Large Scale Central

How long will it take?

General Discussion
#1

I know right away that some of you will say this is crazy conspiracy stuff, others will at least ponder the thought. If this is wrong, it wouldn’t bother me at all. If its right, I would feel awful for at least not sharing it with you. So please 20 years from now, tell me I was wrong or maybe we can both say, I guess we’ll never know. But please ponder the thoughts. For those of you who think we are all crazy, please just tolerate us. It is our Country.

How long do we have if Obama is elected??

SO…WHAT DO YOU THINK ???

(Be sure and read through the end.)

I think Obama is trying to create the largest welfare and government dependency the United States has ever known, and the American public is selling their souls into it.

Those who pay little or no taxes, and get hundreds or thousands of dollars back by minimum wage adjustment on their tax forms, and get all the “free perks” … its easy for them to vote for someone like Obama.



This is kind of an eye-opener as far as a Democracy is concerned ........

If Obama gets elected we'll have Socialitic Govt here within 2 years!  
By his own speeches he wants to 're-distribute' wealth to take care of all the 'poor' people, free health care, free everything until the folks who own businesses won't be able to maintain them and they'll be poor folk too.


``````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
HOW LONG DOES THE USA HAVE? 

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

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

How Long Do We Have? 

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

'A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government.' 
'A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury.' 

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

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

'During those 200 years, those 

nations always progressed through the following sequence: 

1. From bondage to spiritual faith; 

2. From spiritual faith to great courage; 

3. From courage to liberty; 

4. From liberty to abundance; 

5. From abundance to complacency; 

6. From complacency to apathy; 

7. From apathy to dependence; 

8. From dependence back into bondage' 

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

Number of States won by: 
Gore: 19 
Bush: 29! 

Square miles of land won by: 
Gore: 580,000 
Bush: 2,427,000 

Population of counties won by: 
Gore: 127 million 
Bush: 143 million 

Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by: 
Gore: 13.2 
Bush: 2.1 

Professor Olson adds: 'In aggregate, the map of the territory Bush won was mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens of this great country. 

Gore's territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in government-owned tenements and living off various forms of government welfare...' 

Olson believes the United State s is now somewhere between the 'complacency and apathy' phase of Professor Tyler's definition of democracy, with, with some forty percent of the nation's population already having reached the 'governmental dependency' phase. 

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

If you are in favor of this you already know how to vote..... if you are not in favor of giving up your freedom then pass this along to help anyone and everyone realize just how much is at stake, knowing that apathy is the greatest danger to our freedom.  And FREEDOM is out greatest wealth. 

Thanks for reading, no matter how you vote.  It is really up to us and nobody else.
#2

Ric,

The way I see it: you will be the world’s greatest theocracy, everybody will be praising all the time and Whoever will provide. Sounds almost like Paradise, doesn’t it!?! :wink: :confused:

#3

None of this would even be debated and Obama would probably never even be where his is, at the point of being elected, if Dubya and his cronies hadn’t stuffed up big time.

#4

Ric,
As a matter of fact, that scenario looks a lot like Canada and Austrailia, Canadians don’t even show up to vote any more :slight_smile:

#5

Dave,

That subject came up the day after the election and the general concensus among three people who voted for three different parties was: those who don’t vote might as well shut up about the “crappy government”. I guess that would work rather well South of the Border too, eh! :wink: :slight_smile: :smiley:

#6

HJ,

Yes, it probably would.

Perhaps 20 Million of us could migrate north of the border and give you guys a hand in the vote. And those south of our border could come take our place, err…I guess they’re already here…

#7

David.
Although it is generally thought that voting in Australia at general elections for State and Federal governments is compulsory for registered voters, it is in fact only compulsory to show up at the voting booth and be ticked off the roll.
What you do with the voting slip is up to you.

Further to all of the above.
My opinion is that only people who can pass a basic intelligence test should ever be allowed to vote. Anywhere.

HJ I subscribe to the same opinion about not voting.

#8

I don’t believe they have ever spent $700 billion in one year for welfare and food stamps.
You need to worry about the welfare for the wealthy…it is much more money than the welfare for the poor.
Ralph

#9

I don’t recall saying anything about being worried. But thanks for showing me the direction…:wink:

Ralph Berg said:
I don't believe they have ever spent $700 billion in one year for welfare and food stamps. You need to worry about the welfare for the wealthy.........it is much more money than the welfare for the poor. Ralph
#10

And I agree about the basic intelligence test…

#11

“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury.” – Unknown

"Taxpayers are now on the hook for a record $59.1 trillion in liabilities, a 2.3% increase from 2006. That amount is equal to $516,348 for every U.S. household. By comparison, U.S. households owe an average of $112,043 for mortgages, car loans, credit cards and all other debt combined.

That’s why there’s a certain unreality to the political discussions we have in this country. Those of us who are conservatives and Libertarians rail against government spending, liberals bizarrely say we need government to get even bigger – and then both parties, after assuring us that they’re going to reduce the deficit, go to Washington and promptly agree to spend even more of our money.

