In nearly every case*****, the person posts up their spending statement, and, every time, the first messages are, "get rid of the netflix, satellite TV, big spending on gifts and entertainment and nights out and restaurant meals." Because, from poorest to richest, everyone in this state starts off living a King's lifestyle without the means to support it. But then, in almost every case, once people stop wasteful consumption on things that do not make them happy, every single person bar none****** makes a surplus, from those on below minimum wage, to those on megabucks. All of them. It's a matter of finding your limits and setting your expectations accordingly - a modicum of self-discipline. So... the solution isn't as simple as charity. At least, not outside the US * actually, there is a bragging page, which I just ignore ** as per the UK Money Advice Service, I'll find the link later *** as per HM Treasury **** UK Money Advice Service again ***** There are a few heartbreaking stories of divorce, fraud or personal breakdown, but these are few compared to the simple "didn't know what I was doing and went broke" stories. ****** With the exception of those so far in hock that only bankruptcy can save them.
