Revolution!!!

[Uncensored2008]

I have seen two revolutions in my lifetime. The Civil Rights revolution in the 50's and 60's. One that was created by direct citizen participation. The second, the drifting of our government toward an oligarchy. That started in the 80's and continues today. Created by citizen apathy and tax laws pushed by the very wealthy and their usefull fools.

A violent revolution? Not going to happen. Edited.

The civil rights movement is in no way congruent with the definition of a revolution.

The dismantling of the moral and ethical foundation of the nation via the cultural revolution that the left has imposed is a much more valid example, but it too was a creeping change, rather than a violent and rapid change.

Our nation changed nature in 1863, when the republic was dissolved in favor of an empire. It was again changed in 1933, when private property was usurped in favor of government ownership and entitlement. There was no significant change in structure in the 80's, just political losses by the left.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I get pretty mad at times about all of this, but then I remember one of my good friends is a policeman. I just can't bring myself to a position that puts us at odds in a conflict.

Most of my life I have viewed the local police as the last line of defense against the encroaching nationalist government.

But in the last decade, they have been bought off and changed sides.

 

[saveliberty]

We already have a wide disparity of numbers and questionable accounting coming from our government. Look around you. Do you believe the honest unemployment number to be 8.2% Do you trust the numbers the government furnishes as the number of jobs created or the economic benefits of whatever government program? When we have to trust the government numbers for what the GDP is, it is a given that the GDP would be whatever they needed it to be to spend whatever they wanted to spend. Most especially when they will say that government spending increases the GDP.

THE CONSEQUENCES OF UNPRODUCTIVE SPENDING AND THE MULTIPLIER EFFECT

Proponents of government spending often point to the fiscal multiplier as a way that spending can fuel growth. The multiplier is a factor by which some measure of economy-wide output (such as GDP) increases in response to a given amount of government spending. According to the multiplier theory, an initial burst of government spending trickles through the economy and is re-spent over and over again, thus growing the economy. A multiplier of 1.0 implies that if government created a project that hired 100 people, it would put exactly 100 (100 x 1.0) people into the workforce. A multiplier larger than 1 implies more employment, and a number smaller than 1 implies a net job loss.

In its 2009 assessment of the job effects of the stimulus plan, the incoming Obama administration used a multiplier estimate of approximately 1.5 for government spending for most quarters. This would mean that for every dollar of government stimulus spending, GDP would increase by one and a half dollars.8 In practice, however, unproductive government spending is likely to have a smaller multiplier effect. In a September 2009 National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) paper, Harvard economists Robert Barro and Charles Redlick estimated that the multiplier from government defense spending reaches 1.0 at high levels of unemployment but is less than 1.0 at lower unemployment rates. Non-defense spending may have an even smaller multiplier effect.9
Does Government Spending Affect Economic Growth? | Mercatus

No, I honestly can see no way that the problem will be corrected without limiting what the government is allowed to spend money on. Return the federal government to the principle that it can only do what the Constitution allows it to do, and the problem is mostly solved.

The unemployment numbers are consistent actually. There are several measures and they are very difficult to understand at times. Inflation numbers are crazy was they allow for substitutions on certain commodities. Core inflation is really meaningless, as it basically suggests a person can avoid buying gas for their car and such.

GDP is pretty consistent and not too prone to large corrections. If trust is now an issue, no piece of paper you create makes a difference now does it?

As a side, since you brought it up...

This was contained in your post: According to the multiplier theory, an initial burst of government spending trickles through the economy and is re-spent over and over again, thus growing the economy.

Interesting how the government can stimulate an economy, but the rich cannot. How can you believe in the multiplier and not supply side economics?

 

[Foxfyre]

We already have a wide disparity of numbers and questionable accounting coming from our government. Look around you. Do you believe the honest unemployment number to be 8.2% Do you trust the numbers the government furnishes as the number of jobs created or the economic benefits of whatever government program? When we have to trust the government numbers for what the GDP is, it is a given that the GDP would be whatever they needed it to be to spend whatever they wanted to spend. Most especially when they will say that government spending increases the GDP.