The politicians in D.C. hand out hundred million dollar earmarks like Trick or Treat candy even as they glibly promise to “invest” billions more and scold anyone who might be so “mean” as to want to cut whatever the latest non-functional, but pleasant-sounding government program happens to be. However, there is a big problem with that sort of thinking: at some point, no matter what kind of happy talk our politicians give us, the bill is going to eventually come due for all the goodies they’re using to buy votes – and they know it, because we can’t afford socialized medicine. We can’t afford any massive new aid projects across the world – we can’t even afford most of the old ones. We can’t afford earmarks, corporate welfare, tax credits for people who don’t pay income tax – or to give 12-20 million illegal aliens access to our social safety net.

Still, there is another segment of the American population – a majority (at least it better still be a majority if this country is going to have a bright future) – who want the government off their back, out of their pocket books, and out of their way. Those people deserve a lot more than the lip service they’ve been getting on government spending.

Four Freakin’ Words. We. Can’t. Afford. It.
by John Hawkins"

#12

What a silly post! Really, I wish Obama were some of the things he’s accused of being. He’s just another centrist. Turn Rush off and go look at his website, lok at the policies proposals? Socialism? Only if you use the word to mean “anything I don’t agree with is socialism.”

Obama is not some kind of radical–this is just right wing fantasy. He’s a centrist liberal. You guys are mistaking the heated attacks of campaign rhetoric for reality. If you look at his voting record he’s never voted for anything “socialist” unless by socialist you mean “not Republican.” Calm down! You listen to partisan attacks all day, it starts to seem like Obama is the antichrist.

He’s pro-choice–ok, many of you guys hate that but he’s not bringing something new to the table there. We already have legal abortion. He favors returning tax rates on the top 2-3% of Americans to where the were under Clinton. Remember that? Back when we had a budget surplus? But even if he does, tax rates would be way way lower than they were under Dwight Eisenhower. That’s just a fact. He wants to give 95% of Americans a tax cut, and somehow that’s “socialism?”

He has the same big money Wall Street donors as McCain, He has the backing, for crying out loud, of WARREN BUFFETT!! And you guys weirdly think he’s a socialist? Yes, that’s right, Warren Buffett favors socialism. And rain is snow, and down is up.

Somebody sneaks up on you guys and yells “socialist” and you all wet your pants. Look at the record. Yes, he may support things you disagree with, but he’s not some kind of flaming radical.

Meanwhile, who has increased the size of government? Bush. Who has vastly vastly increased government spending? Bush. Who has left us with a cripling mountain o debt? Bush. Who has formulated a 700 billion dollar bailout plan? Bush. Who restructured the tax system so that the wealthy paid less and less, while simultaneously increasing govt. spending? Bush. Whose administration has left the economy in crisis? Bush. Now we seem to be blaming Obama in advance for stuff Bush did!

#13

I don’t recall one word about Obama in my post.

You forget one thing. Congress holds the purse strings, not Bush.

And taking money off one group of people who earned it to hand to another group of people who haven’t earned it is socialism. Government dependency is socialism.

Get a grip on reality, Mike, this has nothing to do with Bush, Obama or anyone else. It’s an indictment against a big spending, over burdening, bureaucracy heavy BIG Government that this country can no longer afford.

#14

An interesting note – Here in “racist” W. Pa, MOST of the elected leaders on the local and even state level are Democrats, it’s only at the federal level that the republicns have a shot.

The only logic I can come up with to explain it is simple selfishness. Closer in they KNOW the governmental largesse will be spent where they can benefit…at the federal level it’s MORE important to try to make sure someone ELSE doesn’t get more than WE think they should…

But then cynicism is the new optimism

#15

Ken, I was responding to the original post, which says “how long do we have if Obama is elected?” It’s right there in the original post

As to Congress holding the purse strings, remember how Truman had a sign on his desk that said “the buck stops here?” Apparently the buck only stops at Democrats.

I’ll be happy to condemn any Democrats who endorsed Bush’s budget proposals during the last 8 years.

Here’s an editorial in the Washington Post which makes a similar argument. It’s critical of Obama and Biden as well

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/17/AR2008101702936.html

#16

Mike,

I just knew you would like this. :wink: Enjoy!

#17
mike omalley said:
Here's an editorial in the Washington Post which makes a similar argument. It's critical of Obama and Biden as well

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/17/AR2008101702936.html


I believe the Washington Post just announced their endorsment for Obama yesterday!

http://www.agi.it/world/news/200810171337-pol-ren0031-art.html

#18
Ken Brunt said:
And taking money off one group of people who earned it to hand to another group of people who haven't earned it is socialism. Government dependency is socialism.
Banks have been taking money from the Fed at 2% and charging us 6%-33%. The Fed is lending them $900 billion besides the $700 billion they are taking from you and I to give to the banks. I would much rather feed the hungry, than feed the rich as we are doing now. The system the Fed has in place discourages banks from paying a decent interest rate and encouraging deposits. Recently a local banker called the 4.1% interest Wachovia paid on CD's "outrageous". 45 years ago I was paid 4% on a Savings Account. Why pay us 4% when they can borrow from the Fed at 2%, and soon even less? This is the reason we have such volatility in the Markets. Interest rates paid by Banks doesn't even keep up with inflation. So everyone becomes a "Speculator". The cost of our "socialized" banking system far exceeds any welfare programs. Ralph