Climate change could cause mass exodus by mid century

On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 3:39:05 PM UTC-4, Razzmatazz wrote:
On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 2:14:51 PM UTC-5, wsne... wrote:
On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 2:43:12 PM UTC-4, Razzmatazz wrote:
On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 1:27:52 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 2:12:33 PM UTC-4, Razzmatazz wrote:

The constitution doesn't specifically prohibit collecting taxes and using the money to buy public parks, or sponsor public art. It is a framework for guaranteeing rights.

Read Amendment X to see why your statement is incorrect.

Sorry, you are wrong. Taxes are constitutional.

I never said that taxes are unconstitutional. Some of the uses to which those taxes might be diverted could be unconstitutional, however.

It is payment for you getting to use the government's money and guarantees of your various properties and freedoms and protections that the government extends to you, whether you deserve it or not. Without government, who is to say that the house that you (theoretically) own is really yours? Anyone stronger than you with a bigger gun could very easily dispossess you of your property at any time, as happens in places like Somalia, Kenya, Congo, etc., where government is weak or non-existent.

If you were to have actually read and understood the Constitution, you would (possibly) not have written such an absurd paragraph.

You may have read it, but I believe that you do not fully understand it. So,
we are at odds there. Will have to leave it to the Supreme court to interpret
it. Unless you think you are more intelligent than they are.

There is no need to even involve the SCOTUS. Replacement of the federal income tax with a consumption tax will change the dynamics sufficiently that power will return to state and local governments automatically.


It is not absurd to believe that our personal property can be taken away by a stronger force if there is not a body of law to protect it, and a government to enforce it. That is where my tax money goes, to pay for it.

However, that function of government provides no excuse for misappropriating tax money for things that are NOT a proper function of government, according to the Constitution.

At the current levels of taxation, the government takes away more in taxes than most people own in property.


The Constitution provides for national defense, a system of courts, currency, to be handled by the federal government. If poetry festivals are deemed necessary, then state or local governments can, -perhaps-, fund them or better yet individuals can do so.

If poetry festivals are deemed necessary for the proper functioning of this
nation, then indeed the constitution does not disallow money to be spent on such.

Poetry festivals are NOT necessary for proper functioning of this nation. If important in some way to a particular locality, then that local government can certainly raise revenue on its own for that purpose.

Again, check Amendment X and read it this time.

Of course I have read it. Fortunately you are not the arbiter of what it says.

I, and every other citizen of the US, can decide on what we think it means and vote accordingly. The text is rather simple and easy to understand.

What's more interesting is that money is not yours to begin with, it belongs to the US treasury, it is government property, which you are allowed to use to barter and pay debts and taxes.

Incorrect. The government makes coins and paper currency, but wealth is created by the private sector.

What I said is not incorrect. You interpret it as such, but that carries no
weight whatsoever.

An important part of federal government's job in this case, mentioned in the Constitution, is to coin money and ensure that it is not counterfeit. It can't make more wealth. It has no way to do so.

In the end, it is our laws that govern, not your desires.

I desire that we follow the Constitution and limit the size of our government. You should have no problem with that.

On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 5:20:40 PM UTC-4, peterson wrote:
On Wed, 13 Jul 2016 14:16:00 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 3:55:39 PM UTC-4, peterson wrote:
On Wed, 13 Jul 2016 12:14:49 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

Incorrect. The government makes coins and paper currency, but wealth is created by the private sector.

Wealth can be created by the private sector, just as it can be
destroyed by the private sector. Government is also perfectly capable
of both creating and destroying wealth. When the government invests
tax money in public infrastructure, for instance, it is generally
creating wealth. When the government invests in scientific research it
is generally creating wealth. There are many government programs that
return more value than they cost, and those might be seen as creating
wealth, as well.

Your silly argument is destroyed by the real world examples of the former USSR, Cuba and North Korea, etc., where socialist governments that run everything fail to create much in the way of wealth. USA vs USSR, South Korea vs North Korea, West Germany vs East Germany. Get the picture?

You obviously don't, since your examples have nothing to do with what
I said.

They have everything to do with what you said.

Countries with socialist economies and generally despotic
governments have not done well in the last century.

