The American Ruling Class

[OrionLightShip]

hahaha

I like that...thanks!

[5150]

Rick

Regarding Detroit, it's been in trouble for years and I see all sorts of blame being thrown around as to the cause of the cities demise. Everything for the Democrats that run and control the city for years, to the black population, the Unions, the loss of tax revenue etc. I'm sure each of these things contributed to Detroit's downfall but whats scary is that Detroit is only the first city in what will soon become a string of cancerous cities to declare bankruptcy.

We could name Gary Indiana, East St. Louis, Camden N.J. and several more places. Whats sad is we all see and know the real causes of these cities declines and they are all based on lost tax base, city spending more than it has in revenue, and general poor management. Then add on top if it all the unions and the handouts that pressure the city to continue as if the money was there and you eventually even run out of credit.

Notice how Warren Buffet hasn't gone in an bought up entire blocks of land in Detroit. You know why? He is an investor wanting a return on his money and has stock holders to answer for. Investing in such a city is a losing proposition at this time.

I do feel that at some point you will see investors buying up a lot of land there to eventually redevelop it in a few decades. I mean as the population continues to grow they are not making any new land so we have to redevelop the land we already have. I personally think when the demographics change and a new administration is installed that only then will Detroit have a snow balls chance in hell.

Pretty sad when so many people rely on the government for their living with food stamps and housing, especially when the government titty itself goes dry. I wonder where or what those people will do

[5150]

"The only reason people lock their car doors when Obama walks by is they are afraid he'll tax them to death."

[jdodson]

Pretty sad when so many people rely on the government for their living with food stamps and housing, especially when the government titty itself goes dry. I wonder where or what those people will do

They will do what they always should have been doing...
They will be forced to work in order to survive.

The problem is that we incentivize people to be lazy and have babies.
Instead of making more money by working hard, they simply make more money by popping out more babies.
Why get a job and lose the welfare when you can simply pop out another kid and get a raise on your welfare check.

I know relatives of my own who will only work under the table to keep their welfare.

Its an unstoppable train. We cant cut off welfare because children will starve and by paying for kids, we are incentivizing girls to birth more kids.

The actor reacted angrily to Obama's speech about race on Friday

Thats great, might have to go watch one of his movies now.
Obama should be ashamed of all the race baiting he has done in this over-blown media hysteria case of trayvon martin.

If you hit someone in the face...and they shoot you...I doubt it was due to the color of your skin. But I digress.

[rickoff]

Originally Posted by 5150
Pretty sad when so many people rely on the government for their living with food stamps and housing, especially when the government titty itself goes dry. I wonder where or what those people will do.

They will do what they always should have been doing...they will be forced to work in order to survive.

I don't quite see it that way. Yes, they will be forced to do something to take care of themselves, but it won't be through honest work. Those who live on free handouts, made available by the hard work of others, have always chosen the easiest way out, and they will continue to look for the quickest, easiest solution to problems when the handouts run dry. What that means, of course, is that they will take whatever steps they feel are necessary in order to continue their way of living, and will believe that whatever actions they take in that regard are justified. Of course that means rioting, looting of stores, home invasions, carjacking, beatings, killings, and any other crime in which
they are able to deprive others of the lifestyle they worked hard to legitimately build and maintain.

[rickoff]

Quotable quote of the day......

Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. - Barry Goldwater

When the time comes that welfare recipients resort to extremism to maintain their otherwise unsustainable lifestyle, those of us who wish to defend our rights, liberties, and our very lives, will find that we must also become extremists.

[5150]

[5150]

When the time comes that welfare recipients resort to extremism to maintain their otherwise unsustainable lifestyle, those of us who wish to defend our rights, liberties, and our very lives, will find that we must also become extremists.

Well said! I totally agree. When this begins to happen we will see all out war.

Both sides will be capping each other and it isn't going to be pretty for those who think it will be easy to take from those who have something. There's going to be a lot of hungry welfare babies out there with parents crying about the injustice of it all.. meaning them actually having to work for a living.

[jdodson]

[/I]
I don't quite see it that way. Yes, they will be forced to do something to take care of themselves, but it won't be through honest work. Those who live on free handouts, made available by the hard work of others, have always chosen the easiest way out, and they will continue to look for the quickest, easiest solution to problems when the handouts run dry. What that means, of course, is that they will take whatever steps they feel are necessary in order to continue their way of living, and will believe that whatever actions they take in that regard are justified. Of course that means rioting, looting of stores, home invasions, carjacking, beatings, killings, and any other crime in which
they are able to deprive others of the lifestyle they worked hard to legitimately build and maintain.

