Maybe it's time for a civil war..

I'm not siding with anybody...like Robert E Lee, who sided with Virgina, not "the south"...I side with California, and there is now way they'd side with oil states, even though we produce oil

 

Right on there. Welcome to my free third of the nation.

 

As a fellow Californian, our state doesn't have a future in any sense either of us would recognize.

 

I agree with you, obviously, I advocate peaceful solutions above all else. I'm all ears on how to curb the coming storm. Default on the world, right?
haha

 

Sometimes I have to step away from the entire structure. Resources aren't changing anytime soon, people aren't changing anytime soon, it's all the moneychangers.

It's a lie i tell you! lmao

 

So, you side with the state, in other words. Just like I said, you would side with the statist blue states. I'm doubting your libertarian credentials even more now.

 

Lol. I say use the devices that the power elite gave us, and turn them on their heads. Lets turn the tables so that their genius financial models, economic theories, etc. work for the benefit of the majority at the expense of the power elite. Most of my economic proposals, including my "Wealth of Nations Tax Reform Act" do just that.

 

For most of American history there has been an overlap of worldviews and mindsets that have permitted reasoned compromise. The exceptions are the period from the Missouri Compromise through the Civil War, and the period from 2003 to the present.

The earlier era of exclusive mindsets and worldviews involved American expansion westward. Would the new states be Free Soil or Slave States. Compromise was not possible in the end. It was either/or.

There are two completely different visions of what the future of America should be as well today. A break down of public order is quite foreseeable in at least some portions of the country.

I think it is now too late for a new Constitutional Convention to bridge the gap. Imo the very best solution is partition as was done in the Indian subcontinent (w/o the violence) and in Czechoslovakia.

 

Yet, they own most of the mainstream sources of info, so I still see it requiring some sort of hostility to flip the paradigm on them. Even then, solutions offered that vary from the current system would be in conflict.

It's all going to be ok. I'm painting monetary roses.

 

I do not think hostility is necessary. For example, my tax reform proposal will be able to essentially created an isolated market for derivatives and securities, in which the current monetary structure fuels the financial power elite's ambitions. However, we tax and regulate those ambitions, and society can reap the benefits. All that is needed is a commodity within the currency structure outside of the isolated market so that the value of the dollar for citizens in general does not decrease due to velocity inflation, and that can be done with gold, silver, bronze, copper, etc. We can have our cake and eat it too.

 

I dissagree....Californians have always been bad arses.

When the Mormons stopped in Utah, and the Christians went to the Willamette Valley, the ballsy folks went to San Francisco and the gold country. In WWII, the place exploded economically. Silicon Valley was a country unto itself in the 80's-90's. We are the number one tourist destination in the world. We have the only recession proof industry that can't be outsourced, the film industry. You can ski and surf all in the same day.

When things turn around again...we'll be back to funding 20% of America like we did in the 80's-90's

 

There will be no civil war, not in the US, not in the UK.

The conditions do not lend themselves to it.

Outwith a few internet fantasists and some minor fringe groups, there is simply not the will, let alone anything else, for an all out civil war.

The bottom line is that the successive Gov's know they have it all tied up.

They know that too many people are apathetic and ignorant.

They know that it is easy to distract or divide those people.

They know all of this, and more, and the one thing they do not worry about, not their corporate paymasters, is large groups of people, either protesting, or protesting with force.

They do not care, because the Gov's and the corporations essentially control you, and your country, and that v much includes the cops and armed forces.

So, that sort of approach is dated, for those reasons.

Here is what they would fear more.

Rather than say 1000 well meaning, but pretty ignorant people, running around using force against Gov and their corporate buddies, they would be more worried about ten people who were intelligent, and knew how to hurt them.

Like Julian Assange did.

 

I agree. The greatest threat to the power elite are the intellectuals with the principles to go after their institutions that maintain their supremacy.

 

That's pretty brilliant in theory, diplomat. And I realize that you at least have the best intentions for the people, instead of partners. You can graduate in 2 years...do it.

 

California's problems are structural, not cyclical. Nothing is forever. Look at the public schools as an example. They can't be reformed.

 

Gov and corporations, in an alliance of power, have, for at least the last thirty years, tested Americans, and they tested the British people.

See how much they could get away with.

Sadly, the answer is a lot.

They know they can get away with engaging in questionable and expensive conflicts and operations in foreign lands, despite the fact that it is then us who have to pick up the bill, and often we do not want nor approve of it.

But they know they can get away with it, they can ignore mass protests, as was evidenced when the British Gov of the time just ignored over 1 million that took to the streets of London, to voice their opposition to Gov policy, over Iraq.

They know that if the protests remain non violent, that if they ignore it, news being what it is, something else will come along that will deflect public attention away.

If it turns more robust, then Gov know they have the cops and even armed forces that they can use, almost as their own political weapon, against people.

It comes down to two parties who have too much of a monopoly, and who are both funded by, and beholden to the same paymasters, that is who they really answer to, that is who they really form policy around.

Any benefit to you is incidental, and often there isn't one at all, just less public services, more job losses, more taxes, more social decay...

But they also aren't entirely stupid.

They know that it is a fine balancing act.

That is one of the reasons why they would never entirely abolish the welfare state, for example, because they need to ensure that they can say that they are compassionate enough to just about keep people sustained, who happen to need that assistance, for whatever reason.

For them, it is an investment, and not a spend, because the alternative would be too risky.

Then, every few years, the baton gets passed from one party to another.

Some of their surface rhetoric may appear entirely different and at odds with the party they have just replaced.

It is a facade, they may differ on some domestic points of policy, but they will still both jump through hoops to accomodate corporate demands and interests, and not those of the general public.

Not one single mainstream party in London or the US is worth the smell of my fart.

The system was good in principle, but as corporate power grew, the system has become so corrupted, it is almost impossible to know where to start the mending process.

 

There seems to be a lot of Obama bashing on this page.
Why do you all call him a socialist? has he ever tried to make a business publicly owned? so he bashed the rich alot and tries to get money from them in taxes. The simple truth is that republicans always say that the government should be run like a business and it is the most sensible Idea to get the tax dollars from where there is the most of it.

 

Here's an article from today's local paper. California science education is in deep doo doo.

http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/lo...gs-middle-school-science-teaching-study-finds

 

...This. It's plain to see. That's why I unsuccessfully root for the guy who says the system is bunk.

Of course I guess you can say that we must tip-toe our way around this current fraud to prop up the scheme until it inevitably topples.

 

I may not like the approaches of Ron Paul to a plethora of issues, but he is always well-intentioned, and he understands that the game is fixed.

 

One could always just vote for him and if they don't like it just vote in a big spender the following election.

 

Understood, but the other options have to be considered. He's not winning regardless.

It's more like we should've listened to his words throughout the past 2 decades and we wouldn't be this deep in garbage. At this point, his approaches may be too extreme, but I'm still shrugging at alternatives.

 

I have analyzed Paul's economic policies, including have read many of his books on monetary policy, and have been in awe of what his suggestions entail to vote for him. I am not in opposition of him because he is in principle or in intent wrong, because any educated member of the electorate can understand that he means well.

 

My only question is if you aren't supporting him who are you supporting? There is nobody else.

 

Under Reagan, we came close to completely following through on possibly Paul's and Milton Friedman's suggestions. Remember, a gold commission was created to examine the possibility of a return to the gold standard.