Liberal Forum

Amazing experiences; Cracks are appearing:
Late in 2019 just before the COVID "crisis" a friend of mine got a job as a bartender at a local bar which had just opened its doors. A real hole-in-the-wall. It was located in a run down house in a residential neighborhood which had seen better times. Local zoning laws designed to encourage corporate conversion allowed the residences to be licensed for commercial activity (e.g. hair salons and even this little bar). Of course the timing couldn't have been worse it would soon seem.

Within weeks COVID arrived on the scene and government heavy-handedness or however you refer to it resulted in its shut down. Off and on the owner struggled to keep his head above water. In spite of the difficulties the bar actually survived. The need for some to get their alcohol made this just the clandestine spot to do sporadic business. Since opening the owner had hired 7 employees in total and all really enjoyed working in such as casual environment. These 7 employees remained employed throughout the first 18 months being opened.

In the summer of 2021 the owner received a letter. It was from the Unemployment Office (UO). Apparently 23 claims for unemployment had been filed against his bar and had been receiving checks from the UO for over a year. They were requesting he pay matching funds to offset the checks which had been sent. A staggering amount!!! The owner of course knew there was some kind of bureaucratic foul-up and believed it would merely require some clearing up. He explained he had no idea who these people were and assured the UO they had never been employed at his establishment. They showed him the applications and none were filed with his EIN number. He assured them he had never terminated anyone in the short time he was in business. Some of the checks were being sent to China and former East Block countries as well as a scattering throughout the US. They informed him they were overwhelmed with applications for unemployment. As a result they had suspended verification of applications to insure everyone got checks promptly during this time of crisis. They informed him he could appeal the claims and a hearing would be scheduled to determine the validity of the claims. However, no hearings would be held for at least 2 years (again due to the shear volume of claims). In the mean time he would be required to pay the amounts requested. Should he win his claim in 2 years time he would be reimbursed. He was unable to pay such absorbitant amounts. It didn't take long for the UO to revoke his license to do business, his liquor license and pad lock the door. All of his 7 employees were of course sent to the same UO. This is the kind of lame wasteful bureaucratic crap which occurs when you have socialist programs designed with good intent by morons with morons put in charge of watching out for other-peoples-money to ensure it is wisely spent.

LibDave » 29 Dec 2021, 11:39 pm » wrote: ↑

29 Dec 2021, 11:39 pm

Amazing experiences; Cracks are appearing:
Late in 2019 just before the COVID "crisis" a friend of mine got a job as a bartender at a local bar which had just opened its doors. A real hole-in-the-wall. It was located in a run down house in a residential neighborhood which had seen better times. Local zoning laws designed to encourage corporate conversion allowed the residences to be licensed for commercial activity (e.g. hair salons and even this little bar). Of course the timing couldn't have been worse it would soon seem.

out for other-peoples-money to ensure it is wisely spent.

no this was not some lame bureaucratic foul up. This was deliberate. And your friend should have known that before he opened his bar.
 

LibDave » 29 Dec 2021, 10:23 pm » wrote: ↑

29 Dec 2021, 10:23 pm

We agree there too.  I believe the Wall Street bailouts are criminal and don't abide by our Constitutional foundings.  Many Americans did.  Which is I'm sure what you noticed and caused you to incorrectly attribute it to Wall Street or whatever.  It is just plain corruption plain and simple.  And I vehemently opposed and still do oppose ANY FORM of Wall Street or Corporate bailouts.  If a local restaurant owner goes out of business no government officials come to his rescue.  But let some wealthy corporate fat cats make a misstep and lose Trillions and what happens?  They go crying to the Treasury to bail them out.  After all, they shouldn't have to cancel their vacations in the Bahamas.  So I get you.  Unfortunately many in our nation aren't able to identify and vote out the culprits.  For instance I bet you blame W Bush for the bailouts?  Am I right?

It is a mistake and it is useless to fetishize our Constitution, which hasn't mattered since 1865. Without self determination and freedom of association our constitution is of no use. 

And no...it's stupid to blame Bush for bailouts
Blame the people who are really in charge: jews.
 

Cannonpointer » 29 Dec 2021, 11:12 pm » wrote: ↑

29 Dec 2021, 11:12 pm

Apologist narrative and **** - pure ****.