I disagree, I think only a smaller percentage would turn to stealing for a living.

There are so many millions of people getting paid by the government, its not just he inner city ghettos anymore.

I dont believe all these people were born without ambition.
I dont believe they were born with the intention of being as lazy as possible.

I think having a free life handed to you, erodes your ambition. Think about it, they are presented with the option of working really hard for several decades then being able to retire....or hooking up with a girl, having several kids and then "retire" on the governments dime.

Don't underestimate the power of incentive. When the welfare incentive is just as good as a minimum wage job incentive...it doesnt shock me to see 47 million people on welfare (if thats the actual number?).

No one likes working. I do construction work, I love my job but I hate being sore from working. The only reason I do it, is that I get paid well.
I'm only working really hard now to be able to retire at a much earlier age than most.
Also (unlike more and more people today) I was lucky to have two parents sacrifice to give me a good private education and have a father who taught me everything he knew about contruction and taught me a good work ethic by getting me to work with him at the age of 12. Many people are not fortunate to have two parents help them get a good start in life. I dont know where I would be if I had to go through the public school system and be on my own without good parents to teach me the right path.

This is also why its so harmful to have so many girls giving birth to kids they really dont care about. Kids born from mothers who dont care and fathers who are not there.

The reason capitalism turned america into the world richest nation is that it incentived hard work.
Welfare right now is an incentive that needs to be drastically reduced. It will hurt in the short term, people will starve, but in the long run it will produce much more prosperity than poverty.

When forced to make a choice, the super majority of people will work for a living with the ambition of success. The choice they should be forced to make is work an honest living, be productive or go hungry and beg for help from family. Welfare is the middleman that prevents that choice from being made. People no longer need to work hard, or go hungry...They can just collect from the government instead.

Some people need help, but only if they are trying to help themselves.
Welfare shouldnt be a career.

[rickoff]

I disagree, I think only a smaller percentage [of welfare recipients] would turn to stealing for a living [when the government teat runs dry].

The greatest percentage of welfare recipients are already actively stealing from those who do work for a living. It is only a small percentage who are not, and these folks would be found to currently be temporarily without full employment but would be working whatever odd jobs they can find. They worked hard before having to temporarily rely on welfare benefits, and thus earned the right to draw those benefits when it became absolutely necessary, but for the vast majority of welfare recipients that is not the case. Most welfare recipients nowadays are second and third generation non-workers who were born into the welfare system, see it as a legitimate way of life, and feel it is properly owed to them. Even if it didn't all grind to a sudden halt, but instead came about somewhat gradually, such as with downsizing of benefits and tightening of eligibility standards, these folks will be quick to hit the streets in protest and demand that their full package of benefits be restored. When they don't get what they demand, that's when things will get ugly, and these people will turn violent. They won't just shrug their shoulders and say, "Gee, now that our benefits have been reduced I guess I'd better start looking for some work to make up for the income we've lost."

There are so many millions of people getting paid by the government, its not just he inner city ghettos anymore. I don't believe all these people were born without ambition. I don't believe they were born with the intention of being as lazy as possible.

I think having a free life handed to you, erodes your ambition. Think about it, they are presented with the option of working really hard for several decades then being able to retire....or hooking up with a girl, having several kids and then "retire" on the governments dime.

Don't underestimate the power of incentive. When the welfare incentive is just as good as a minimum wage job incentive...it doesn't shock me to see 47 million people on welfare (if that's the actual number?).

On these thoughts, I agree with you 100%. No one is born without ambition, but the non-ambition of second and third generation welfare recipients is learned and ingrained since the moment of their birth. As infants, they are totally dependent upon their parents. As school age children they begin understanding that all the good stuff they and their parents receive comes from the welfare system. As young adults they use what they have learned to apply for the maximum amount of benefits that is possible to sustain or better their way of life, and the cycle repeats on and on. Yes, it is all about incentives. There is no incentive to work when one can choose not to work and be enabled to live as well or better than a person who does work. But taking away benefits that people have come to regard as expected and due them does not create an incentive to find honest work. It will create an incentive to make up for what they have lost, but the incentive will be to follow what others are doing that appears to work well for them - such as selling drugs, looting stores, and invading homes.

