Would you like the govt to collapse?

[Xonim]

BS, So all companies will cut pay because there is no minimum wage:hmm:

Look at how many companies pay exactly minimum wage. There's tons of them. That says "I'm only paying you this much because the government says I have to."

Once minimum wage is gone, there is ZERO reason for those companies to pay anything more than what people will work for. If there's no government to provide unemployment or social security or welfare of any sort, it's not going to take much more than a few bucks a day just so people can eat.

See?

 

[Incorruptible]

Look at how many companies pay exactly minimum wage. There's tons of them. That says "I'm only paying you this much because the government says I have to."

Once minimum wage is gone, there is ZERO reason for those companies to pay anything more than what people will work for. If there's no government to provide unemployment or social security or welfare of any sort, it's not going to take much more than a few bucks a day just so people can eat.

See?

Thats because people dont have the skills, If you work as a cashier your going to get minimum wage

 

[Mxylplyx]

I meant it in an absolute sense.



Why would I want the govt to provide for me when my parents or my brothers or a church or a friend could provide for me? I volunteer by the way.

So your plan for dealing with anarchy is the charity of others? How charitable do you think people will be when they can barely feed themselves? Freeloaders like you would be thrown out into the street to scavenge for a living. You are an ignorant child that should have no seat at the table for intelligent debate.

 

[Mxylplyx]

nm

 

[Meghan54]

So you only want to cut the military yet I see nothing about the bureaucracy or welfare which are a major source of the spending problems, Pathetic

Military spending dwarfs any other category of spending in the federal budget. Remember, a lot of military spending is not included directly in the military's "actual" budget. For instance, all the nuclear weapons we have are budgeted under the Dept. of Energy, not military, despite the military having hands-on responsibility for them. Retirement costs for the military aren't directly included in the military's budget. Most of the long term health care for retired and disabled vets are included in other budget areas, not the military's.

And while you express a desire for smaller gov't. and seem to favor Republicans as the way to get smaller gov't, which Republican president made an actual decrease in the size of the federal gov't payroll---since Eisenhower? The answer is Geo. Bush, just after Reagan's terms. He's the only Republican to do so ( and did so marginally)......Reagan increased the federal payroll by over 240K employees during his terms. In reality, the last President to make substantial decreases in the fed. gov't. payroll was Clinton, who decreased Fed. payroll by over 300K employees. GWB just added new departments/cabinet positions and an expansion of gov't.

So, while the Repubs. claim to want smaller gov't, their actions during their administrations prove otherwise.

 

[lotus503]

Military spending dwarfs any other category of spending in the federal budget. Remember, a lot of military spending is not included directly in the military's "actual" budget. For instance, all the nuclear weapons we have are budgeted under the Dept. of Energy, not military, despite the military having hands-on responsibility for them. Retirement costs for the military aren't directly included in the military's budget. Most of the long term health care for retired and disabled vets are included in other budget areas, not the military's.

And while you express a desire for smaller gov't. and seem to favor Republicans as the way to get smaller gov't, which Republican president made an actual decrease in the size of the federal gov't payroll---since Eisenhower? The answer is Geo. Bush, just after Reagan's terms. He's the only Republican to do so ( and did so marginally)......Reagan increased the federal payroll by over 240K employees during his terms. In reality, the last President to make substantial decreases in the fed. gov't. payroll was Clinton, who decreased Fed. payroll by over 300K employees. GWB just added new departments/cabinet positions and an expansion of gov't.

So, while the Repubs. claim to want smaller gov't, their actions during their administrations prove otherwise.

Spot on!

 

[Ausm]

I actually do have a job, I am not rich but I would be able to survive even though it wont happen soon

Cutting grass?

 

[soulcougher73]

Yes i would.

 

[Mursilis]

They might be used as synonyms, but they aren't really interchangeable. You can have bad (and ineffective) "small" government and good (and effective) "big" government.

Examples of this "big but effective and efficient" government?

 

[bignateyk]

I meant it in an absolute sense.



Why would I want the govt to provide for me when my parents or my brothers or a church or a friend could provide for me? I volunteer by the way.