I gave you actual video of him approving a half billion to be GIVEN to individual borrowers who had zero money, zero credit and no verified means of income. Your playbook crap is contradicted by the video you apparently did not bother to watch. Whatever "loans" you are referring to have nothing to do with the evidence I showed you.

It's four **** minutes. He was president. It was a critical (and unConstitutional) piece of spending. Take the time. And really THINK about each line item he outlines for the spending - and what the ramifications of those line items are.

The "available options" in an "emergency" always cost the "public" their "freedoms" and their "asses."

Bush was at CAUSE, not at EFFECT. He had the options he WANTED - well, the options his handlers wanted.

You might want to recall that he backed hillary over trump. That SHOULD tell you something about what team he is on.

The dems and repukes are false opposition answering to the same wall street masters and serving the same globalist ends. Never forget it was HW who coined the term New World Order - and it was bush who signed the patriot act.

You need a broader reading list, IMO.

And I agreed it was likely beyond the line of what should be legal.  I also understand the stakes involved and the limited time required to makes things as easy as possible.  Understand, this would have meant not just the collapse of the American financial system but London, Europe, Japan, etc.  And the issue was more than just debt.  It was the uncertainty of debt which was the issue.  That was the issue needing immediate address to head off truly global suffering.  All the way down to the guy making Nike's in Thailand.  I don't condone it, but I do understand the circumstance.  I'm truly thankful I wasn't the one making the call.  Even though there were moral dilemmas, in the end I think it was the correct move.  It was repaid, with a small amount of interest.  The same amount of interest it cost the government to provide the funds.  So as it turned out US taxpayers didn't foot ANY of the bill.  They merely gained no profit from the risk.

But the Paulson Plan that followed and the Geithner Plan WERE NOT LOANS.  These cannot be considered even in the gray area.  IMHO.  We are still operating under the impacts and essentially bought the bad debt.  All while politicians were stuffing their pockets with campaign contributions from these same financial power houses.  And sure enough the ones selected for relief from their toxic debt and survived were the one's making the donations.  This was just sickening.

So I'm not quite so revolted by the initial loans though of course I can see why others might think it was too far.
 

LibDave » 29 Dec 2021, 11:58 pm » wrote: ↑

29 Dec 2021, 11:58 pm

And I agreed it was likely beyond the line of what should

The moment you say should, you have exited the realm of politics. Might as well join a monastery if you care about what should be. 

Cannonpointer » 29 Dec 2021, 11:12 pm » wrote: ↑

29 Dec 2021, 11:12 pm

Apologist narrative and **** - pure ****.

I gave you actual video of him approving a half billion to be GIVEN to individual borrowers who had zero money, zero credit and no verified means of income. Your playbook crap is contradicted by the video you apparently did not bother to watch. Whatever "loans" you are referring to have nothing to do with the evidence I showed you.

It's four **** minutes. He was president. It was a critical (and unConstitutional) piece of spending. Take the time. And really THINK about each line item he outlines for the spending - and what the ramifications of those line items are.

The "available options" in an "emergency" always cost the "public" their "freedoms" and their "asses."

Bush was at CAUSE, not at EFFECT. He had the options he WANTED - well, the options his handlers wanted.

You might want to recall that he backed hillary over trump. That SHOULD tell you something about what team he is on.

The dems and repukes are false opposition answering to the same wall street masters and serving the same globalist ends. Never forget it was HW who coined the term New World Order - and it was bush who signed the patriot act.

You need a broader reading list, IMO.

Correction.  It was 768 Billion.  Way more than half a Billion.  But the point is therefore even more valid.  And as I said I too was really uneasy about how I felt about this.  In the end I was thankfully relieved at least in regards to the loans.

LibDave » 29 Dec 2021, 11:58 pm » wrote: ↑

29 Dec 2021, 11:58 pm

And I agreed it was likely beyond the line of what should be legal.  I also understand the stakes involved and the limited time required to makes things as easy as possible.  Understand, this would have meant not just the collapse of the American financial system but London, Europe, Japan, etc.  And the issue was more than just debt.  It was the uncertainty of debt which was the issue.  That was the issue needing immediate address to head off truly global suffering.  All the way down to the guy making Nike's in Thailand.  I don't condone it, but I do understand the circumstance.  I'm truly thankful I wasn't the one making the call.  Even though there were moral dilemmas, in the end I think it was the correct move.  It was repaid, with a small amount of interest.  The same amount of interest it cost the government to provide the funds.  So as it turned out US taxpayers didn't foot ANY of the bill.  They merely gained no profit from the risk.

