Congressman Fincher Wants to Cut Food Stamps. But He Himself is a Recipient of Large Subsidies.

Lisa Lisa

unread,

May 23, 2013, 8:02:27 PM5/23/13

to

Like a male Michelle Bachmann. Minus the gay hubby (I think).

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

May 22, 2013
Farm Subsidy Recipient Backs Food Stamp CutsBy RON NIXON
WASHINGTON — A Tennessee congressman who supports billions of dollars
in cuts to the food stamp program is one of the largest recipients of
federal farm subsides, according to new annual data released by a
Washington environmental group.

Using Agriculture Department data, researchers at the Environmental
Working Group found that Representative Stephen Fincher, a Republican
and a farmer from Frog Jump, Tenn., collected nearly $3.5 million in
subsidies from 1999 to 2012. The data is part of the research group’s
online farm subsidy database from which the group issues a report each
year.

In 2012 alone, the data shows, Mr. Fincher received about $70,000 in
direct payments, money that is given to farmers and farmland owners,
even if they do not grow crops. It is unclear how much Mr. Fincher
received in crop insurance subsidies because the names of people
receiving the subsidies are not public. The group said most of the
agriculture subsidies go to the largest, most profitable farm
operations in the country. These farmers have received $265 billion in
direct payments and farm insurance subsidies since 1995, federal
records show.

During debate on the farm bill in the House Agriculture Committee last
week, Mr. Fincher was one of the biggest proponents of $20 billion in
cuts to food stamps in the legislation. At times he quoted passages
from the Bible in defending the cuts.

“We have to remember there is not a big printing press in Washington
that continually prints money over and over,” Mr. Fincher said during
the debate. “This is other people’s money that Washington is
appropriating and spending.”

Scott Faber, vice president of government affairs at the Environmental
Working Group, said that Mr. Fincher was being hypocritical. “Not only
is he advocating deep cuts to other people’s money while he is getting
subsidies, he also voted to increase the subsidies that he benefits
from,” Mr. Faber said.

A spokeswoman for Mr. Fincher did not respond to a request for
comment.

The new subsidy data comes as the Senate continues floor debate this
week on a new five-year farm bill. The House bill is expected to go to
the floor next month.

Despite an estimated $24 billion in savings in the Senate bill and $40
billion in the House, the new farm bills preserve several Depression-
era subsidy programs like price supports for American sugar growers
and limits on sugar imports. The bills also create subsidies for
Southern peanut and rice farmers.

The most significant change in both the House and Senate bills is the
end of direct payments, which cost taxpayers about $5 billion a year.

Both the House and Senate bills would use the savings from eliminating
direct payments to increase financing for crop insurance, a federally
subsidized program that pays 62 percent of the premiums for farmers
and covers decreases in crop yields or revenue. About $1.3 billion a
year is paid to 15 insurance companies to sell and process the
policies.

The program has grown in the past few years, and last year paid out
record amounts because of the worst drought in 50 years. Research by
an Iowa State University economist, Bruce A. Babcock, that was
financed by the Environmental Working Group, found that the payouts
were mostly a result of policies that guarantee farmers a portion of
their projected revenue, rather than coverage that pays them for their
damaged crops.

The new farm bills would increase the crop insurance programs by $9
billion and include an additional subsidy called the “shallow loss”
program, which would cover farmers for modest crop yields or declines
in prices.

Several conservative groups, including the Heritage Foundation and the
American Enterprise Institute, as well as environmental organizations
including the Environmental Working Group, oppose crop insurance
subsidies, which they say amount to income protection, rather than
protection against crop losses from drought or natural disasters. The
Obama administration has called for cuts to all of the farm subsidies
including the crop insurance program.

Food stamps would receive a $4.1 billion cut in the Senate farm bill.
An amendment by Senator Kirsten E. Gillibrand, Democrat of New York,
to reverse the cuts by using money from the crop insurance program was
soundly defeated after a passionate plea by Senator Pat Roberts,
Republican of Kansas, who called crop insurance vital to farmers.

Log in to NYTimes.comClose.E-Mail/Member IDRead More »

Close

Joe Cooper

unread,

May 24, 2013, 2:50:14 AM5/24/13

to

Lisa Lisa <sylvan...@gmail.com> wrote in news:166545ec-4e18-4fde-b19b-
f39ee7...@m2g2000vbb.googlegroups.com:

> Like a male Michelle Bachmann. Minus the gay hubby (I think).

Good for Congressman Fincher - damned well time to get millions of lazy
freeloaders off the dole.

--
Enjoy Internet Privacy And Anonymity: http://hidemyass.com/vpn/r6995:5/

Mr. Obama, much too pure and innocent to be told about mistakes in his
administration, was too busy bathing the feet of the poor and tending
to lepers to be told that his administration was engaged in an
Orwellian attack on free speech. (Ben Stein)

Lisa Lisa

unread,

May 24, 2013, 8:59:39 AM5/24/13

to

On May 24, 2:50 am, Joe Cooper <nieqezbmv...@tormail.org> wrote:
> Lisa Lisa <sylvanlewi...@gmail.com> wrote in news:166545ec-4e18-4fde-b19b-
> f39ee72ea...@m2g2000vbb.googlegroups.com:

>
> > Like a male Michelle Bachmann. Minus the gay hubby (I think).
>
> Good for Congressman Fincher - damned well time to get millions of lazy
> freeloaders off the dole.

You do know that Fincher is largely talking about senior citizens and
children, right?

Never mind. I'm glad you came right out and admitted what you really
thought---that corrupt
congressmen are fine with you, and that you hate seniors and
children. I was tired of all
your phony concern about abortion, anyway.

Lisa

Joe Cooper

unread,

May 24, 2013, 2:39:00 PM5/24/13

to

Lisa Lisa <sylvan...@gmail.com> wrote in news:b867f8b3-fc77-4219-
b830-bf7...@l3g2000vbl.googlegroups.com:

>> Good for Congressman Fincher - damned well time to get millions of
lazy
>> freeloaders off the dole.
>
> You do know that Fincher is largely talking about senior citizens and
> children, right?

Sorry, Lisa, but I believe in small government, and reducing handouts is
a big step towards smaller government. I am not responsible for your
grocery bill, your mammograms or your pap smears, not to mention your
birth control meds.

By the way - I'm a senior citizen.

Zepp

unread,

May 24, 2013, 5:18:14 PM5/24/13

to

On Fri, 24 May 2013 18:39:00 +0000, Joe Cooper wrote:

> Lisa Lisa <sylvan...@gmail.com> wrote in news:b867f8b3-fc77-4219-
> b830-bf7...@l3g2000vbl.googlegroups.com:
>
>>> Good for Congressman Fincher - damned well time to get millions of
> lazy
>>> freeloaders off the dole.
>>
>> You do know that Fincher is largely talking about senior citizens and
>> children, right?
>
> Sorry, Lisa, but I believe in small government, and reducing handouts is
> a big step towards smaller government. I am not responsible for your
> grocery bill, your mammograms or your pap smears, not to mention your
> birth control meds.

In short, you're responsible for nothing.

So what is your value to society, exactly?

Joe Cooper

unread,

May 24, 2013, 7:28:34 PM5/24/13

to

Zepp <de...@gone.com> wrote in news:knolem$bir$1...@dont-email.me:

>
> In short, you're responsible for nothing.

Nope. I'm responsible to my community. I neither want nor need the
government to look after me or my neighbors.

Zepp

unread,

May 24, 2013, 7:33:55 PM5/24/13

to

On Fri, 24 May 2013 23:28:34 +0000, Joe Cooper wrote:

> Zepp <de...@gone.com> wrote in news:knolem$bir$1...@dont-email.me:
>
>
>> In short, you're responsible for nothing.
>
> Nope. I'm responsible to my community. I neither want nor need the
> government to look after me or my neighbors.

And how do you define a community?

Ringer

unread,

May 24, 2013, 8:43:29 PM5/24/13

to

Joe Cooper wrote:
> Lisa Lisa <sylvan...@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:166545ec-4e18-4fde-b19b-
> f39ee7...@m2g2000vbb.googlegroups.com:
>
>> Like a male Michelle Bachmann. Minus the gay hubby (I think).
>
> Good for Congressman Fincher - damned well time to get millions of
> lazy freeloaders off the dole.

So you don't have a problem with Fincher collecting your money for doing
nothing but you don't want a dime to go to the working poor?

Ringer

unread,

May 24, 2013, 8:47:18 PM5/24/13

to

Joe Cooper wrote:
> Lisa Lisa <sylvan...@gmail.com> wrote in news:b867f8b3-fc77-4219-
> b830-bf7...@l3g2000vbl.googlegroups.com:
>
>>> Good for Congressman Fincher - damned well time to get millions of
>>> lazy freeloaders off the dole.
>>
>> You do know that Fincher is largely talking about senior citizens and
>> children, right?
>
> Sorry, Lisa, but I believe in small government, and reducing handouts
> is a big step towards smaller government. I am not responsible for
> your grocery bill, your mammograms or your pap smears, not to mention
> your birth control meds.
>
> By the way - I'm a senior citizen.

So you don't have a problem with having your SS cut? Exactly what is a small
government, Joe? How do you know we don't have just the right size
government?

Ringer

unread,

May 24, 2013, 8:50:12 PM5/24/13

to

Joe Cooper wrote:
> Zepp <de...@gone.com> wrote in news:knolem$bir$1...@dont-email.me:
>
>>
>> In short, you're responsible for nothing.
>
> Nope. I'm responsible to my community. I neither want nor need the
> government to look after me or my neighbors.

What makes you think your neighbors want you to be responsible for them?
This is small minded tribalism you are talking about. You'd be surprised how
similar your community is to others in this country.

unread,

May 24, 2013, 9:14:14 PM5/24/13

to

unread,

May 25, 2013, 12:51:20 AM5/25/13

to

On May 24, 9:01 pm, BeamMeUpScotty

<ThenDestroyEveryth...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
> > Joe Cooper wrote:

> >> Zepp <d...@gone.com> wrote innews:knolem$bir$1...@dont-email.me:

>
> >>> In short, you're responsible for nothing.
>
> >> Nope. I'm responsible to my community. I neither want nor need the
> >> government to look after me or my neighbors.
>
> You mean NOT the Federal government.... the reason we have a community
> government is so they can look after each other in a local community
> environment.
>
> FEDERAL Government intrusion into that local system destroys the community.

Yeah, until that community gets hit by a massive tornado or other
disaster. Then it's time to
start pulling on the federal teat like there's no tomorrow.

