Let's not be too tough on the The Donald just yet. Time for toughness is coming. He has everyone shaking in their boots. They can't control him, they can't buy him, he says what he says without any of the PC nonsense and gets the points out in the open. But I suspect that as time goes by, not too much time, he like all narcissists will put his foot in it and the party will be over. But at that point, my hope is, that a good candidate will have seen and used Trump to pull themselves up to show their true Conservatism. Thereby gaining the appeal with the vast numbers of Conservatives in the wild. Patience, no party last forever.

You're assuming that you must pre-pay for everything, and keep the books balanced as you go along. Given the amount of BS built into the system, that's impossible, as you're finding out. An alternative approach is to pay back, as in doing the best you can as you go along, and create something that pays back what you were given. In order to do that, you'll need to do your best at whatever you choose to do. If you do that, then you've paid your debt.

this is interesting. Would make a great post. So the Boston Tea Party was about a bunch of looters?

so you did not support Ragnar in AS?

Taggart destroyed others to get what he wanted. Trump BUILDS to get what he wants. And he takes advantage of every boondogle and loophole available, just like any other businessman would. The subsidies weren't his idea; they're there for anyone who wants to take advantage of them, viz., everyone in his line of business. If, out of 104 projects, you have 4 failures, you should consider yourself quite successful. Finally, corporations and other shelters were enacted into law to protect the entrepreneur from catastrophic losses. Again, it is the LAW. Explain why Trump shouldn't take advantage of the law. I think I detect a bit of envy rearing its ugly head.

It dawned on me as I heard a Trump tirade that it all sounded familiar. Not the words, but the scenario. He spoke about what we all wanted done, but with no details on how he was going to do that. But his attitude and the feelings he stirred in people were reminiscent of the way audiences were affected by every dictator from Napoleon to those of the present day. I asked myself, why was this guy credible? Then I reminded myself what I thought after Obama got elected twice; the truth of an argument has nothing to do with its credibility. One of the things we seem to forget about, with all the rhetoric of all the topics, is that we will put a person into the ultimate seat of power. What kind of character does this person need to have to wield that power properly? Time for a quote:
"Power is nothing more than the capacity to get things done. It is the uses of power that are virtuous or evil." --Laurence J. Peter

+1 for the concise and clear difference.

Agreed so do I.

Robin hood (if he was real) stole form royalty (the government) to return the rightful property to its rightful owner. He was still a thief.

Just because the government takes from me, it does not justify me taking from it. It would justify a full out rebellion by its citizens if enough had the backbone to do it, but it does not justify me being a thief back.

I loose more than I take, but I would prefer to take none and loose only enough to pay for the role government should do. About 8% to state and 2% to the fed would be around the maximum tolerable level in my opinion. That level would force people to rely on self a lot more and government a lot less.

If it ends up a Hilary-trump or Hilary-Bush choice I will write in a box of dirt. It would be cool to get enough people to do that to have the box of dirt win.

I go for Hilary-Bush at least there would be a ton of low brow humor all over the web about that option.

Jeffereson wanted to dispose of the central bank but thought better of it. We would be way better off if we still had the one that Jackson did dispose of.

Hamilton had set it up well. Gold backed and restricted from playing funny money. The right restrictions were in place. Had Jackson not removed it the greenbacks of the civil war would never have happened.

Hamiltonian central bank existed to keep currency stable, currency was gold or backed by gold or silver and loans had to have 50% backing by any bank.

In addition the central bank could make loans (note loan) for the purpose of developing an industry viewed as key. Hamilton used it in this way for the textile industry with the equivalent of $2000 pounds, all of which had to be paid back in 5 years and it was.

If that was still our system we would be rocking it today.

Jefferson saw no need for a central currency management until he was in office and had 5 different financial advisers look at Hamilton's baby. He listened to them and did not dismantle but did restrict it further. (he added the requirement for backing on loans).