But the Paulson Plan that followed and the Geithner Plan WERE NOT LOANS.  These cannot be considered even in the gray area.  IMHO.  We are still operating under the impacts and essentially bought the bad debt.  All while politicians were stuffing their pockets with campaign contributions from these same financial power houses.  And sure enough the ones selected for relief from their toxic debt and survived were the one's making the donations.  This was just sickening.

So I'm not quite so revolted by the initial loans though of course I can see why others might think it was too far.

The two party system is a game. You can have it RIGHT in the ***, or LEFT in the mouth, but either way, it's a party and you're getting ****. 

If you looked at the video, you would know that Bush precipitated the crisis. I have little doubt that you think it was Barney Frank, scheming in his underground lair. And without a doubt, Barney played his farty part, between cheeking young poles. But this was a game by both parties - and your narrative that they were caught unawares and forced to "act quickly" is facile and naive. 

Bush set the game in motion by giving away hundreds of billions (and in truth, without the understatement, more than a trillion) in the video that I shared with you - well, tried to share. 

Tell me, do you think the patriot act was written in haste, too?
 

LibDave » 30 Dec 2021, 12:04 am » wrote: ↑

30 Dec 2021, 12:04 am

Correction.  It was 768 Billion.  Way more than half a Billion.  But the point is therefore even more valid.  And as I said I too was really uneasy about how I felt about this.  In the end I was thankfully relieved at least in regards to the loans.

I believe we are discussing different disbursements. 

I am talking about the socialist giveaway that broke the bank in the first place - not the "loans" that you've been convinced (and I have not) were repaid. 
 

SJConspirator » 29 Dec 2021, 11:19 pm » wrote: ↑

29 Dec 2021, 11:19 pm

what your struggling mightily to describe is "diminishing returns" .. the point at which further effort exerted is no longer worth perceived return.

Correct.  And not struggling mightily.  Not at all familiar with the background of my audience so doing the safe thing and avoiding potentially talking above the audience so to speak.

LibDave » 30 Dec 2021, 12:12 am » wrote: ↑

30 Dec 2021, 12:12 am

Correct.  And not struggling mightily.  Not at all familiar with the background of my audience so doing the safe thing and avoiding potentially talking above the audience so to speak.

We must strive to avoid THAT unpleasantness at all costs. 

Here is a thought experiment I would invite you to engage in (AFTER you watch the 4 minute video I proffered):

Name every capitalist country that exists or has ever existed which did not boast a significant socialist cohort.

If you cannot name any, is it fair to suggest that socialism and capitalism have some sort of relationship to one another - that perhaps the one CAUSES the other, RELIES on the other to maintain itself?
 

LibDave » 30 Dec 2021, 12:04 am » wrote: ↑

30 Dec 2021, 12:04 am

Correction.  It was 768 Billion.  Way more than half a Billion.  But the point is therefore even more valid.  And as I said I too was really uneasy about how I felt about this.  In the end I was thankfully relieved at least in regards to the loans.

Allow me to share a previous post from another thread which might clarify what I have been trying to say to you.

Cannonpointer » 21 Dec 2021, 6:09 pm » wrote: ↑

21 Dec 2021, 6:09 pm

I certainly cannot disagree. But my own experience with the right, PRE TRUMP, is that their behavior was extremely similar. 

These days, it is less pronounced on the right - and it is bloody ubiquitous on the left. But snapshots are snapshots - and the moving picture we live in is a two party production. Back when the repukes became slavish goons for corporate power (for example, huey defended citizens united, as well as torture - neo defended torture - almost every conjob on the board defended torture, and ALL the mother **** defended globalism and so-called free trade), the democrats were still the party of labor. They fought AGAINST globalism. The democrat old guard was stridently nationalist and protectionist, beyond anything Trump manifested.

It was only after republicans turned our nation over to the globalists that democrats threw dignity to the winds and started sucking global corporate dick. 

And not fer nuthin? I can find you an *** load of leftists who oppose aipac and israeli influence. You find me ANY repuke, and I can swab that ***'s mouth for jew semen every time, never fails. 