Lisa

Lisa Lisa

unread,

May 25, 2013, 12:58:52 AM5/25/13

to

On May 24, 8:43 pm, "Ringer" <byo...@peoplestel.net> wrote:
> Joe Cooper wrote:

> > Lisa Lisa <sylvanlewi...@gmail.com> wrote in
> > news:166545ec-4e18-4fde-b19b-
> > f39ee72ea...@m2g2000vbb.googlegroups.com:
>

> >> Like a male Michelle Bachmann. Minus the gay hubby (I think).
>
> > Good for Congressman Fincher - damned well time to get millions of
> > lazy freeloaders off the dole.
>
> So you don't have a problem with Fincher collecting your money for doing
> nothing but you don't want a dime to go to the working poor?

That's what he said. Subsiding Fincher promotes independence in
someone. (Fincher?) Only Fincher can withstand the taint of federal
intrusion. I guess his paws are so well greased that the taint just
drops right off.

Lisa

Lisa Lisa

unread,

May 25, 2013, 8:48:24 AM5/25/13

to

On May 24, 8:51 pm, "Ringer" <byo...@peoplestel.net> wrote:
> Zepp wrote:
> > On Fri, 24 May 2013 23:28:34 +0000, Joe Cooper wrote:
>

> >> Zepp <d...@gone.com> wrote innews:knolem$bir$1...@dont-email.me:

>
> >>> In short, you're responsible for nothing.
>
> >> Nope. I'm responsible to my community. I neither want nor need the
> >> government to look after me or my neighbors.
>
> > And how do you define a community?
>
> The people that borrow tools from him and let their dog shit on his lawn

Community? That's a whole subculture right there!

Lisa

Joe Cooper

unread,

May 25, 2013, 1:31:13 PM5/25/13

to

"Ringer" <byo...@peoplestel.net> wrote in
news:NPednRegt73dlD3M...@neonova.net:

> So you don't have a problem with Fincher collecting your money for doing
> nothing but you don't want a dime to go to the working poor?

Interesting attempt to insinuate that because I favor small government, I
don't "want a dime to go to the working poor." One does not follow from the
other, of course, except to a proggie.

Lisa Lisa

unread,

May 25, 2013, 10:24:20 PM5/25/13

to

On May 25, 1:31 pm, Joe Cooper <nieqezbmv...@tormail.org> wrote:
> "Ringer" <byo...@peoplestel.net> wrote innews:NPednRegt73dlD3M...@neonova.net:

>
> > So you don't have a problem with Fincher collecting your money for doing
> > nothing but you don't want a dime to go to the working poor?
>
> Interesting attempt to insinuate that because I favor small government, I
> don't "want a dime to go to the working poor." One does not follow from the
> other, of course, except to a proggie.

Well, you did say something about getting millions of lazy freeloaders
off the dole. And who might
these freeloaders be, BTW, if they aren't the working poor? Because
they're usually people with
kids, or perhaps sometimes seniors.

Lisa

Joe Cooper

unread,

May 26, 2013, 1:07:43 AM5/26/13

to

Lisa Lisa <sylvan...@gmail.com> wrote in news:2c01b17c-c5c1-44cc-
be67-105...@gw5g2000vbb.googlegroups.com:

> Well, you did say something about getting millions of lazy freeloaders
> off the dole. And who might
> these freeloaders be, BTW, if they aren't the working poor? Because
> they're usually people with
> kids, or perhaps sometimes seniors.

It distresses me that you appear to be incapable of discerning the
difference between a community supporting its citizens vis-a-vis the
government stealing money from Paul to feed Peter.

That's probably why you are a proggie.

Zepp

unread,

May 26, 2013, 1:37:31 AM5/26/13

to

On Sun, 26 May 2013 05:07:43 +0000, Joe Cooper wrote:

> Lisa Lisa <sylvan...@gmail.com> wrote in news:2c01b17c-c5c1-44cc-
> be67-105...@gw5g2000vbb.googlegroups.com:
>
>> Well, you did say something about getting millions of lazy freeloaders
>> off the dole. And who might these freeloaders be, BTW, if they aren't
>> the working poor? Because they're usually people with kids, or perhaps
>> sometimes seniors.
>
> It distresses me that you appear to be incapable of discerning the
> difference between a community supporting its citizens vis-a-vis the
> government stealing money from Paul to feed Peter.
>
> That's probably why you are a proggie.

So basically all you have is mindless pseudo-libertarian boilerplate?

BeamMeUpScotty

unread,

May 26, 2013, 9:16:06 AM5/26/13

to

As opposed to your Progressive pseudo intellectual propaganda and
utopian theory?

You should try living in the real world, where boiler plate actually works.
--

*Rumination*
#37 - You can pick your friends, and you can pick your nose, but you
can't pick your friends nose.

Zepp

unread,

unread,

May 26, 2013, 4:52:47 PM5/26/13

to

On May 26, 1:07 am, Joe Cooper <nieqezbmv...@tormail.org> wrote:
> Lisa Lisa <sylvanlewi...@gmail.com> wrote in news:2c01b17c-c5c1-44cc-
> be67-10554feb1...@gw5g2000vbb.googlegroups.com:

>
> > Well, you did say something about getting millions of lazy freeloaders
> > off the dole. And who might
> > these freeloaders be, BTW, if they aren't the working poor? Because
> > they're usually people with
> > kids, or perhaps sometimes seniors.
>
> It distresses me that you appear to be incapable of discerning the
> difference between a community supporting its citizens vis-a-vis the
> government stealing money from Paul to feed Peter.
>
> That's probably why you are a proggie.

Well then, perhaps we should all just let Moore, OK, and all those
other red state catastrophe victims just stew in their libertarian
juices.

You do know that red staters get a lot in government services, don't
you?

Lisa

unread,

May 26, 2013, 7:16:07 PM5/26/13

to

Yeah, I'm always amazed at these "small government" advocates who want a
trillion a year to maintain 600 overseas bases that have no credible
enemy.

Joe Cooper

unread,

May 26, 2013, 9:03:02 PM5/26/13

to

Lisa Lisa <sylvan...@gmail.com> wrote in news:ccc5385f-9a4a-4e92-
b9b2-d76...@i4g2000vbl.googlegroups.com:

> Well then, perhaps we should all just let Moore, OK, and all those
> other red state catastrophe victims just stew in their libertarian
> juices.
>
> You do know that red staters get a lot in government services, don't
> you?

What's that got to do with anything, other than the fact that people who
live in areas prone to natural disasters probably aren't surprised when
one occurs. It simply means that they accept the liability - and it
matters not one whit whether they are Democrats, Republicans, or
conservative Libertarians.

--

Nickname unavailable

unread,

May 26, 2013, 10:44:35 PM5/26/13

to

On May 24, 7:59 am, Lisa Lisa <sylvanlewi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On May 24, 2:50 am, Joe Cooper <nieqezbmv...@tormail.org> wrote:
>
> > Lisa Lisa <sylvanlewi...@gmail.com> wrote in news:166545ec-4e18-4fde-b19b-
> > f39ee72ea...@m2g2000vbb.googlegroups.com:
>
> > > Like a male Michelle Bachmann. Minus the gay hubby (I think).
>

> > Good for Congressman Fincher - damned well time to get millions of lazy
> > freeloaders off the dole.
>

> You do know that Fincher is largely talking about senior citizens and
> children, right?
>

> Never mind. I'm glad you came right out and admitted what you really
> thought---that corrupt
> congressmen are fine with you, and that you hate seniors and
> children. I was tired of all
> your phony concern about abortion, anyway.
>
> Lisa

he knows, he is a sociopath.

Nickname unavailable

unread,

May 26, 2013, 10:47:08 PM5/26/13

to

On May 24, 1:39 pm, Joe Cooper <nieqezbmv...@tormail.org> wrote:
> Lisa Lisa <sylvanlewi...@gmail.com> wrote in news:b867f8b3-fc77-4219-
> b830-bf70e413b...@l3g2000vbl.googlegroups.com:

>
>
>
> >> Good for Congressman Fincher - damned well time to get millions of
> lazy
> >> freeloaders off the dole.
>
> > You do know that Fincher is largely talking about senior citizens and
> > children, right?
>

> Sorry, Lisa, but I believe in small government, and reducing handouts is
> a big step towards smaller government. I am not responsible for your
> grocery bill, your mammograms or your pap smears, not to mention your
> birth control meds.
>
> By the way - I'm a senior citizen.
>

a sociopath can by any age. once how ever you reach your late teens,
you are hard wired insane. so its to late to change you. your beliefs
are unamerican. you are free to think them though, thanks to
liberals:)))

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

The origins of American liberalism lie in the political ideals of The
Enlightenment.[4] The Constitution of the United States of 1787 set up
the first modern republic, with sovereignty in the people (not in a
monarch) and no hereditary ruling aristocracy. However, the
Constitution limited liberty by accepting slavery. The Founding
Fathers recognized the contradiction, and most expected slavery to
wither away. Indeed it was abolished in all the Northern states by
1804, but due to the demand for raw cotton by the Industrial
Revolution, plantation slavery continued to flourish in the Deep
South.
From the time of the Revolution to the present day, America has
extended liberty to ever broader classes of people. The states
abolished restrictions on voting in the early 19th century. The
Constitution was amended in 1865 to abolish slavery, in 1870 to extend
the vote to Black men, in 1920 to extend the vote to women, and in
1971 to lower the voting age to 18. The Jim Crow system of the South
between the 1890s and 1960s relegated blacks to second class
citizenship, until it was overthrown by the Civil Rights Movement and
new federal laws in 1964 and 1965.[5]
Thomas Jefferson believed that America should remain a nation of small
farmers.[6] As America became more and more a nation of businessmen,
liberals began to fear threats to liberty from corruption and
monopolies (called "trusts" at the time).[7][8] Wealth was
concentrated in the hands of a few—especially in the new fast-growing
cities—raised questions whether political democracy could survive the
power of the rich.
The dominance of the Republican Party for most of the era 1860-1932,
the Third Party System, and the Fourth Party System, prevented any
major reversal of the concentration of wealth. During the Progressive
Era of the early 20th century, laws were passed restricting monopolies
(the antitrust movement) and regulating railroad rates.[9][10]
After 1933, modern liberals used the New Deal to provide jobs during
the Great Depression. The Social Security act of 1935 provided
retirement and disability income for Americans unable to work or
unable to find jobs.[11] In the Social Security Act of 1965, this was
extended to provide benefits for Americans unable to work due to
illness.
In the 1960s, liberals fought for the rights of blacks and women, and
for protection of the environment. They split on the issue of the
Vietnam War.
A reaction against modern American liberalism began with Barry
Goldwater, which led to the eventual election of Ronald Reagan in
1980. The intellectual foundations of this conservative resurgence
included the works of free-market economists Milton Friedman and the
Chicago School of Economics, who argued against central economic
planning (with the notable exception of the Federal Reserve),
regulation of business, and Keynesian economics. Deregulation began in
the mid-1970s and had broad support from both liberals and
conservatives. Reagan successfully lowered marginal tax rates, most
notably for those at the top of the income distribution, while his
Social Security reforms raised taxes on the middle and bottom of the
income distribution, leaving their total tax burden unchanged. [12]
Democratic president Bill Clinton (1993–2001) worked with
conservatives, against strong liberal opposition, to end some of the
main welfare programs and to implement NAFTA, linking the economies of
the U.S., Canada, and Mexico. Clinton pushed to extend modern liberal
ideals especially in the areas of health care (where he failed) and
environmental protection (where he had more success).[13]
According to Louis Hartz, liberalism was the only significant
political tradition in the United States. However in the 1970s,
Bernard Bailyn, Gordon Wood and J. G. A. Pocock saw republicanism as
the main political tradition.[clarification needed] In the 1980s, J.
David Green returned to Hartz's thesis, but saw two different types of
liberalism in the tradition, which he called humanist and reform. More
recently, writers have seen a multitude of traditions, including
liberalism, republicanism and protestantism.[14][dubious – discuss]
[clarification needed]

as you can see, jefferson was a liberal, as well as thomas paine.
the declaration of independence, the preamble, and the constitution
are all based on the writings of thomas paine. paine advocated for a
social democracy.
in fact a majority of the founders were liberals, they despised
conservatism, and blamed conservatives for almost losing the
revolution.