On the "47 million," that all depends upon the statistics you are looking at. In actuality, half of Americans live in a household that gets government assistance, and since we are a nation of around 330 million people that means that roughly 165 million Americans are either directly or indirectly (through their parents) receiving assistance. You may have been thinking of the 47% figure that Romney spoke of during his campaign, which takes this into consideration. He was right when he said that those 47% would have no incentive to vote anything but Democrat, so could be chalked up by Republicans as a lost cause. The biggest problem with Republicans at this time, though, is that they believe they must become more like Democrats and prove that they are the party of more and better handouts in order to win elections.

I was lucky to have two parents sacrifice to give me a good private education and have a father who taught me everything he knew about construction and taught me a good work ethic by getting me to work with him at the age of 12.

Yes, that's the way it should be, and I'm sure you realize that your mindset is entirely different than that of 2nd and 3rd generation welfare recipients.

The reason capitalism turned america into the world's richest nation is that it incentivized hard work. Welfare right now is an incentive that needs to be drastically reduced. It will hurt in the short term, people will starve, but in the long run it will produce much more prosperity than poverty.

When forced to make a choice, the super majority of people will work for a living with the ambition of success. The choice they should be forced to make is work an honest living, be productive or go hungry and beg for help from family. Welfare is the middleman that prevents that choice from being made. People no longer need to work hard, or go hungry...They can just collect from the government instead.

Some people need help, but only if they are trying to help themselves.
Welfare shouldn't be a career.

I can't agree that the "super majority" of current welfare recipients, when faced with a work or starve choice will choose to find honest work, but I do agree that the welfare system must change. I think there are viable ways to accomplish this change without creating angry mobs and violence. First of all, how about reducing current levels of welfare payments by just a small amount - say 10%, and then use that savings to pay 10% in additional benefits to those who can show that they have worked at least 10 hours per week on average? And don't cut a person's benefits a dollar for every dollar they earn on work over 10 hours per week. Instead, reduce benefits by just 20% of that additional earned income. That creates a true incentive to find longer work hours and better paying job opportunities. For those who currently draw, or will be signing up for unemployment benefits, assign them to perform work that is locally needed. This work could take many forms, such as picking up litter along rural highways or city streets, washing municipal vehicles such as police cars, fire engines and trucks, cutting and splitting firewood for low income heating assistance programs, and on and on. Such work would be within work crews, and must be verifiable. Those who don't report and work their assigned job and hours would have their benefits docked by the amount their work would have been valued at, and those who accumulate 40 hours of fail-to-work time during any monthly period would forfeit all further unemployment benefits until they meet the 40 hour per month assigned work requirement. As with other welfare benefits, as noted above, let these people keep most of what they earn from any additional work they find on their own, only reducing their benefit by 20% of their paid work.

As for work found for, and assigned to persons on the unemployment rolls, many people believe it would be difficult to provide enough paying jobs to those who would ask for such work, but this kind of job creation is also simple if the right techniques are used. For example, you could begin by allowing any employer, with a need to hire additional help, to pay just half the rate they currently pay to new hires if they are willing to hire someone currently listed in the unemployment rolls. They can't fire a current worker to hire the new person, but most any employer would find this offer extremely attractive. It would greatly help to revitalize and expand their business by hiring one or more new workers. It would give those workers expanded job experience, and would immediately cut government paid unemployment benefits by 50% for each job filled. If the new hire proves to be a valuable asset to the employer then it is likely the employer would keep the worker on after one year when the 50% subsidy compensation eligibility expires. Why pay someone $400 or more in weekly unemployment benefits to sit at home and do nothing when you could be paying them half that much to get out there and work? There are so many ways to arrive at a win-win scenario, and I'm sure that you would agree and could think of several more.