The repukes are cheek by jowl with the demonrats on covid - if they were not, the game would not be afoot. They are presenting TOKEN resistance, while the demonrats' agenda continues to gain steam. 

Oh - I forgot to mention - not a fan of AIPAC. 
 

Cannonpointer » 30 Dec 2021, 12:24 am » wrote: ↑

30 Dec 2021, 12:24 am

Allow me to share a previous post from another thread which might clarify what I have been trying to say to you.

Oh - I forgot to mention - not a fan of AIPAC.

Let me go a step further

Since 1948, every major problem that the U.S. has had, has been in some way related to AIPAC, although separated by 6 degrees of Kevin Bacon in some cases

SJConspirator » 30 Dec 2021, 12:36 am » wrote: ↑

30 Dec 2021, 12:36 am

Let me go a step further

Since 1948, every major problem that the U.S. has had, has been in some way related to AIPAC, although separated by 6 degrees of Kevin Bacon in some cases

Or the adl. Or the world Jewish congress. Or hias. Or Jonathan pollard (who Trump pardoned...fancy that). Or Emmanuel cellar. Or Jacob Rubinstein. Stop me if you notice a pattern here. 

Cannonpointer » 29 Dec 2021, 6:13 pm » wrote: ↑

29 Dec 2021, 6:13 pm

What shrooms do you grow?

Now, oysters and shiitake 

when I started in my youth.. psychedelic psilocybin cubensis

Cannonpointer » 30 Dec 2021, 12:17 am » wrote: ↑

30 Dec 2021, 12:17 am

We must strive to avoid THAT unpleasantness at all costs. 

Here is a thought experiment I would invite you to engage in (AFTER you watch the 4 minute video I proffered):

Name every capitalist country that exists or has ever existed which did not boast a significant socialist cohort.

If you cannot name any, is it fair to suggest that socialism and capitalism have some sort of relationship to one another - that perhaps the one CAUSES the other, RELIES on the other to maintain itself?

I've been asked and answered this question several times.  Likely by you.  You seem to think this is a question which furthers your argument in some manner.  It doesn't.  It is merely a Red Herring.  It is a brain dead query quite frankly and not at all relevant for serious contemplation.

No system of government can exist without a system of government.  So all governments which have ever existed cannot be devoid of government.  So the hell what?  Ask a completely stupid question and you get a stupid answer.  But the answer is correct as you framed the question.

Government provision of ANY function is by definition socialist in some regard.  For instance having a judicial system of any kind would rightly be considered a socialist endeavor.  Any taxes which are expended for the common good (in this case to provide for judicial review) would be considered socialism.  So without socialism there are no government functions conducted.  Without taxation it would be a strange endeavor indeed for government to conduct any function of import beyond charitable contributions of labor from its citizens.

Your implication is equivalent to stating "without taxation you can't have government so socialism is the only valid system".  This doesn't pass philosophical reasoning conventions and is obviously just useless contemplation designed to gain a hollow victory.  The posing an illogical question irrelevant to the inquiry.  The insinuation is that any form of government requires some form of government and therefore capitalism can't exist so it is invalid.  I will concede the point with uproarious laughter and ascendancy.

Even the Founding Fathers agreed SOME form of government was necessary (total anarchy is the only other position). It was their recognition of the obvious failures of almost ALL forms of government (the term socialism had yet to be coined) which brought them to the Constitutional Convention in the 1st place. There intent was to determine the best system of government, design it to alleviate shortcomings, limit that government to the absolute minimum reason would dictate, and place The People above government. This final provision stemmed from the Founding Father's rare and humble ability to realize they were no more perfect and omnipotent than framers of past governments. The Constitution was to serve as the Charter which gives the government the authority to conduct very limited business in the interest of The People as a whole, yet provide The People with a mechanism to alter the charter. Even the method of Amendment was defined. The Constitutional Charter clearly defines what the government can and cannot do, how it will be formed, and how it will operate.  The addition of the Bill of Rights further emphasized in the most rigid of terms what it CANNOT do in regards to our inalienable rights, including what any future Amendments were permissable.