The Constitution of the United States
Preamble Note
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect
Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the
common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings
of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish
this Constitution for the United States of America.

Section 8 - Powers of Congress
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties,
Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common
Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties,
Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several
States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on
the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and
fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and
current Coin of the United States;
To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for
limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their
respective Writings and Discoveries;
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas,
and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules
concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use
shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval
Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the
Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and
for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of
the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the
Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia
according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such
District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of
particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of
the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority
over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the
State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts,
Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into
Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this
Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any
Department or Officer thereof.

THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE
Article. VI.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be
made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be
made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme
Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby,
any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary
notwithstanding.

The preemption doctrine derives from the Supremacy Clause of the
Constitution which states that the "Constitution and the laws of the
United States...shall be the supreme law of the land...anything in the
constitutions or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."
This means of course, that any federal law--even a regulation of a
federal agency--trumps any conflicting state law.

so any law, treaty or regulation that is deemed constitutional, shall
be the law of the land. its really quite simple. the constitution was
crafted by liberals, who gave the constitution broad powers to
legislate, tax, regulate, negate state law, mandate, tariff, to
promote and provide for the general welfare, to ensure domestic
tranquility:)))

Nickname unavailable

unread,

May 26, 2013, 10:47:42 PM5/26/13

to

On May 24, 6:28 pm, Joe Cooper <nieqezbmv...@tormail.org> wrote:
> Zepp <d...@gone.com> wrote innews:knolem$bir$1...@dont-email.me:
>
>
>
> > In short, you're responsible for nothing.
>
> Nope. I'm responsible to my community. I neither want nor need the
> government to look after me or my neighbors.
>

then go to somalia, its a paradise for your type.

Nickname unavailable

unread,

May 26, 2013, 10:49:53 PM5/26/13

to

NO MONEY FOR RED STATE PARASITES THAT WOULD NOT SUPPORT THEIR FELLOW
AMERICANS IN THEIR TIME OF NEED BECAUSE OF HURRICANE SANDY: Oklahoma
Gives Massive Breaks to Oil Companies while Schools Lack Storm
Shelters

http://www.forwardprogressives.com/oklahoma-oil-companies-tax-breaks-schools-lack-storm-shelters/

Oklahoma Gives Massive Breaks to Oil Companies while Schools Lack
Storm Shelters
May 21, 2013 By Manny Schewitz
2.8K Flares 2.8K Flares ×

“OOOOk-lahoma, where the wind comes sweepin’ down the plain, And the
wavin’ wheat can sure smell sweet, When the wind comes right behind
the rain…”
Unless you’re a fan of Broadway and cheesy old Hollywood films, you
may not be familiar with this song. You’re also probably trying to
figure out where I’m going with this by using a reference to the 1955
Rodger’s and Hammerstein film “Oklahoma.”

Oklahoma is notorious for tornadoes, and really big ones. As the first
settlers in the state showed up, I’m pretty sure they encountered a
twister or two right away. Then again on May 20th, 2013, and in 2003,
and in 1999 and many times before – the people of that state have
experienced this destructive force. This isn’t a new thing. This isn’t
a freak, late-season hurricane that struck an area that doesn’t
usually get them. It’s not a rare earthquake in a state that’s never
felt them. It’s a tornado, something that happens all the time in
“Tornado Alley.”
So why aren’t there storm shelters in every school? Certainly
Oklahoma, which boasts the 5th largest oil production in the United
States, could afford to do it. They’ve claimed that they couldn’t
afford the cost and that they’ve applied for grant money from FEMA to
do it, but when the state gives over $200 million in breaks to the oil
companies, there’s no excuse why they couldn’t supply every school and
government building with a shelter that could survive the worst of
twisters. It’s not that they can’t, it’s that lobbyist money has
bought and paid for legislators who will advance the profits of the 1%
over the lives of the residents of Oklahoma and their children.
Forcing these companies off corporate welfare isn’t going to cause
them to pack up and leave. You can’t pick up an oil field and move it
to a state with a lower tax rate. So what if it causes the price I pay
at the pump to go up a few cents because the multi-billion dollar
drilling businesses have to play by the same rules as the small
business owners? Local communities should be able to provide something
as common sense as a storm shelter, and the fact that this hasn’t been
done is not only mindboggling, but absolutely tragic.

Nickname unavailable

unread,

May 26, 2013, 10:52:13 PM5/26/13

to

he gets to choose who gets what. sound familiar? sure does. remember,
all "CONSERVATIVES" are fascists.

Nickname unavailable

unread,

May 26, 2013, 10:55:32 PM5/26/13

to

On May 26, 12:07 am, Joe Cooper <nieqezbmv...@tormail.org> wrote:
> Lisa Lisa <sylvanlewi...@gmail.com> wrote in news:2c01b17c-c5c1-44cc-
> be67-10554feb1...@gw5g2000vbb.googlegroups.com:

>
> > Well, you did say something about getting millions of lazy freeloaders
> > off the dole. And who might
> > these freeloaders be, BTW, if they aren't the working poor? Because
> > they're usually people with
> > kids, or perhaps sometimes seniors.
>
> It distresses me that you appear to be incapable of discerning the
> difference between a community supporting its citizens vis-a-vis the
> government stealing money from Paul to feed Peter.
>

you can prove that correct? because the constitution clearly does not
label taxation, and the promoting and providing for the general
welfare as theft.

a fascist would not only not understand the common good, it would
hate the common good.

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0316-08.htm

"fas-cism (fbsh'iz'em) n. A system of government that exercises a
dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of
state and business leadership, together with belligerent nationalism."
Today, as we face financial and political crises, it's useful to
remember that the ravages of the Great Depression hit Germany and the
United States alike. Through the 1930s, however, Hitler and Roosevelt
chose very different courses to bring their nations back to power and
prosperity.
Germany's response was to use government to empower corporations and
reward the society's richest individuals, privatize much of the
commons, stifle dissent, strip people of constitutional rights, and
create an illusion of prosperity through continual and ever-expanding
war. America passed minimum wage laws to raise the middle class,
enforced anti-trust laws to diminish the power of corporations,
increased taxes on corporations and the wealthiest individuals,
created Social Security, and became the employer of last resort
through programs to build national infrastructure, promote the arts,
and replant forests.
To the extent that our Constitution is still intact, the choice is
again ours.
Thom Hartmann lived and worked in Germany during the 1980s, and is the
author of over a dozen books, including "Unequal Protection" and "The
Last Hours of Ancient Sunlight." This article is copyright by Thom
Hartmann, but permission is granted for reprint in print, email, blog,
or web media so long as this credit is attached.

Nickname unavailable

unread,

May 26, 2013, 10:59:00 PM5/26/13

to

On May 26, 10:50 am, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooo.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 26 May 2013 15:34:00 +0000 (UTC), Zepp <d...@gone.com> wrote:
> >On Sun, 26 May 2013 11:33:41 -0400, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>
> >> On 5/26/2013 11:05 AM, Zepp wrote:
> >>> On Sun, 26 May 2013 09:16:06 -0400, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>
> >>>> On 5/26/2013 1:37 AM, Zepp wrote:
> >>>>> On Sun, 26 May 2013 05:07:43 +0000, Joe Cooper wrote:
>

> >>>>>> Lisa Lisa <sylvanlewi...@gmail.com> wrote in
> >>>>>> news:2c01b17c-c5c1-44cc-
> >>>>>> be67-10554feb1...@gw5g2000vbb.googlegroups.com:
>

> >>>>>>> Well, you did say something about getting millions of lazy
> >>>>>>> freeloaders off the dole. And who might these freeloaders be, BTW,
> >>>>>>> if they aren't the working poor? Because they're usually people
> >>>>>>> with kids, or perhaps sometimes seniors.
>
> >>>>>> It distresses me that you appear to be incapable of discerning the
> >>>>>> difference between a community supporting its citizens vis-a-vis the
> >>>>>> government stealing money from Paul to feed Peter.
>
> >>>>>> That's probably why you are a proggie.
>
> >>>>> So basically all you have is mindless pseudo-libertarian boilerplate?
>
> >>>> As opposed to your Progressive pseudo intellectual propaganda and
> >>>> utopian theory?
>
> >>>> You should try living in the real world, where boiler plate actually
> >>>> works.
>
> >>> Yeah, just look at the South to see how well it works.
>
> >> Growing while the North is collapsing like Detroit and Chicago?
>
> >And both are still better than Mississippi. Unless, of course, you
> >happen to be very wealthy.
>
> Only to Zepp, who would probably improve his situation by living in a
> ghetto