As you can see, creating jobs and real incentives to work is easy and is no mystery to anyone with a brain. Allowing people to keep more of what they earn, while still receiving a helpful amount of benefits, takes the penalty out of working and creates strong incentives to find more work and better paying job opportunities. At the same time, these incentives would result in markedly reduced unemployment statistics, and vastly reduced welfare program payments. Makes anyone who understands this wonder why this isn't already being done, but then of course we know why it is not, and why it probably will not be done any time in the near future. Here's why:
1. Big government wants as many people as possible to be on the dole, as this gives government power over their lives.
2. The shortest route to a socialistic New World Order is to crash the American economy, and the shortest route to doing that is to maintain, and increase, the unsustainable welfare state.
3. The ugliness and violence that will surely erupt, when the welfare payments can no longer be paid out, have long been planned for by big government and are seen by them as advantageous. It would result in sizable population reduction from famine, disease, people killing other people, and government forces killing resisters who don't like the idea of being deposed of their property or being herded into FEMA camps. It allows for a quick and massive redistribution of the wealth that still remains in private hands into the hands of the PTB, the Ruling Class. It is no accident that the DHS, a domestic authority, has a stockpile of enough ammunition to shoot every man, woman, and child 5 times over if need be, that FEMA camps are designed to keep people in rather than to keep undesirable elements out, or that government emergency food supplies are only adequate to keep the Ruling Class, their puppet government, and their supporting forces, alive for a sustained period of time. Everyone else will be on their own.

[aljhoa]

NY food stamp recipients are shipping welfare-funded groceries to relatives in Jamaica, Dominican Republic and Haiti
New York food stamp - NYPOST.com

Summary @ mark 2:00
Такого медведя я вижу в первый раз - YouTube

Al

[rickoff]

Latest news on 9/11....

The World Trade Center owners have failed in their attempt to collect $3.5 billion in damages from United Airlines, US Airways, American Airlines and its parent company, AMR. Lawyers for the owners had claimed that the airlines should be held liable for allowing terrorists to board their planes on 9/11. Attorney Roger Podesta, who represented the airline companies, argued that making aviation companies pay would amount to double compensation. Insurance payouts to the owners had already amounted to $5 billion. In ruling against the owners, developer Larry Silverstein and World Trade Center Properties, Judge Hellerstein cited state laws that bar "windfalls and double recovery on the same loss." Lawyers for the owners say they will appeal the decision.

I'd say that most of us are familiar with Larry Silverstein, a real estate developer who had taken out a 99 year lease on the World Trade Center complex for $3.2 billion just 6 months before the 9/11 incidents. But who are the other "owners" spoken of in this court case? Well, here are the facts:


World Trade Center Properties, LLC is an affiliate of Silverstein Properties Inc., of which Larry A. Silverstein is president
The directing corporate officers are:
John (Janno) N. Lieber Senior VP/Project Director
David Worsley Director of Construction
Edmund A. Narbutas Vice President/Design

The corporate officers can be assumed to have an interest in any gains made by Silverstein, in the form of gains on shares which they hold. Likewise, the two investors who helped Larry acquire the lease (Lloyd Goldman and Joseph Cayre) would also have an interest, but Silverstein would obviously be considered to have sole ownership rights of the complex, other than the ground which the buildings sit upon, which is owned by and leased from the Port Authority.

Now at first glance, it would seem that the insurance payout of $5 billion, minus the $3.2 billion lease amount, gave Silverstein a $1.8 billion profit, but his actual profit was far more than that because the $3.2 billion amount was to be paid over a 99 year lease period. The original amount paid by Silverstein and his investors was just $124 million!

It is interesting, as well as informative, to note that other real estate investors had either gone bankrupt, or had totally shied away from having anything to do with investing in the WTC complex, and for good reason. The following gacts were uncovered by the Arctic Beacon Investigative Jounal, and are verifiable.

It was well-known by the city of New York that the WTC was an asbestos bombshell. For years, the Port Authority treated the [Twin Towers] buildings like an aging dinosaur, attempting on several occasions to get permits to demolish the buildings for liability reasons, but being turned down due to the known asbestos problem. Further, it was well-known the only reason the buildings were still standing until 9/11 was because it was too costly to disassemble the twin towers floor by floor since the Port Authority was prohibited legally from demolishing the buildings.

Furthermore, asbestos removal had been mandated by building inspectors, and the total cost for asbestos removal from the towers had been estimated at $200 million, which represented a full year of revenues if the complex was fully rented out. Independent investigations have disclosed that much of the twin towers were in fact unoccupied on 9/11, so these necessary revenues would have been more than just difficult to come by. What kind of investors would even consider pumping $124 million into a building complex plagued by such overwhelming problems? The logical answer, it would seem, is investors who were investing in a sure scheme to not only recoup their original investment, but also reap a humongous settlement from what would later ensue from planned demolition blamed on terrorist attacks.