Their socialism was their weak link. The USSR had people, resources and a somewhat reasonable tech base (mostly stolen, however.) Yet the people were quite poor by US standards. They even looked bad compared to Western Europe!

Which tells us a
lot about socialist economic systems and despotic governments, but not
much else.

South Korea was rather despotic, rather capitalistic and rather successful. North Korea's problem is its socialism, which its despots keep in place.


There are numerous examples of governments investing in things which
create value. Free governments with capitalistic economies.

There are some NASA and military spinoffs, but other examples are practically non-existent.

On Wed, 13 Jul 2016 14:44:09 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

You obviously don't, since your examples have nothing to do with what
I said.

They have everything to do with what you said.

Countries with socialist economies and generally despotic
governments have not done well in the last century.

Their socialism was their weak link.

Their socialism was almost certainly _a_ weak link. But so what? There
are no socialistic economies in the developed free world. All are
capitalistic. And I'm quite sure that there are plenty of examples of
soviet Russia creating value by spending public funds, even if the
country ultimately failed (for reasons far more complex than simply
their form of socialism).

South Korea was rather despotic, rather capitalistic and rather successful. North Korea's problem is its socialism, which its despots keep in place.

So? Nothing to do with my comment about governments having the ability
to generate wealth.

There are numerous examples of governments investing in things which
create value. Free governments with capitalistic economies.

There are some NASA and military spinoffs, but other examples are practically non-existent.

Good. We agree that governments can generate wealth, which was all I
said. You should have just left out all the irrelevant crap and said
this in the first place.

On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 5:59:02 PM UTC-4, peterson wrote:
On Wed, 13 Jul 2016 14:44:09 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

You obviously don't, since your examples have nothing to do with what
I said.

They have everything to do with what you said.

Countries with socialist economies and generally despotic
governments have not done well in the last century.

Their socialism was their weak link.

Their socialism was almost certainly _a_ weak link. But so what? There
are no socialistic economies in the developed free world. All are
capitalistic.

No, many have socialism feeding off of capitalism, like a parasite.

And I'm quite sure that there are plenty of examples of
soviet Russia creating value by spending public funds,

Then you should provide examples of some.

even if the
country ultimately failed (for reasons far more complex than simply
their form of socialism).

South Korea was rather despotic, rather capitalistic and rather successful. North Korea's problem is its socialism, which its despots keep in place..

So? Nothing to do with my comment about governments having the ability
to generate wealth.

The capitalistic aspect of the South Korean economy is what increased that country's standard of living.


There are numerous examples of governments investing in things which
create value. Free governments with capitalistic economies.

There are some NASA and military spinoffs, but other examples are practically non-existent.

Good. We agree that governments can generate wealth, which was all I
said. You should have just left out all the irrelevant crap and said
this in the first place.

No, the military is definitely a drain on the economy, as is NASA to a large extent. However, we need a military and we need something like NASA, so we have to bear the opportunity costs of supporting them. Do not be fooled into thinking that either one actually "generates wealth." There is a net loss of wealth.

On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 4:33:09 PM UTC-5, wrote:
There is no need to even involve the SCOTUS. Replacement of the federal income tax with a consumption tax will change the dynamics sufficiently that power will return to state and local governments automatically.

Consumption tax is highly regressive and will lead to a system of lords and serfs, which the founders rebelled against. If you wish to institute an oligarchy, then this is the fastest way to accomplish that. The Koch Brothers thanks you for your support.


It is not absurd to believe that our personal property can be taken away by a stronger force if there is not a body of law to protect it, and a government to enforce it. That is where my tax money goes, to pay for it.

However, that function of government provides no excuse for misappropriating tax money for things that are NOT a proper function of government, according to the Constitution.

The constitution is only a vague outline as to what is the proper function of government. At the time of their writing they knew nothing of 1's and 0's which is a fundamental way for people to communicate today. The regulation of 1's and 0's was not even imagined in their wildest dreams back then. Nothing of electronic communication was known, or whether pigs can fly and the sea is boiling hot.

At the current levels of taxation, the government takes away more in taxes than most people own in property.

I highly doubt that. If you have no income or meager income, you pay no federal taxes. The more you make, the more you pay, but there is a limit even for billionaires who sometimes pay less than 10% of their earnings.