its a scenario all civilized people would welcome: the GOP appears
more racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic and religiously fanatical
than during the McCarthy era: the GOP has boxed itself into a corner:
The Republican Party Is Dead
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andy-ostroy/the-republican-party-is-dea...
Andy Ostroy
Political & pop culture analyst
The Republican Party Is Dead
Posted: 05/10/2013 11:26 am
The United States has a two-term black president. Gay marriage bills
are passing all over the country. A majority of voters support
sweeping immigration legislation. Organized religion is facing more
challenges than ever. And most Americans favor stiffer gun laws and a
hands-off abortion policy. Yet the Republican Party appears more
racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic and religiously fanatical than
during the McCarthy era.
The GOP remains stuck in the '50's. They desperately cling to their
over-romanticized version of "Mad Men" America, when rich white men
ruled the day, when blacks knew their place, Hispanics were household
servants, women were barefoot and pregnant, and gays were closeted. A
time when it was ok to call a black man "boy," a gay man "fag" and a
woman "sweetheart,"...accompanied, of course, by a harmless pinch or
slap of the ass.
Despite the country's rapidly shifting demographics and social
attitudes--a healthy move towards racial, religious and sexual
tolerance--the GOP has boxed itself into a corner. There are patterns
they simply cannot break. Ideals they can't divorce from. Rhetoric
they can't stop espousing. They just can't help themselves.
Evidenced by the results of the last couple of elections, the GOP,
whose voice has been hijacked and whose platform has been dictated by
its extreme right-wing Tea Party fringe, has become totally
irrelevant. Yes, through fervent intransigence and obstructionism
they've been a potent force for President Obama and Democrats to
reckon with, and they've successfully thwarted his ability to carry
out his agenda. As Senate Minority Leader proclaimed in 2010, "The
single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama
to be a one-term president." But it's precisely this toxic
partisanship and single-mindedness that's losing them elections and
making them obsolete in the long-term. They may be winning some
battles, but they're most definitely losing the war.
It's not difficult to imagine a few years from now a political
landscape controlled by a Democratic dynasty, where the only
Republicans left in office come from states and districts where the
small minority of folks who voted for them share their ignorant,
intolerant 1950's ideals. And when that day comes the party will have
"visionaries" such as Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Joe Wilson, Sarah Palin
and Todd Akin to thank.

Nickname unavailable

unread,

May 26, 2013, 11:00:00 PM5/26/13

to

On May 26, 3:52 pm, Lisa Lisa <sylvanlewi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 26, 1:07 am, Joe Cooper <nieqezbmv...@tormail.org> wrote:
>
> > Lisa Lisa <sylvanlewi...@gmail.com> wrote in news:2c01b17c-c5c1-44cc-
> > be67-10554feb1...@gw5g2000vbb.googlegroups.com:
>
> > > Well, you did say something about getting millions of lazy freeloaders
> > > off the dole. And who might
> > > these freeloaders be, BTW, if they aren't the working poor? Because
> > > they're usually people with
> > > kids, or perhaps sometimes seniors.
>
> > It distresses me that you appear to be incapable of discerning the
> > difference between a community supporting its citizens vis-a-vis the
> > government stealing money from Paul to feed Peter.
>
> > That's probably why you are a proggie.
>
> Well then, perhaps we should all just let Moore, OK, and all those
> other red state catastrophe victims just stew in their libertarian
> juices.
>
> You do know that red staters get a lot in government services, don't
> you?
>
> Lisa
>
>

Rand Worshipers Should Face Facts:Blue States Are the Providers:Red
States Are the Parasites:Rand predicted rightly that parasites
invariably despise the producers they feed on:you should be
embarrassed that red state behavior bears her out so clearly
http://www.alternet.org/visions/154338/Ayn_Rand_Worshippers_Should_Fa...
AlterNet / By Sara Robinson
Ayn Rand Worshippers Should Face Facts: Blue States Are the
Providers,  Red States Are the Parasites  There's only one way to
demonstrate who America's producers and  parasites really are. It's
time to go Galt.  February 29, 2012 |
Last week, the New York Times published a widely discussed article
updating an argument that progressive bloggers noticed a very long
time ago. It's now well-understood that blue states generally export
money to the federal government; and red states generally import it.
TPM published a great map showing exactly how this redistribution
works:
(click for larger version)  Progressives believe in the redistribution
of wealth, so we're not  usually too upset by this state of affairs.
That’s what it means to be  one country. E pluribus unum, and all
that. We’re happy to help,  because we think we’ve got a stake in
making sure kids in rural  Alabama get educations and seniors in
Arizona get healthcare. What’s  good for them is good for all of us.
We also like to think they’d help  us out if our positions were
reversed. It’s an investment in making  America stronger, and we feel
fine about that.
But maybe it's time to admit that we're being played for chumps, and
that there are people in the rest of the country who are taking way
too much advantage of our good nature. After all: it's now a stone
fact that the blue states and cities are the country's real wealth
creators. That's why we pay more taxes, and are able to send that
money to the red states in the first place. We're working our butts
off, being economically productive, going to college, raising good
kids, supporting reality-based schools, keeping our marriages
together, tending to our busy and diverse cities, and generally
Playing By The Rules. And the fates have smiled on us in rough
proportion to the degree that we’ve invested in our own common good.
So we've got every right to get good and angry about the fact that,
by  and large, the people who are getting our money are so damned
ungrateful -- not to mention so ridiculously eager to spend it on
stuff we don't approve of. We didn't ship them our hard-earned tax
dollars to see them squandered on worse-than-useless abstinence-only
education, textbooks that teach creationism, crisis-pregnancy
misinformation centers, subsidies for GMO crops and oil companies,
and  so on. And we sure as hell didn't expect to be rewarded for our
productivity and generosity with a rising tide of spittle-flecked
insanity about how we’re just a bunch of immoral, godless, drug-
soaked, sex-crazed, evil America-hating traitors who can’t wait to
hand the country over to the Islamists and the Communists.
Ironically, the conservative movement's favorite philosopher had some
very insightful things to say about this exact situation. Ayn Rand's
novels divided the world into two groups. On one hand, she lionized
"producers" -- noble, intelligent Übermenschen whose faith in their
own ideas and willingness to take risks to achieve their dreams
drives  everything else in society. And she called out the evil of
"parasites," the dull, unimaginative masses who attach themselves to
producers and drain away their resources and thwart their dreams.
Conservatives love this story. They're eager to claim the gleaming
mantle of the producers, insisting loudly that their tax money is
going to support people (mostly in blue states and cities, it's
darkly  implied) who won't or can't work as hard as they do. If you
want to  arouse their class and race resentments, there are few
narratives that  can get them rolling like this producers-versus-
parasites tale.
But the NYT story and that map up there prove beyond arguing that the
conservative interpretation of events is 100 percent, 180-degrees,
flat-out wrong. America's real producer class is overwhelmingly
concentrated in the blue cities and states -- the regions full of
smart, talented people who've harnessed technology and intellect to
money, and made these regions the best, most forward-looking places
in  the country to live.
Advertisement
And the real parasites are centered in red states (the only
exceptions  being states with huge resource reserves, like Alaska and
Texas) --  the unimaginative, exhausted places that have clung to a
fading past,  rejected science, substituted superstition for sense,
and refused to  invest in their own futures. It's not unfair to say
that those regions  are simply feasting off the sweat of our ennobling
labor, and  expecting us to continue supporting them as they go about
their wealth-  destroying ways.
And we producers have had enough.
Progressives Go Galt!
If you're a conservative who thinks Ayn Rand called it true with this
producers/parasites thing, then by all means: let's go there. All the
way there — and then some. But fair warning is in order: you may not
like where we end up.  By way of a modest proposal, I hereby declare
the birth of a new  Progressive Objectivism — a frankly producerist
personal-  responsibility crusade aimed at getting these whiny red
leeches off  our collective blue hide. If they think they can get by
without us,  let’s not stand in their way. What these people need from
us, at  minimum, is some tough talk — the kind of stern, grown-up
verbal whoop-  ass the conservatives wouldn’t hesitate for a moment to
unload on us  if the roles were reversed.  The time has come for blue
America to go Galt. Our farewell rant —  long and epic, as Rand's
turgid writing style would have required —  might sound a bit like
this:  First off, dear Red Staters: If your town’s economy depends on
a  nearby dam, canal, harbor, airport, military base, interstate
highway,  national park or monument, or prison, just STFU. Because you
are, in  every way possible, a parasite, living off something the rest
of us  paid to build.
Second: If you are a homeowner who takes a mortgage interest
deduction  — which is how the rest of us subsidize your house, and
with it your  status in the middle-class — we don’t want to hear
another word from  you about how you made it all on your own. And that
goes for those of  you who got your education via the GI Bill, or took
out an SBA loan,  or went to well-funded public schools back when such
things existed.  You are what you are because we believed in you, and
invested in you.  And we’re deeply insulted that you refuse to even
acknowledge that  fact.   Third: Don't come crawling to us to support
those kids you  couldn't afford to have, but refused to allow
contraception or  abortions or actual fact-based sex education to
prevent. It's just  that simple. Our blue-state babies are better off
in every way that  matters because we plan our families. A failure to
plan on your part  does not create an obligation on ours. Your
policies force women to  have kids, even when they're patently not
ready to have them. Now (as  you’re so fond of telling women who find
themselves unhappily  pregnant), you get to live with the consequences
of those choices.
Fourth: Don't ask us to pay to educate your kids if you're not
willing  to have us teach them what we know about the world. We
believe in  free, comprehensive, rigorous and reality-based public
education  because it’s done more than any other government service to
make us  rich, powerful and successful; and we want the same for you.
We realize some of you aren't too keen on public schools. It's great
that you want to take on more personal responsibility for educating
your own kids. Just be warned: if you don't teach them real science
and real history — including evolution, climate change and the actual
contents of the US Constitution — we're probably not going to hire
them. So we hope you're also ready to take responsibility for that,
too, which will probably mean supporting your grown kids in your
basement until you die.
Advertisement
Fifth: Between federal water reclamation projects and farm subsidies,
we are paying you zillions of dollars to grow stuff we'd actually
rather not eat. Don’t look now, but those of us in blue cities and
states are moving away from your petrochemical-saturated GMO-bred
CAFO-  grown industrial “food” products as fast as we possibly can.
There  aren’t enough organic and community-supported farms to feed all
of us  yet — but we have taken responsibility for this, and are
working hard  on the problem. You can either get on this train, or
holler at it  while it flattens you. What you cannot do is yell at us
because we  don’t want to eat what you choose to grow.  Notice, too,
that the only reason we’re having to subsidize you in the  first place
is that the all-holy free market does not bless you with  profits on
this crap. In your own book, that makes you a capital-L  Loser. In
ours, we’ll settle for “parasite.”  Sixth: We are so over your
bigotry. Again: we know from our own long  experience that including
women, gays and minorities makes us not only  culturally richer; it
also makes us more economically productive as  well. And the recent
economic meltdown has shown us that monocultures  run exclusively by
rich white men tend to stagnate into breeding pools  for all kinds of
social and financial parasites, who then come forward  to prey on
those least able to resist -- like you.  Diversity isn’t just an
idealistic fetish for us: we do it because we  think it makes us
richer on every front that matters. If “parasite” is  just another
word for “people who willfully make bad choices that keep  them poor
and ignorant,” then your prejudices by definition make you  parasites.
And we are not, therefore, obliged to deal with you.  And finally: If
you want to pretend global warming isn't happening,  you do not get to
come whining to us when you get hit with droughts or  floods. We're
not going to send FEMA to bail you out. We're not going  to build
canals to give you our water. We're not going to fund your  levees. If
you're so sure God will provide, go ask him to keep your  reservoirs
full and your cities dry. Because we resign.  But will we come back?
Yep. It all sounds really ugly. But that’s the point of going Galt:
it’s a big fat tantrum designed to prove just how important you are
in  the grand scheme of things. (The tactic is also not unfamiliar to
any  mother who’s gone on a protracted housekeeping strike to gain
appreciation from an uncooperative family.) If others have to suffer
hardship to learn the lesson — well, that’ll teach 'em. The
emotionally satisfying goal is to get the parasites to come back,
begging on their knees for your vital help and resources. They know
now, in a way they didn't before, that they cannot survive without
you.  So: if that fantasy moment were to come, what would it take to
convince us Progressive Objectivists to emerge once again from our
cool blue producerist enclave, and take responsibility for the
chastened masses once again? We have just five simple demands:  1.
Stop taking more money from the federal government pot than you put
into it. If you believe in paying your own freight, then do it. If
you  can’t, that’s fine -- we'll go back to helping you out -- but you
have  to let go of that producerist superiority crap, because you’re
simply  not entitled to it.  2. Admit that we were right. Admit that
nobody in America ever makes  it on their own, and that we are all in
this together, and that  there’s such a thing as the common wealth and
the common good. Admit  that regulation is necessary to keep the
unprincipled strong from  preying on the weak. Admit that there has
never in history ever been  any such thing as a free market: markets
are created by governments,  and need to be overseen by them. And
finally: admit that your  conservative leaders got us into this
economic mess, and don’t know  squat about how to get us out of it.
3. Join the reality-based world. Accept that America’s prosperity
utterly depends on how well-educated its kids are, especially on
topics like science and history. Accept that evolution happened, and
that climate change is happening now. Embrace nuance. Learn something
about how to assess evidence and think rationally, without a pre-
determined conclusion. Remember that God only helps those who've
gained the real-world skills to help themselves.  4. Admit that we
love our country every bit as much as you do — and  that, given our
much greater success at creating strong families,  productive 21st-
century industries and excellent places to live, we  might actually
know more that you do about how to make it work better  in the
future.  5. Last but by no means least: Knock off the hate-mongering,
threats  and name-calling. Your heroine, Ms. Rand, predicted rightly
that  parasites invariably despise the producers they feed on; you
should be  embarrassed that your own behavior bears her out so
clearly. And, just  once, say thank you to us for all the
contributions we’ve made (or, at  least, tried to make) toward your
well-being. We don’t ask for much,  but a little gratitude now and
then wouldn’t hurt.  Five easy steps. Do this, and we’ll come back and
work with you as co-  creators of an America we all can love. Until
then, though, you can  pay your own bills. We’ve decided we have
better things to invest that  money in — upgraded schools, single-
payer healthcare, expanded college  systems, mass transit, sustainable
technology investments, and forward-  looking research to launch new
industries that will make us richer  yet. And you’ll have a choice,
too: you’ll either learn what it takes  to produce like we do, or
you’ll get to find out what real poverty  feels like.  Would that we
had the guts to go Galt. We probably don't; it's just  not in our
natures to tell people who are hurting to go to hell, or  leverage our
economic might to get the political upper-hand. But  there's nothing
stopping us from pointing out, loudly and often,  exactly who is
really who in this producers-versus-parasites  relationship. We didn't
draw that ridiculous battle line -- but maybe  it's time for us to
accept their terms of engagement, stake our  rightful claim as the
country's actual producer class, and show them  just how tall and
proud we are to stand on our far more fertile  ground.