To me, it is more than just amazing that, considering all the facts of the matter, the insurance company (Swiss Re) was made to pay anything at all to Silverstein, but that's the American inJustice system for you. Silverstein had insisted on including coverage "for loss due to terrorism" in his insurance policy. The policy was to pay $3.2 billion, the full amount of the 99 year lease agreement, and Silverstein later demanded twice that amount, saying that the losses sustained were the result of two separate terrorist incidents. The "justice" system agreed, and Swiss Re was ordered to pay up, though an agreement was reached at roughly $5 billion. I often wonder whether Swiss Re brought up the above noted facts in court concerning the need and desire to demolish the Twin Towers, whether they brought up the fact that Silverstein had admitted on videotape that the order had been given to "pull" (level or raze by demolition) building 7, or if Swiss Re had challenged a payout on the basis that the towers, as well as WTC building 7, were the only steel reinforced buildings in history to have been said to have "collapsed" due to fire damage. Swiss Re probably thought that challenging a payout on these grounds would backfire on them since it contradicted the "official" story of the 9/11 incidents, and agreeing to pay $5 billion undoubtedly looked better to them than having to pay $6.4 billion.

It is astonishing that Larry Silverstein, after making such a windfall on the WTC complex, would pursue a court case against the airlines in hopes of collecting another $3.5 billion. Of course if he were to eventually win such a reward, he would be up by roughly $8.5 billion, which is enough to recoup the total amount of the reconstruction costs of the new buildings (claimed to be $7.2 billion) and leave Larry with a cool $1.3 billion profit. Nice work if you can get it, huh?

[rickoff]

Oppose any bailout of Detroit!

Sign this petition to show you oppose any effort by Congress to bail out Detroit Michigan on the backs of US taxpayers. It seems rather obvious that someone in the White House or in Congress will soon be telling us that Detroit, once the 4th largest city in the US, is simply "too big to fail," and must therefore be bailed out. Detroit's municipal debt now stands at $18 billion, which represents a staggering $25,000 debt for every man, woman, and child currently remaining in Detroit. Bailing out investors who purchased Detroit municipal debt bonds, when it should have been quite apparent that Detroit was unstable and would soon default on those bond payments, is an idea that simply throws good "money" after bad, and really solves nothing but the plight of investors who made bad investment decisions and deserve nothing in compensation for those choices. Detroit's problems didn't just occur overnight - they have been many years in the making, and steadily growing worse for at least a decade. Anyone with a brain could see this coming even years ago, so let the chips lie where they fall. Send Congress a very loud NO to any municipal bailouts.

[5150]

Sign this petition to show you oppose any effort by Congress to bail out Detroit Michigan on the backs of US taxpayers. It seems rather obvious that someone in the White House or in Congress will soon be telling us that Detroit, once the 4th largest city in the US, is simply "too big to fail," and must therefore be bailed out. Detroit's municipal debt now stands at $18 billion, which represents a staggering $25,000 debt for every man, woman, and child currently remaining in Detroit. Bailing out investors who purchased Detroit municipal debt bonds, when it should have been quite apparent that Detroit was unstable and would soon default on those bond payments, is an idea that simply throws good "money" after bad, and really solves nothing but the plight of investors who made bad investment decisions and deserve nothing in compensation for those choices. Detroit's problems didn't just occur overnight - they have been many years in the making, and steadily growing worse for at least a decade. Anyone with a brain could see this coming even years ago, so let the chips lie where they fall. Send Congress a very loud NO to any municipal bailouts.

Isn't that about the same amount of money ($25,000.00 US Dollars) that each person still remaining in the USA would have to pay to cover the Federal budget debt? Not counting all the other debt that is owed.

Seems odd that Detroit has gone bankrupt but the federal government hasn't, oh thats right the Feds can print their own money were as other states and governments cannot. Must be nice to have such a mafia like control on so many people simply out of coercion, intimidation, and flat out penalties and punishment like the Federal government has over the people it supposedly serves.

[FuzzyTomCat]

Odd isn't it .... the WORLD population is 7.1 billion HUMANS existing on the earth.

The United States national debt is almost 17 TRILLION dollars ......

I'm not totally positive .... but isn't that split up about $2,300.00 (USD) for every man, woman and child, old to just born, white, black, brown, red and green, for every human that creepith and walks the EARTH ?????

I think this is a lot of friggen MONEY the United States owes looking at the LARGER picture .......

Glen