THE CONSEQUENCES OF UNPRODUCTIVE SPENDING AND THE MULTIPLIER EFFECT

Proponents of government spending often point to the fiscal multiplier as a way that spending can fuel growth. The multiplier is a factor by which some measure of economy-wide output (such as GDP) increases in response to a given amount of government spending. According to the multiplier theory, an initial burst of government spending trickles through the economy and is re-spent over and over again, thus growing the economy. A multiplier of 1.0 implies that if government created a project that hired 100 people, it would put exactly 100 (100 x 1.0) people into the workforce. A multiplier larger than 1 implies more employment, and a number smaller than 1 implies a net job loss.

In its 2009 assessment of the job effects of the stimulus plan, the incoming Obama administration used a multiplier estimate of approximately 1.5 for government spending for most quarters. This would mean that for every dollar of government stimulus spending, GDP would increase by one and a half dollars.8 In practice, however, unproductive government spending is likely to have a smaller multiplier effect. In a September 2009 National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) paper, Harvard economists Robert Barro and Charles Redlick estimated that the multiplier from government defense spending reaches 1.0 at high levels of unemployment but is less than 1.0 at lower unemployment rates. Non-defense spending may have an even smaller multiplier effect.9
Does Government Spending Affect Economic Growth? | Mercatus

No, I honestly can see no way that the problem will be corrected without limiting what the government is allowed to spend money on. Return the federal government to the principle that it can only do what the Constitution allows it to do, and the problem is mostly solved.

The unemployment numbers are consistent actually. There are several measures and they are very difficult to understand at times. Inflation numbers are crazy was they allow for substitutions on certain commodities. Core inflation is really meaningless, as it basically suggests a person can avoid buying gas for their car and such.

GDP is pretty consistent and not too prone to large corrections. If trust is now an issue, no piece of paper you create makes a difference now does it?

As a side, since you brought it up...

This was contained in your post: According to the multiplier theory, an initial burst of government spending trickles through the economy and is re-spent over and over again, thus growing the economy.

Interesting how the government can stimulate an economy, but the rich cannot. How can you believe in the multiplier and not supply side economics?

If you are a government that is wholly self serving or a President who doesn't have a clue how a laizzez-faire economy works, you are free to believe anything you want.

 

[saveliberty]

We already have a wide disparity of numbers and questionable accounting coming from our government. Look around you. Do you believe the honest unemployment number to be 8.2% Do you trust the numbers the government furnishes as the number of jobs created or the economic benefits of whatever government program? When we have to trust the government numbers for what the GDP is, it is a given that the GDP would be whatever they needed it to be to spend whatever they wanted to spend. Most especially when they will say that government spending increases the GDP.



No, I honestly can see no way that the problem will be corrected without limiting what the government is allowed to spend money on. Return the federal government to the principle that it can only do what the Constitution allows it to do, and the problem is mostly solved.

The unemployment numbers are consistent actually. There are several measures and they are very difficult to understand at times. Inflation numbers are crazy was they allow for substitutions on certain commodities. Core inflation is really meaningless, as it basically suggests a person can avoid buying gas for their car and such.

GDP is pretty consistent and not too prone to large corrections. If trust is now an issue, no piece of paper you create makes a difference now does it?

As a side, since you brought it up...

This was contained in your post: According to the multiplier theory, an initial burst of government spending trickles through the economy and is re-spent over and over again, thus growing the economy.

Interesting how the government can stimulate an economy, but the rich cannot. How can you believe in the multiplier and not supply side economics?

If you are a government that is wholly self serving or a President who doesn't have a clue how a laizzez-faire economy works, you are free to believe anything you want.

If you expect a piece of paper to change government, you also have to believe the government will respond with integrity to that paper. You can't make the claims you are Foxfyre and then expect your plan to work at the same time.

 

[saveliberty]

It's also instructive that nothing in the constitution mentions departmets of labor, commerce, veterans affairs, etc... We wouldn't know what the unemployment rate was if we lived under the constitution as it was written. Of course nothing in the constitution says that running water needs to be clean since, of course, the document was written well before running water.

Your comments are not germane to the OP. In the CDZ, its a requirement. You need to link it to the OP better, retract it or get reported.