Nickname unavailable

unread,

May 26, 2013, 11:00:58 PM5/26/13

to

On May 26, 8:03 pm, Joe Cooper <nieqezbmv...@tormail.org> wrote:
> Lisa Lisa <sylvanlewi...@gmail.com> wrote in news:ccc5385f-9a4a-4e92-
> b9b2-d767203d8...@i4g2000vbl.googlegroups.com:

>
> > Well then, perhaps we should all just let Moore, OK, and all those
> > other red state catastrophe victims just stew in their libertarian
> > juices.
>
> > You do know that red staters get a lot in government services, don't
> > you?
>
> What's that got to do with anything, other than the fact that people who
> live in areas prone to natural disasters probably aren't surprised when
> one occurs. It simply means that they accept the liability - and it
> matters not one whit whether they are Democrats, Republicans, or
> conservative Libertarians.
>

yet those who live in glass houses, should not throw bricks:)))

Steve

unread,

May 27, 2013, 7:18:39 AM5/27/13

to

<shaking my head and smiling> What's left to be said about that?

BeamMeUpScotty

unread,

May 27, 2013, 12:26:05 PM5/27/13

to

On 5/26/2013 10:47 PM, Nickname unavailable wrote:
> On May 24, 6:28 pm, Joe Cooper <nieqezbmv...@tormail.org> wrote:
>> Zepp <d...@gone.com> wrote innews:knolem$bir$1...@dont-email.me:
>>
>>
>>
>>> In short, you're responsible for nothing.
>>
>> Nope. I'm responsible to my community. I neither want nor need the
>> government to look after me or my neighbors.
>>
>
> then go to somalia, its a paradise for your type.
>

We capitalists created America..... you and communism created Somalia.

Socialism will eventually run out of other people's money and collapse.
As it did in Somalia.

--

*Rumination*
#72 - What if your next abortion is the one fetus that would evolve into
a new human adult life that is immune to cancer? When is evolution NOT
really evolution.

unread,

May 27, 2013, 2:32:51 PM5/27/13

to

Lisa Lisa

unread,

May 27, 2013, 2:53:49 PM5/27/13

to

On May 26, 9:03 pm, Joe Cooper <nieqezbmv...@tormail.org> wrote:
> Lisa Lisa <sylvanlewi...@gmail.com> wrote in news:ccc5385f-9a4a-4e92-
> b9b2-d767203d8...@i4g2000vbl.googlegroups.com:

>
> > Well then, perhaps we should all just let Moore, OK, and all those
> > other red state catastrophe victims just stew in their libertarian
> > juices.
>
> > You do know that red staters get a lot in government services, don't
> > you?
>
> What's that got to do with anything, other than the fact that people who
> live in areas prone to natural disasters probably aren't surprised when
> one occurs. It simply means that they accept the liability - and it
> matters not one whit whether they are Democrats, Republicans, or
> conservative Libertarians.

Of course they accept the liability. They know that the gummint is
going to bail
them out.

All I'm asking is that they stop talking about rugged individualism
and walk the walk.
No handouts. Want your house rebuilt? Fine---do it on your own dime.

Lisa

BeamMeUpScotty

unread,

unread,

> Jefferson's Deism, also his libertarian politics.- Hide quoted text -

Well, then, I guess you're sympathetic to the French Revolution, like
he was, and don't like the
British model of development.

His politics belonged to his time. They're largely irrelevant now.

Lisa

Lisa Lisa

unread,

May 27, 2013, 10:06:40 PM5/27/13

to

On May 27, 3:24 pm, BeamMeUpScotty

Wrong.

> Welcome to Socialism, where mediocrity is the highest achievement possible.

In that case, you're at the head of the line.

Lisa

Zepp

unread,

May 27, 2013, 10:10:05 PM5/27/13

to

And I believe that Obamacare is going to destroy the Republican party's
hammerlock on the deep South.

Zepp

unread,

May 27, 2013, 10:14:39 PM5/27/13

to

Jefferson also wrote (in a letter to Madison discussing the character of
the Constitution): " I set out on this ground which I suppose to be self
evident, "that the earth belongs in usufruct to the living;" that the
dead have neither powers nor rights over it. The portion occupied by an
individual ceases to be his when himself ceases to be, and reverts to the
society. If the society has formed no rules for the appropriation of its
lands in severalty, it will be taken by the first occupants. These will
generally be the wife and children of the decedent. If they have formed
rules of appropriation, those rules may give it to the wife and children,
or to some one of them, or to the legatee of the deceased. So they may
give it to his creditor. But the child, the legatee or creditor takes it,
not by any natural right, but by a law of the society of which they are
members, and to which they are subject. Then no man can by natural right
oblige the lands he occupied, or the persons who succeed him in that
occupation, to the paiment of debts contracted by him. For if he could,
he might during his own life, eat up the usufruct of the lands for
several generations to come, and then the lands would belong to the dead,
and not to the living, which would be reverse of our principle. What is
true of every member of the society individually, is true of them all
collectively, since the rights of the whole can be no more than the sum
of the rights of individuals. To keep our ideas clear when applying them
to a multitude, let us suppose a whole generation of men to be born on
the same day, to attain mature age on the same day, and to die on the
same day, leaving a succeeding generation in the moment of attaining
their mature age all together. Let the ripe age be supposed of 21. years,
and their period of life 34. years more, that being the average term
given by the bills of mortality to persons who have already attained 21.
years of age. Each successive generation would, in this way, come on and
go off the stage at a fixed moment, as individuals do now. Then I say the
earth belongs to each of these generations during it's course, fully, and
in their own right. The 2d. generation receives it clear of the debts and
incumbrances of the 1st., the 3d. of the 2d. and so on. For if the 1st.
could charge it with a debt, then the earth would belong to the dead and
not the living generation. Then no generation can contract debts greater
than may be paid during the course of it's own existence. At 21. years of
age they may bind themselves and their lands for 34. years to come: at
22. for 33: at 23 for 32. and at 54 for one year only; because these are
the terms of life which remain to them at those respective epochs. But a
material difference must be noted between the succession of an individual
and that of a whole generation. Individuals are parts only of a society,
subject to the laws of a whole. These laws may appropriate the portion of
land occupied by a decedent to his creditor rather than to any other, or
to his child, on condition he satisfies his creditor. But when a whole
generation, that is, the whole society dies, as in the case we have
supposed, and another generation or society succeeds, this forms a whole,
and there is no superior who can give their territory to a third society,
who may have lent money to their predecessors beyond their faculty of
paying."

Nickname unavailable

unread,

May 28, 2013, 1:31:38 AM5/28/13

to

On May 27, 7:51 pm, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooo.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 27 May 2013 17:26:53 -0700 (PDT), Nickname unavailable
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

no, jefferson was a american liberal, which is a completely different
animal.