They were very clear what limited functions would be allowed. Jefferson even described in fine detail exactly what criteria the Founding Father's SEEMED TO BE USING when they approved very limited government functions and granted powers to specific carefully constructed government offices. In every consideration they were very aware of the shortcomings of various forms of government and moreover the shortcomings of human nature and the nature of power to corrupt. They obviously did an excellent job and the list was exceedingly short.

Jefferson's criteria clearly show the Founder's recognized the shortcomings of socialism though the term wasn't coined at the time.
 

LibDave » 30 Dec 2021, 1:57 am » wrote: ↑

30 Dec 2021, 1:57 am

I've been asked and answered this question several times.  Likely by you.  You seem to think this is a question which furthers your argument in some manner.  It doesn't.  It is merely a Red Herring.  It is a brain dead query quite frankly and not at all relevant for serious contemplation.

No system of government can exist without a system of government.  So all governments which have ever existed cannot be devoid of government.  So the hell what?  Ask a completely stupid question and you get a stupid answer.  But the answer is correct as you framed the question.

Government provision of ANY function is by definition socialist in some regard.  For instance having a judicial system of any kind would rightly be considered a socialist endeavor.  Any taxes which are expended for the common good (in this case to provide for judicial review) would be considered socialism.  So without socialism there are no government functions conducted.  Without taxation it would be a strange endeavor indeed for government to conduct any function of import beyond charitable contributions of labor from its citizens.

Your implication is equivalent to stating "without taxation you can't have government so socialism is the only valid system".  This doesn't pass philosophical reasoning conventions and is obviously just useless contemplation designed to gain a hollow victory.  The posing an illogical question irrelevant to the inquiry.  The insinuation is that any form of government requires some form of government and therefore capitalism can't exist so it is invalid.  I will concede the point with uproarious laughter and ascendancy.

you eloquent arias seem to miss the basic point. 

The purpose of taxation. The purThee of the state. Why do we agree to it?

LibDave » 30 Dec 2021, 1:58 am » wrote: ↑

30 Dec 2021, 1:58 am

Even the Founding Fathers agreed

Tell me what you believe.

FOS » 30 Dec 2021, 2:01 am » wrote: ↑

30 Dec 2021, 2:01 am

Tell me what you believe.

What do I believe?  I believe the US Constitution resides alone at the summit of all documents produced by human kind.  I believe with absolute humility it is the most generous gift bestowed upon not just the United States but the entire world.  Its forethought so carefully crafted has provided more good to The People, to include ALL of human kind, than any other recorded in human history.  I believe its longevity and virility are a testament to that appraisement.  Never in human history has power been wielded with such generosity, humility and forethought.

While they have provided us the ability to make their corrections we've found little cause.  Furthermore, it is evident it was crafted in the anticipation and hopes for the progression of human sensibilities.  Sensibilities they held beyond the permissions of the contemporary times in which they presided.

What I believe is what I believe is of little import.  With absolute humility I recognize my obeisance, prone within their long shadow.  It is our contract with each other, past and present.  With all of mankind.  I would be reticent to presume I could much improve upon it even still.  I am satisfied with abiding by its dictates and acknowledging my duty to defend its boundaries while basking in its afterglow. 

 
 

FOS » 30 Dec 2021, 2:00 am » wrote: ↑

30 Dec 2021, 2:00 am

you eloquent arias seem to miss the basic point. 

The purpose of taxation. The purThee of the state. Why do we agree to it?

Because we have all agreed to it, past and present.  It is the contract we have put in place and accept as Americans if we call ourselves Americans.  Furthermore, should you feel its dictates are unjustified it provides you righteous remedies.  Should you determine these remedies beyond your ability to obtain and you cannot abide by its dictates then you have choices.  You can deny dominion and place yourself outside its protections or leave.  If you believe others have placed themselves beyond its dominion then it is your duty to defend its sanctity and forfeit your life if necessary to eradicate the offenders.  If you attempt the later I would suggest you enlist the help of like minded individuals.  Furthermore, should I agree with your assessment its doctrines have been irrevocably violated I would not only wish you success in your endeavors I would be compelled by my oath to the Constitution to aid you in its defense.

And you should feel blessed.  The socialists of the former Soviet Union provided no such permission to leave.  Still the case for China.  Yet in America even if you decide you cannot abide by its doctrine the Constitution affords you inalienable rights until you depart.  How is that for a gracious host?