The Constitution provides for national defense, a system of courts, currency, to be handled by the federal government. If poetry festivals are deemed necessary, then state or local governments can, -perhaps-, fund them or better yet individuals can do so.

If poetry festivals are deemed necessary for the proper functioning of this
nation, then indeed the constitution does not disallow money to be spent on such.

Poetry festivals are NOT necessary for proper functioning of this nation. If important in some way to a particular locality, then that local government can certainly raise revenue on its own for that purpose.

I disagree. I believe the arts (and that includes poetry) make for a civilized nation, one with high moral standards and good morale, one who can withstand any external attacks, whether military or ideological from any source.. It is part of our heritage, as much as the Stars and Stripes, Military bands, the USO etc.


Again, check Amendment X and read it this time.

Of course I have read it. Fortunately you are not the arbiter of what it says.

I, and every other citizen of the US, can decide on what we think it means and vote accordingly. The text is rather simple and easy to understand.

yes of course you can vote according to what you believe. That is a fundamental right, and I would vigorously defend that right, regardless if I disagree with your understanding.


What's more interesting is that money is not yours to begin with, it belongs to the US treasury, it is government property, which you are allowed to use to barter and pay debts and taxes.

Incorrect. The government makes coins and paper currency, but wealth is created by the private sector.

I did not say that the government created the wealth. I said that it owns the money, and doles it out for the purpose of commerce. The very fact that it owns the money means that you don't have to walk around with private scrip from your local bank to buy goods and services. It used to be that way back in the 1800's when banks issued their own bank notes. Good luck trying to do interstate or international commerce with that kind of private money system.


What I said is not incorrect. You interpret it as such, but that carries no
weight whatsoever.

An important part of federal government's job in this case, mentioned in the Constitution, is to coin money and ensure that it is not counterfeit. It can't make more wealth. It has no way to do so.

The federal government can stimulate the economy by making money cheaper to borrow. It all starts that way. If money supply is reigned in, interest rates rise and economic activity is curtailed. The government can finance risky ventures that private industry cannot itself do, but once it has been proven successful, then private companies step in to provide the product. I have seen this first hand in the aerospace industry. In the end, the up-front government investment pays dividends down the road, sometimes many hundredfold.


In the end, it is our laws that govern, not your desires.

I desire that we follow the Constitution and limit the size of our government. You should have no problem with that.

The size of the government, as far as federal employment, has shrunk every year for the past 8 years. So in effect, it is getting smaller. I want it to be large enough to be effective, so we can compete on the world stage. There are lots of players out there that just love to see us become weak, with a weak federal government. So they can do whatever they want. China in the South China Sea is one example. Russia claiming a huge portion of the Arctic seas is another. Yes, lets tear down our government and drown it in a bathtub, and let's see what happens to our nation's future.

On Wed, 13 Jul 2016 15:28:48 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

Their socialism was almost certainly _a_ weak link. But so what? There
are no socialistic economies in the developed free world. All are
capitalistic.

No, many have socialism feeding off of capitalism, like a parasite.

Only when you use your obsolete cold war definition of socialism. All
western democracies are highly capitalistic. Your problem is that you
can't distinguish between a socialistic economy and a modern social
democracy, where the "socialism" is how the social system operates,
not the economy.

And I'm quite sure that there are plenty of examples of
soviet Russia creating value by spending public funds,

Then you should provide examples of some.

Their space program? Their vodka industry?

So? Nothing to do with my comment about governments having the ability
to generate wealth.

The capitalistic aspect of the South Korean economy is what increased that country's standard of living.

I'm sure it was important. So what? I'm not arguing against
capitalism. I firmly believe it is the best economic system for
countries.

There are some NASA and military spinoffs, but other examples are practically non-existent.

Good. We agree that governments can generate wealth, which was all I
said. You should have just left out all the irrelevant crap and said
this in the first place.

No, the military is definitely a drain on the economy, as is NASA to a large extent. However, we need a military and we need something like NASA, so we have to bear the opportunity costs of supporting them. Do not be fooled into thinking that either one actually "generates wealth." There is a net loss of wealth.

You seem to be contradicting yourself.

On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 8:14:19 AM UTC-7, wrote:
On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 10:05:23 AM UTC-4, peterson wrote:

Which I specifically answered: "While I would not be in favor of a
change that reduces free expression". What do you find unclear there?