Nickname unavailable

unread,

May 28, 2013, 1:32:43 AM5/28/13

to

On May 27, 7:51 pm, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooo.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 27 May 2013 17:24:00 -0700 (PDT), Nickname unavailable
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

it certainly is, here is more,

http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/13698-the-case-against-billionaires

Our most prominent Founding Father warned of the dangers of
individuals becoming mind-bogglingly rich. In a letter to Joseph
Milligan on April 6, 1816, Thomas Jefferson explicitly suggested that
if individuals became so rich that their wealth could influence or
challenge government, then their wealth should be decreased upon their
death. He wrote, "If the overgrown wealth of an individual be deemed
dangerous to the State, the best corrective is the law of equal
inheritance to all in equal degree..."
Also in 1816, Jefferson wrote a letter to Samuel Kerchival explicitly
laying out the dangers of an entrenched aristocracy, as today’s
billionaire class has now become. Jefferson wrote, “Those seeking

profits, were they given total freedom, would not be the ones to trust
to keep government pure and our rights secure. Indeed, it has always
been those seeking wealth who were the source of corruption in

government. No other depositories of power have ever yet been found,

Nickname unavailable

unread,

May 28, 2013, 1:33:55 AM5/28/13

to

On May 27, 7:51 pm, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooo.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 27 May 2013 17:35:52 -0700 (PDT), Nickname unavailable
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

no, he was a american liberal, a lefty:)))

here jefferson as paine is laying out the foundations of the social
welfare state.

http://www.per-fidem.org/mobile/bookshelf/tjwealth.html

Thomas Jefferson Letter to Rev. James Madison
Fontainebleau, October 28, 1785
The entire letter is included here, though the important part is the
first three paragraphs, especially the third in which Jefferson
discusses the inequality of wealth present in France just before the
French Revolution (1789). In this letter to Bishop Madison (not the
statesman, but his cousin), Jefferson argues that an inequal
distribution of wealth, such as what can be seen in France, is a
violation of the natural right to property and the related right to
labor. Jefferson advocates a graduated tax as one solution to this
problem.
DEAR SIR,
-- Seven o’clock, and retired to my fireside, I have determined to
enter into conversation with you. This is a village of about 15,000
inhabitants when the court is not here, and 20,000 when they are,
occupying a valley through which runs a brook and on each side of it a
ridge of small mountains, most of which are naked rock. The King comes
here, in the fall always, to hunt. His court attend him, as do also
the foreign diplomatic corps; but as this is not indispensably
required and my finances do not admit the expense of a continued
residence here, I propose to come occasionally to attend the King’s
levees, returning again to Paris, distant forty miles. This being the
first trip, I set out yesterday morning to take a view of the place.
For this purpose I shaped my course towards the highest of the
mountains in sight, to the top of which was about a league.
As soon as I had got clear of the town I fell in with a poor woman
walking at the same rate with myself and going the same course.
Wishing to know the condition of the laboring poor I entered into
conversation with her, which I began by enquiries for the path which
would lead me into the mountain: and thence proceeded to enquiries
into her vocation, condition and circumstances. She told me she was a
day laborer at 8 sous or 4d. sterling the day: that she had two
children to maintain, and to pay a rent of 30 livres for her house
(which would consume the hire of 75 days), that often she could no
employment and of course was without bread. As we had walked together
near a mile and she had so far served me as a guide, I gave her, on
parting, 24 sous. She burst into tears of a gratitude which I could
perceive was unfeigned because she was unable to utter a word. She had
probably never before received so great an aid. This little
attendrissement, with the solitude of my walk, led me into a train of
reflections on that unequal division of property which occasions the
numberless instances of wretchedness which I had observed in this
country and is to be observed all over Europe.
The property of this country is absolutely concentred in a very few
hands, having revenues of from half a million of guineas a year
downwards. These employ the flower of the country as servants, some of
them having as many as 200 domestics, not laboring. They employ also a
great number of manufacturers and tradesmen, and lastly the class of
laboring husbandmen. But after all there comes the most numerous of
all classes, that is, the poor who cannot find work. I asked myself
what could be the reason so many should be permitted to beg who are
willing to work, in a country where there is a very considerable
proportion of uncultivated lands? These lands are undisturbed only for
the sake of game. It should seem then that it must be because of the
enormous wealth of the proprietors which places them above attention
to the increase of their revenues by permitting these lands to be
labored. I am conscious that an equal division of property is
impracticable, but the consequences of this enormous inequality
producing so much misery to the bulk of mankind, legislators cannot
invent too many devices for subdividing property, only taking care to
let their subdivisions go hand in hand with the natural affections of
the human mind. The descent of property of every kind therefore to all
the children, or to all the brothers and sisters, or other relations
in equal degree, is a politic measure and a practicable one. Another
means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt
all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher
portions or property in geometrical progression as they rise. Whenever
there are in any country uncultivated lands and unemployed poor, it is
clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to
violate natural right. The earth is given as a common stock for man to
labor and live on. If for the encouragement of industry we allow it to
be appropriated, we must take care that other employment be provided
to those excluded from the appropriation. If we do not, the
fundamental right to labor the earth returns to the unemployed. It is
too soon yet in our country to say that every man who cannot find
employment, but who can find uncultivated land, shall be at liberty to
cultivate it, paying a moderate rent. But it is not too soon to
provide by every possible means that as few as possible shall be
without a little portion of land. The small landholders are the most
precious part of a state.
The next object which struck my attention in my walk was the deer with
which the wood abounded. They were of the kind called "Cerfs," and not
exactly of the same species with ours. They are blackish indeed under
the belly, and not white as ours, and they are more of the chestnut
red; but these are such small differences as would be sure to happen
in two races from the same stock breeding separately a number of ages.
Their hares are totally different from the animals we call by that
name; but their rabbit is almost exactly like him. The only difference
is in their manners; the land on which I walked for some time being
absolutely reduced to a honeycomb by their burrowing. I think there is
no instance of ours burrowing. After descending the hill again I saw a
man cutting fern. I went to him under pretence of asking the shortest
road to town, and afterwards asked for what use he was cutting fern.
He told me that this part of the country furnished a great deal of
fruit to Paris. That when packed in straw it acquired an ill taste,
but that dry fern preserved it perfectly without communicating any
taste at all.
I treasured this observation for the preservation of my apples on my
return to my own country. They have no apples here to compare with our
Redtown pippin. They have nothing which deserves the name of a peach;
there being not sun enough to ripen the plum-peach and the best of
their soft peaches being like our autumn peaches. Their cherries and
strawberries are fair, but I think lack flavor. Their plums I think
are better; so also their gooseberries, and the pears infinitely
beyond anything we possess. They have nothing better than our sweet-
water; but they have a succession of as good from early in the summer
till frost. I am to-morrow to get [to] M. Malsherbes (an uncle of the
Chevalier Luzerne’s) about seven leagues from hence, who is the most
curious man in France as to his trees. He is making for me a
collection of the vines from which the Burgundy, Champagne, Bordeaux,
Frontignac, and other of the most valuable wines of this country are
made. Another gentleman is collecting for me the best eating grapes,
including what we call the raisin. I propose also to endeavor to
colonize their hare, rabbit, red and grey partridge, pheasants of
different kinds, and some other birds. But I find that I am wandering
beyond the limits of my walk and will therefore bid you adieu.
Yours affectionately.

Nickname unavailable

unread,

May 28, 2013, 1:37:03 AM5/28/13

to

On May 27, 7:51 pm, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooo.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 27 May 2013 17:24:41 -0700 (PDT), Nickname unavailable
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> >http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/05/26/gallup-poll-and-new-study-rev...

>
> >Gallup Poll And A New Study Both Confirm America Is Starting To Lean
> >Left
> >by Leslie Salzillo • May 26, 2013
>
> >Good news for the left.
> >Gallup just released a poll that reveals more and more Americans are
> >shifting in ideological attitudes, and identifying themselves as
> >‘liberals’ in regard to social and economic issues. At the same time,
> >fewer Americans are describing themselves as ‘conservatives.’
>
> >Gallup reports:
> >“The trend suggests that ideological attitudes in the country may be
> >shifting. Social liberalism has grown by six points since 2001 and now
> >attracts half of rank-and-file Democrats and Democratic leaners.”
> >This new survey shows changes in Americans’ ideology: economic
> >conservatism is at a five-year low, while social liberalism has
> >registered its highest support…
> >They go on to state the following:
> > “the percentage of Americans describing their social views as
> >‘liberal’ or ‘very liberal’ has achieved a new peak of 30% — in line
>
> The USA is breeding more and more losers like yourself.
>
>
>
>

no again, you are on the losing end, just as the tories were. the
majority of the founders were american liberlas, the left, and the
constitution reflects it. in fact a majority of founders despised
"CONSERVATISM", its why we have the american liberal document called
the constitution of america. you see the back bone to american
liberalism is all there for all to see:))

actually "CONSERVATISM" is unamerican.

Steve

unread,

May 28, 2013, 6:32:53 AM5/28/13

to

On Tue, 28 May 2013 02:10:05 +0000 (UTC), Zepp <de...@gone.com> wrote:

>
>And I believe that Obamacare is going to destroy the Republican party's
>hammerlock on the deep South.

Zepp also believes that a SAM, not an airplane hit the Pentagon.

Steve

unread,

May 28, 2013, 6:32:53 AM5/28/13

to

On Mon, 27 May 2013 22:37:03 -0700 (PDT), Nickname unavailable
<video61%tcq...@gtempaccount.com> wrote:

>the declaration of independence, the preamble, and the constitution
>are all based on the writings of thomas paine.

Actually, most of that came from John Locke, but Paine was also a
classic liberal. Today, we'd call Paine a libertarian.

Steve

unread,

May 28, 2013, 6:32:53 AM5/28/13

to

He was a classic liberal. Today we'd call him a libertarian..

Here's a Jefferson quote that comes almost straight from John Locke,
as much of Jefferson's philosophy did.