Hamilton central bank was as it should be, a central backer for currency, a vault that kept the gold and a financial center to kick start key industry in the US through loans, not investment. The Austrian economic model works for this purpose.

I won't take away a point but I completely disagree about Palin. Tell me what's so "retarded" about the former governor of Alaska?

You paid school taxes for your entire life either directly or via rent. So have I, so did my parents, and their parents. You get more back than someone who can't or won't go to college, yes, but your family paid for it. The state government doesn't have a money printing machine like the banking cartel, yet. Bus rides are also paid for via taxes that you pay (sales taxes and fuel taxes usually.)
Trump went on step beyond this and sought public funding for his private projects. Then 4 times those projects bankrupted. Trump is not prepared, nor qualified, nor has the integrity to be president.

Bought the book.

Jan

Thanks. Most of the 'introversion is good' topic books that I have had handed to me are just cheer leading to try to bolster the crumbled self-image of introverts. Since I never needed this, not being the crumbling kind, they were pretty useless.

A book on that topic with actual science in it would be welcome.

Jan

The answer is simple. It is what most Americans have been conditioned to do every election cycle. There are probably people here that were all about electing McInsane the fake war hero and his retarded soccer mom partner. Or, thought Obama was going to stop the wars and genocide. It is all a psy-op by the military industrial banking complex. All the stupid things we have done, helping ISIS take over Libya, helping ISIS kill Syrians, leaving Iran in charge of Iraq, etc... - it is all based on the dollar and the banksters.

I always thought it, but back in '08 it became glaringly obvious. There was a "Foreign Policy" "Debate" on CBS I think. Ron Paul, the one anti-genocide/war person, the one person with a different opinion, was given 90 seconds to speak out of an hour and a half. It was disgusting. But, really woke me up to how much control the war profiteers have over the media.

I used to have respect for Kelly. But I think that her question/comment was inapproriate, rude and had nothing to do with policies that should have been discussed in a "debate." In fact, the debate should have been between the candidates, discussing their positions on national and international matters, not snipping between the "moderators" and the candidates.

Trump sought out the sources and voluntarily consented to the funding. I do not.

How is it that ANY Republican even remotely likes Bush? Bernie is at least honest about his socialism.

That is the book.

Slight warning, she does have liberal leanings based on some of what she states and the people she focuses on for examples. A bit of Alturism comes through from her. You just need the filter of your mind on like anything.

The concept of introversion is a strength that is largely ignored in our culture a greatly under valued. The data, and studies she references and the way she puts it together are exceptional.

Except that I pay much more in various taxes (about 50% of my income) than I "receive" in all those subsidies.

Basically, I do agree with you. Except for the part of failing ventures. That's just a question of business philosophy - very conservative, afraid to venture, but less chance of failure, or try, risk, succeed and not be afraid of failure. Personal preference. However, if it wasn't for Trump, the front runner would have been Jeb Bush. So we may just as well vote for Bernie, or don't vote at all, since what difference do our votes make?

no, other candidates including Bush would have gotten media air time. Plese put Bush in front of a camera-PLEEZ so everyone can hear him support common core, put down the tea party and NOT talk about the economy.

I get what he means by this. You take a bus, you are getting subsidised transportation, you go to state school your getting subsidized education. You cannot completely avoid it in our society.

Each person should wherever they can, and then push for the other locations to get so you can.

I think I understand what your attempting to say. I will illistare it with something that bothers me.

I go to the state college and pay my own bills, but 40% of the existance of that school is paid by Utah tax base. There is no way to use the school and pay that extra 40%. I know because I asked if I could at one point because I want to pay my own way in everything. I want to be able to stand up to a socialist and say "I have done it, and so can you" but when it comes to college courses I have not done it and become as dishonest as the next person as a result.

It reaches a point where every honest person is still a thief, but I still maintain that we must put in leaders who do not support this, or abuse it, as much as is possible. Trump is not such a person.