You did not answer my specific question with a yes/no answer.

Since you insist on yes/no answers to specific questions, tell us, Snell, do you still beat your wife? Yes or no...

On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 4:59:02 PM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Wed, 13 Jul 2016 14:44:09 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

You obviously don't, since your examples have nothing to do with what
I said.

They have everything to do with what you said.

Countries with socialist economies and generally despotic
governments have not done well in the last century.

Their socialism was their weak link.

Their socialism was almost certainly _a_ weak link. But so what? There
are no socialistic economies in the developed free world. All are
capitalistic. And I'm quite sure that there are plenty of examples of
soviet Russia creating value by spending public funds, even if the
country ultimately failed (for reasons far more complex than simply
their form of socialism).

South Korea was rather despotic, rather capitalistic and rather successful. North Korea's problem is its socialism, which its despots keep in place..

So? Nothing to do with my comment about governments having the ability
to generate wealth.

There are numerous examples of governments investing in things which
create value. Free governments with capitalistic economies.

There are some NASA and military spinoffs, but other examples are practically non-existent.

Good. We agree that governments can generate wealth, which was all I
said. You should have just left out all the irrelevant crap and said
this in the first place.

Government research developed fracking, which made us energy independent, got us off coal and actually improved the CO2 levels in the last 2 years because natural gas is being used more and more to generate power.

Back when I worked at Gould Research labs, we experimented with highly efficient magnetic materials for more efficient electric motors and generators. All that was funded by the federal government under the energy department. There were literally thousands of other similar programs, led by researchers at Sandia, MIT, and other labs across the US.

I suppose we should shut down the federal government, drown it in a bathtub and let the Chinese do it. Come to think of it, we did not do the hard engineering work back in the '80s on CNC systems. I remember going to conferences and seeing nothing but Japanese and German engineers discussing their work on power control loops for computer manufacturing systems. Nowadays it is almost impossible to buy high end CNC machinery from US manufacturers that is of the level available from Japan and Germany.

On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 12:22:30 PM UTC-6, Razzmatazz wrote:

On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 10:12:09 AM UTC-5, Gary Harnagel wrote:

But you haven't addressed the PRACTICAL issue: We are broker than broke,
and as soon as the rest of the world sees that the emperor has no
clothes, the party will be over.

We aren't really broke. Most of the debt is owed to ourselves. American
citizens own most of the treasury bonds.

Foreign nations own about 1/3 of the debt and Social Security owns about 1/6.

http://www.factcheck.org/2013/11/who-holds-our-debt/

So you want to stiff the American people when the party ends?

There will always be debt. It is paid for via income, which in the case
of the government is the taxes and fees they collect.

Which all goes out to pay for what the gov't. spends and for servicing the
debt (which is paid for by borrowing more money).

Just like most households are in debt (house mortgages, car loans, etc),
as long as they can service the debt, they are a functioning entity.

And how many Americans bit off more than they could chew and went bankrupt
when their adjustable rate mortgages went up?

Right now the US deficit is very low and shrinking and there is no way
that we will default on the debt.

The debt is still growing, however and our debt is about as big as the
GDP. And what else can we do when we have to refinance at higher rates?

We have the strongest economy in the world,

Which is not saying much.

the dollar is at an all-time high

Which causes a greater trade deficit.

and people's retirement accounts are way up from 8 years ago.

Mine has not quite recovered from 16 years ago :-(

Meanwhile, the federal workforce has shrunk to its lowest level in many
years.

Which means more people are out of work.

The only thing that's up in the budget is defense spending

Which is as it should be considering the world conditions.

and farm subsidies.

Well, I'm ambivalent about that :-|

On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 12:32:00 PM UTC-6, Razzmatazz wrote:

So does that mean the American people could abolish or alter this form of
government (democratic republic) to another form of their choosing (say a
monarchy, oligarchy or dictatorship)? If the American people are fed up,
could they choose a socialist government if that's what makes the majority
happy?

Kurt Gödel claimed that he could prove that the Constitution allows the
gov't. to be a dictatorship. I don't know what his argument was, but
Einstein went with him because he was concerned he would expound upon it
when he went for his citizenship hearing. He did :-)

https://nevalalee.wordpress.com/2013...r-citizenship/