A free people [claim] their rights as derived from the laws of nature,
and not as the gift of their chief magistrate." --Thomas Jefferson:
Rights of British America, 1774. ME 1:209, Papers 1:134

unread,

May 28, 2013, 11:38:48 AM5/28/13

to

On May 28, 5:32 am, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooo.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 27 May 2013 22:37:03 -0700 (PDT), Nickname unavailable
>

> <video61%tcq....@gtempaccount.com> wrote:
> >the declaration of independence, the preamble, and the constitution
> >are all based on the writings of thomas paine.
>
> Actually, most of that came from John Locke, but Paine was also a
> classic liberal. Today, we'd call Paine a libertarian.

no, he was a america liberal, lying changes nothing. of course
jefferson was also a american liberal.

jefferson feared concentrated wealth and power. after ll, he was a
lefty:)))

http://www.thenation.com/blog/37038/thomas-jefferson-feared-aristocracy-corporations#

Thomas Jefferson Feared an Aristocracy of Corporations
John Nichols on July 4, 2010 - 5:50 PM ET

Thomas Jefferson's name gets thrown around quite a bit these days by
the Tea Partisans, which is a good thing.
A populist movement of the right or the left that neglected Jefferson,
the most radical of the first presidents, would be a sorry affair
indeed.
Jefferson's distrust of concentrated and consolidated power was such
that he left a legacy for any and every dissenter against the state.
But Jefferson did not stop there.
He was, as well, a relentless critic of the monopolizing of economic
power by banks, corporations and those who put their faith in what the
third president referred to as "the selfish spirit of commerce (that)
knows no country, and feels no passion or principle but that of gain.
Jefferson might not have wanted a lot of government, but he wanted
enough government to assert the sovereignty of citizens over
corporations. To his view, nothing was more important to the health of
the republic.
In the early years of the 19th century, as banks and corporations
began to flex their political muscles, he announced that: “I hope we
shall crush… in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations,
which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength
and bid defiance to the laws of our country."
There are those who would have us believe that the founders intended
for corporations to control our elections – and, tragically, five of
these Tories sit on the U.S. Supreme Court, where they recently ruled
that the nation’s biggest businesses may spend whatever they like to
buy the results that best serve their bottom lines.
The better angels among the founders would be aghast.
The framers of the American experiment were imperfect men, to be
sure. Few were so radical, or so far ahead of their times, as Tom
Paine, the wisest of their number. But like Paine, Jefferson was a
proud revolutionary against the old order of inherited monarchy, state
churches, empires and the authority of the few over the fate of the
many.
We know this to be true of Jefferson because, as July 4, 1826
approached, he was invited to appear in Washington for a celebration
of the 50th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. Age and
infirmity prevented Jefferson from attending the event. But he sent a
message -- his last political statement -- which read:
“May (July 4) be to the world, what I believe it will be -- to some
parts sooner, to others later, but finally to all -- the signal of

arousing men to burst the chains under which monkish ignorance and
superstition had persuaded them to bind themselves, and to assume the

blessings and security of self-government. That form (of government)
which we have substituted, restores the free right to the unbounded
exercise of reason and freedom of opinion. All eyes are opened, or
opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of
science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that
the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor
a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately, by
the grace of God.”
So, yes, by all means, let us look to the original intent of the
founders this July 4. But let us recognize what they actually said and
meant about the danger posed by an “aristocracy of corporations” and
the danger of allowing CEOs to ride roughshod over the democratic
promise of the American experiment.

Nickname unavailable

unread,

May 28, 2013, 11:40:44 AM5/28/13

to

On May 28, 5:32 am, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooo.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 27 May 2013 22:31:38 -0700 (PDT), Nickname unavailable
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

A history of ending poverty

Tom Paine's ideas are still ahead of today's campaigners

Gareth Stedman Jones
Saturday July 2, 2005
The Guardian

The idea of "making poverty history" did not begin with Bob Geldof,
Bono or the commitment of rich countries to disburse 0.7% of national
income in development aid. It goes back to the time of the French and
American revolutions towards the end of 18th century and to a
transformation in outlook as momentous as that produced by the
revolutions themselves. A small group of visionaries, the followers of
Tom Paine in England and Antoine-Nicolas de Condorcet in France,
ceased to regard poverty as a divine imposition on sinful humanity. It
was seen as remediable in principle, since it was man-made in
practice.

What this political pamphleteer and aristocratic administrator
depicted for the first time was a planned world in which the
predictable misfortunes of life no longer plunged people into chronic
poverty. This plan was not a utopia. It was a template for a future
reality; in the 20th century it came to be known as the welfare state.
For centuries before the two revolutions, Christian polities had
followed Christ's teaching as reported in St Matthew's Gospel. When a
woman came to Christ in the house of Simon the Leper and poured a
precious ointment over his head, the disciples objected to "this
waste". But Christ responded: "Why trouble ye the woman for she hath
wrought a good work upon me? For ye have the poor always with you; but
me ye have not always." The presence of the poor was inescapable. For
the good Christian, poverty was not a condition to be remedied, but
the spur to the exercise of charity. As for the poor themselves, they
should accept their allotted rank with humility.
But in the 18th century, opinions began to change. Large parts of
Europe experienced prolonged internal peace and a quickening of trade
and industry. For the first time observers could see an under lying
pattern to economic life. The afflictions of the lives of wage earners
were clearly visible. For the first time, these afflictions were seen
to form part of a pattern pre-existing the temperament or behaviour of
particular individuals.
Changes in the conditions of life not only generated a new confidence
in progress, but also the growth of institutions designed to deal with
the practicalities of managing the future. Life insurance developed,
as did the provision for families of "the middling sort" against death
or bankruptcy. All this depended in turn on mathematical progress,
notably calculus developed by Newton and Leibniz, which allowed for
actuarial calculations.
These innovations were crucial in shaping the proposals of Condorcet
and Paine for universal pensions and schooling, death duties and tax-
based systems of social insurance. But it is doubtful whether the idea
of a comprehensive system of social security would have been imagined
but for the political needs and opportunities opened up by revolution.
In the 1790s, almost everyone was poor. If critics mutter about the
naive impracticality of making poverty history today, how much more
fantastic would the idea have seemed then?
But politics dictated otherwise. After the French king deserted the
revolution in 1791, leading revolutionaries argued that France must
become a republic like the fledgling US. Yet sceptics argued that a
large modern republic was not possible in Europe, with its
overpowerful feudal nobilities and its hordes of miserable poor. It
was, therefore, to support the idea that an American-style republic
was possible in Europe that Paine spelled out his proposals for
abolishing want in The Rights of Man of 1792, and Condorcet jotted
down his Sketch for a Historical Picture of the Progress of the Human
Mind while hiding from the forces of revolutionary terror in 1793.
Against those who maintained that the gulf between rich and poor was
an inescapable part of "civilisation", Condorcet argued that
inequality was largely to be ascribed to "the present imperfections of
the social art". "The final end of the social art" would be "the
abolition of inequality between nations" and "the progress of equality
within each nation". Slavery would be abolished, colonies would become
independent and there would be worldwide free trade. Asia and Africa
would break free from "our trade monopolies, our treachery, our
murderous contempt for men of another colour or creed, the insolence
of our usurpations". Through a universal scheme of social insurance,
such inequality could be "in great part eradicated". It was the
application of such a scheme to England, in the shape of a detailed
set of proposals to replace the poor rate by a tax-based system of
universal insurance, that was set out in The Rights of Man.
In two respects, the thoughts of the 1790s revolutionaries still seem
ahead of the "make poverty history" campaigners of today. First, they
were committed not so much to aid as to the equalisation of the
opportunities of rich and poor, nationally and internationally.
Second, they were far more critical of the role of charity - or, in
today's world, the place of NGOs. Appeals to relieve debt, alleviate
famine and provide start-up resources reproduce on an international
scale the approach of 19th-century Poor Law administrators and charity
organisers at a national level. In terms of the abolition of poverty,
the debate is stuck in a pre-1914 time warp.
The Rights of Man was one of the bestsellers of the century; 250,000
copies were sold by 1793. The authorities took fright. In the winter
of 1792-3, Paine was burnt in effigy in 300 or so towns and villages
in England and Wales. Particularly alarming was the spread of the
notion that the poor should no longer be the grateful recipients of
charity - that they had a right to social security. In France, where
Condorcet's ambition to eliminate poverty by education and a network
of social provision was shared by many of France's new revolutionary
legislators, legislative proposals remained stillborn, either pushed
aside by the needs of war or made worthless by the headlong
devaluation of the currency. By 1800 all thought of implementing such
a scheme had been abandoned.
And so it was that the idea of a welfare state as the means to
extinguish extreme poverty and economic insecurity was first adopted
not by revolutionaries, but by Bismarck in Germany as part of an
effort to keep a working-class movement at bay. Only as a result of
two world wars and the need to promise a real end to the old world of
the Poor Law did Britain at last adopt a set of proposals for the
welfare state, outlined in the Beveridge report of 1942, finally
building upon the arguments of Paine and Condorcet.
In large parts of the industrial world, the vision of the
revolutionaries has become a consensual reality; and even in the US,
the Bush administration is finding it hard to dislodge the social-
security system instituted by the New Deal. But in relation to the
poorer countries of the world, Africa above all, thinking has barely
yet accepted the ideas of Condorcet and Paine. It is to such a
programme, transforming the recipients of charity and aid into
empowered citizens, that the visionaries of today should be looking.
For only a politics combined with justice - in other words, the
building of a global social-democratic programme - can make poverty
history.
· Gareth Stedman Jones is the author of An End to Poverty? - A
Historical Debate
com...@guardian.co.uk

Nickname unavailable

unread,

May 28, 2013, 11:41:45 AM5/28/13

to

On May 28, 5:32 am, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooo.com> wrote:

he clearly was not for inherited wealth.

http://www.philosophers.co.uk/cafe/phil_dec2000.htm

Philosopher of the Month
December 2000 - Thomas Paine
Robin Harwood
The great and glorious Thomas Paine was a political theorist who tried
to put his theories into action. His aim was to free human beings from
oppressive government, oppressive religions, and oppressive poverty.
His method was to appeal to reason, so that all people could recognise
truth and justice. His achievements were spectacular. Paine invented
America, took part in the French Revolution, and inspired
revolutionary movements in Britain. The American Revolution was a
success, the French revolution was a disaster, and the British
Revolution never happened. Even so, Paine's ideas of democracy and
social welfare have been at least partly realized not only in these
countries, but in many other countries as well.
He was born in England, but his life there was difficult, and on
Benjamin Franklin's advice, he emigrated to the New World. Paine
arrived in Philadelphia in 1774, and took a job as editor for the
Pennsylvania Magazine. One of his first essays was a call for the
abolition of slavery. Inspired by the first moves of the American
Revolution, he wrote the pamphlet Common Sense (1776), in which he
argued that independence was both morally justified and the only
practical option for the American Colonies. The book was massively
influential, and converted many waverers, including Thomas Jefferson
and George Washington, to the idea of the United States of America
(Paine coined the name) as an independent nation.
After the War of Independence was over, he went to France, and then to
England, where he wrote The Rights of Man. Paine's message was clear
and powerful.
All individual human beings, he argued, are created with equal rights.
However, human beings do not live as isolated individuals, but as
members of society. In society we flourish fully, both because we can
enjoy the company of other people, and from being able to gain help
and support from each other. Nonetheless, human beings are not perfect
and so sometimes infringe each other's rights. As individuals we may
not have the power to exercise some of our rights, such as the right
to protect ourselves. Thus, we create the state to protect those
rights, and the individual's natural right is transformed into a civil
right of protection. Also, as members of the state, we gain additional
rights, such as the right to vote, and the right to run for office.
The only legitimate form of state is a democratic republic. Hereditary
monarchy is morally illegitimate, since it denies the current
generation the right to choose their own leaders.
Of course, Paine held that we also have duties. We have a duty to
protect the rights of our fellow citizens, and to maintain society,
but we also have to improve, enrich, and benefit society. This
includes the duty to eliminate poverty as much as we can. Paine
proposed a system of welfare to do just this. This welfare was not
charity, but a civil right.
The popularity of the book frightened the British Government. Paine
was outlawed for treason, and he fled to France. The British
revolutionary movements were squashed.
The French elected Paine to a seat in the National Convention. During
the Terror he was imprisoned and came close to being executed. After
his release, he took little active part in French politics, and
concentrated mostly on writing, particularly on religion and
economics. He produced The Age of Reason, arguing for Deism, and
against atheism and Christianity. He demonstrated that Christian
theology was unreasonable, and the doctrine of redemption was immoral.
He also showed that the Bible cannot be divine revelation, and
condemned it for its portrayal of God as cruel and vindictive.
In Agrarian Justice, he returned to the question of rights and social
justice. Civilization, he argued, should not throw people into a worse
condition than they would be in if they were uncivilized, and yet in
Europe many people were poorer than American Indians. The Earth had
been given by God as common property to all men, but the system of
land ownership meant that only some could use it. Paine argued that
they should compensate the others by paying a ground rent to society.
Also, he argued that no-one could produce riches without the support
of society, so anyone who accumulates property owes a part of it back
to society. This would provide funds for a social program that
included education, pensions, unemployment benefits, and maternity
benefits.
When Paine finally returned to America in 1802, his writings on
religion had made him an unpopular figure. Nonetheless, Paine did yet
another great service to his ungrateful country, in proposing that the
U.S.A. buy the Louisiana territory from Napoleon. Jefferson took
Paine's advice, and thus more than doubled the size of the United
States.
Paine carried on writing to the end, but his old age was miserable,
and he died in obscurity. Officialdom has preferred to ignore him,
even when carrying out his proposals, and his name is seldom on the
lists of great men, and yet many of his ideas are common currency now.
However, much of the world is still not completely free from political
oppression, organized religion, and poverty. We can still learn from
him.

Suggested reading Thomas Paine, A. J. Ayer, (Secker and Warburg) The
Thomas Paine Reader, ed. Michael Foot and Isaac Kramnick (Penguin) Tom
Paine: a political life, John Keane, (Little, Brown and Company)

Nickname unavailable

unread,

May 28, 2013, 11:45:34 AM5/28/13

to

On May 28, 9:23 am, Zepp <d...@gone.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 28 May 2013 06:32:53 -0400, Steve wrote:

> > On Tue, 28 May 2013 02:10:05 +0000 (UTC), Zepp <d...@gone.com> wrote:
>
> >>And I believe that Obamacare is going to destroy the Republican party's
> >>hammerlock on the deep South.
>
> > Zepp also believes that a SAM, not an airplane hit the Pentagon.
>
> And the latest time I took you up on that particular troll, you scampered
> aways as fast as your fat little white legs could carry you.
>
> Grow a pair, Stevie.

he is trying the glenn beck route, only his audience is much smarter
than him:)))

unread,

May 28, 2013, 8:48:49 PM5/28/13

to

as are the other classic liberals like Jefferson.

Nickname unavailable

unread,

May 29, 2013, 1:13:39 AM5/29/13

to

On May 28, 7:48 pm, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooo.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 28 May 2013 08:38:48 -0700 (PDT), Nickname unavailable
>

> <video61%tcq....@gtempaccount.com> wrote:
> >On May 28, 5:32 am, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooo.com> wrote:
> >> On Mon, 27 May 2013 22:37:03 -0700 (PDT), Nickname unavailable
>
> >> <video61%tcq....@gtempaccount.com> wrote:
> >> >the declaration of independence, the preamble, and the constitution
> >> >are all based on the writings of thomas paine.
>
> >> Actually, most of that came from John Locke, but Paine was also a
> >> classic liberal. Today, we'd call Paine a libertarian.
>
> > no,
>
> Yes, both were classic liberals and would be called libertarians today

no, lying will not work. clearly they were for progressive taxation,
regulation, to promote and provide for the general welfare, were
against corporate power, and the power of the wealthy, were against
inherited wealthy, clearly all american liberalism.

as you can see, jefferson was a liberal, as well as thomas paine.

the declaration of independence, the preamble, and the constitution

Nickname unavailable

unread,

May 29, 2013, 1:18:07 AM5/29/13

to

On May 28, 7:48 pm, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooo.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 28 May 2013 08:41:45 -0700 (PDT), Nickname unavailable
>

> <video61%tcq....@gtempaccount.com> wrote:
>
> >> Jefferson was pretty clear in his belief in the right of a person to
> >> pass his property on to his selected heirs.
>
> > he clearly was not for inherited wealth.
>
> ...and yet he argued for it...
>
> "Our wish... is that... equality of rights [be] maintained, and that
> state of property, equal or unequal, which results to every man from
> his own industry or that of his fathers." --Thomas Jefferson: 2nd
> Inaugural Address, 1805. ME 3:382
>

yet a dummy like you has a few quotes that can be taken out of
context, i have not only their actual writings proving what their
beliefs were, but their actual actions clearly proving their true
beliefs.

http://www.tompaine.com/Archive/scontent/7082.html

The Very Soul Of A Republic

The Roots Of The Estate Tax

William H. Gates Sr. is the cochairman of the Bill and Melinda Gates
Foundation in Seattle. Chuck Collins is the cofounder and program
director of Boston-based United for a Fair Economy.

The following text is an excerpt from chapter two of Wealth And Our
Commonwealth by William H. Gates and Chuck Collins, published by
Beacon press. More information about the book is available on the
Beacon Press Web site.

This is the second in a series of two excerpts from this book. Click
here to read the first.

The essence of the American experiment is our collective rejection of
European hereditary aristocracy and grotesque inequalities of wealth.
When Alexis de Tocqueville visited the United States in the mid-
nineteenth century, he noted that equality of condition permeated the
American spirit: "The American experiment presupposes a rejection of
inherited privilege." In the words of novelist John Dos Passos,
"rejection of Europe is what America is all about."

The nation's founders and populace viewed excessive concentrations of
wealth as incompatible with the ideals of the new nation.
Revolutionary era visitors to Europe, including Thomas Jefferson, John
Adams, and Ben Franklin, were aghast at the wide disparities of wealth
and poverty they observed. They surmised that these great European
inequalities were the result of an aristocratic system of land
transfers, hereditary political power, and monopoly.

Monarchies and hereditary aristocracies mocked the republican
principle of self-government. Writing in Common Sense, Thomas Paine
attacked the notion of hereditary government: "To the evil of monarchy
we have added that of hereditary succession; and as the first is a
degradation and lessening of ourselves, so the second, claimed as a
matter of right, is an insult and imposition on posterity."

In two other articles, "Rights of Man" and "Agrarian justice," Paine
extended his contempt of inherited political power to a critique of
inherited economic power. Paine proposed an inheritance tax that would
fund an early version of Social Security.

The distrust of concentrated wealth was so great that, in an extreme
sentiment, Ben Franklin argued "that no man ought to own more property
than needed for his livelihood; the rest, by right, belonged to the
state." One could not accumulate vast wealth, in the republican
worldview, simply through one's own labors. In small-scale agrarian
freeholder society, where laud ownership was more widely distributed
among men of European ancestry, there was a "natural distribution of
wealth." Farmers, artisans, and other workers reaped the "fruits of
their own labor."

In 1776, artisans from Philadelphia put forward a provision for
inclusion in the original state constitution of Pennsylvania. They
advocated for a limit on the concentration of wealth. "An enormous
Proportion of Property vested in a few Individuals is dangerous to the
Rights, and destructive of the Common Happiness of Mankind; and
therefore any free State hath a Right by its Laws to discourage the
Possession of such Property."

The provision was narrowly rejected. But the concern about inequality
and accumulated wealth was present at the formation of our nation.

Indeed, central to American republicanism was the principle of a broad
and fair distribution of wealth and property. Noah Webster, writing in
favor of adopting the U.S. Constitution in 1787, expressed that "a
general and tolerably equal distribution of landed property is the
whole basis of national freedom" and wide spread distribution of
property was "the very soul of a republic." Too much inequality was a
threat to a self-governing society. Without an equitable land
distribution, the founders believed, the republic would not survive.

John Adams also viewed broad land ownership as a key ingredient in
maintaining a balance of political power. He was greatly influenced by
seventeenth-century philosopher James Harrington, who argued that the
widespread distribution of property dispersed power. Adams believed
that when "economic power be came concentrated in a few hands, then
political power flowed to those possessors and away from the citizens,
ultimately resulting in an oligarchy or tyranny." In a 1776 letter to
James Sullivan, Adams articulated his perspective that a balance in
property owner ship was essential to liberty.

The balance of power in a society, accompanies the balance of property
in land. The only possible way, then, of preserving the balance of
power on the side of equal liberty and public virtue, is to make the
acquisition of land easy to every member of society; to make a
division of land into small quantities, so that the multitude may he
possessed of landed estates. If the multitude is possessed of the
balance of real estate, the multitude will take care of the liberty,
virtue, and interest of the multitude, in all acts of government.
Thomas Jefferson, writing to James Madison in 1785 made the now famous
statement that "the small land holders are the most precious part of a
state." He argued that legislators could not invent too many devices

for subdividing property, "only taking care to let their subdivisions
go hand in hand with the natural affections of the human mind."

In the republican worldview, European aristocrats created unbalanced
distributions of wealth by controlling the land through inheritance
laws of primogeniture and entail. These land tenure systems allowed
land transfers only to oldest male children, maintaining hereditary
concentrations of land rather than broadly distributing it. In a
conscious rejection of primogeniture, Jefferson wrote:

The descent of property of every kind therefore to all children, or to

all the brothers and sisters, or other relations in equal degree, is a
politic measure and a practicable one. Another means of silently
lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation

you used to be a pretty good sociopath, today i have reduced you to a
blubbering serial liar who has nothing:)))