AHAHAHA, I don't think I've laughed this hard in a long time. :biggrin:

 

[ichy]

Why oh why has the OP not been banned? From what I understand he has claimed to be suffering from a mental illness. Last time I checked this forum wasn't supposed to an outlet for the deranged ranting of schizophrenic nutcases. Let him go back to writing on the walls of a padded room with his own shit or whatever it was he did before he started posting this inane crap. If he's not mentally ill then he's the world's biggest troll.

 

[Capt Caveman]

No. B/c I'm not an idiot. Obviously, the OP has never lived in the real world but has been sheltered his entire life. Still has never had a job or lived on his own. Cries about taxes but never has had to pay any or realized what those taxes cover to make his life so cushy.

Confederalism is a joke.

A few downsides? The OP wouldn't be around b/c he wouldn't be able to fend for himself. No authority, we'll have gangs that take everything you and your family have. Yes, that sounds like a good plan.

 

[Thebobo]

....I volunteer by the way.

Can I ask for what?

 

[Incorruptible]

No. B/c I'm not an idiot. Obviously, the OP has never lived in the real world but has been sheltered his entire life. Still has never had a job or lived on his own. Cries about taxes but never has had to pay any or realized what those taxes cover to make his life so cushy.

Confederalism is a joke.

A few downsides? The OP wouldn't be around b/c he wouldn't be able to fend for himself. No authority, we'll have gangs that take everything you and your family have. Yes, that sounds like a good plan.

Apparently you have never of these things called guns! We have seen in LA 1992 and Katrina where people were able to defend themselves against idiots using their guns.

 

[bignateyk]

Apparently you have never of these things called guns! We have seen in LA 1992 and Katrina where people were able to defend themselves against idiots using their guns.

Boy that sounds like a fun society to live in. Move to Somalia if that's your idea of a good time. :biggrin: I'll just keep paying my taxes and enjoying the good life.

 

[Capt Caveman]

Apparently you have never of these things called guns! We have seen in LA 1992 and Katrina where people were able to defend themselves against idiots using their guns.

And without authority, you'd have organized gangs with guns. Think Mexican drug cartels. But you're in the same class as the OP, think before you post.

 

[airdata]

To the average retard/anarchist, the absence of government would mean a peaceful utopia of freedom and happiness. To the 99.99% of the rest of humanity that's ever lived, we realize government is a necessary function to promote human life.

Yeah. But if half of them were doing their jobs and not just looking out for themselves, it'd probably also look like a utopia.

If half of them weren't in their positions solely for power and influence, and easy access to money to steal... it'd look more like a utopia.

 

[Incorruptible]

And without authority, you'd have organized gangs with guns. Think Mexican drug cartels. But you're in the same class as the OP, think before you post.

But that happened in LA and Katrina where the thugs had guns but they were too scared to go against the the people with guns though.

 

[Capt Caveman]

But that happened in LA and Katrina where the thugs had guns but they were too scared to go against the the people with guns though.

Short time period, over time the bad guys would organize and take over. If you expect citizens to do the same then you're starting to develop the making of a government and remember, you don't want to taxes to fund a police force. Think before you post.

 

[Incorruptible]

Short time period, over time the bad guys would organize and take over. If you expect citizens to do the same then you're starting to develop the making of a government and remember, you don't want to taxes to fund a police force. Think before you post.

The bad guys cant take over if the people are armed and then fight back against them. I am not against taxes, only certain taxes like the income tax

 

[Jaskalas]

Should we not consider that it has already been set up to fail?

Its pyramid schemes are quite dangerous, requiring indefinite growth else your guy's visions of apocalypse come true. Now that we've temporarily raised our wealth, our standard of living by printing tomorrow's money today - this bubble IS going to burst. No one is going to vote to cut us back to sustainable levels. You see how much !@#$ Republicans get for trying to cut the rate of growth. Democrats propose more spending programs.

This country doesn't want the party to stop, and when it does...

 

[momeNt]

Yes I would. I would like something exciting to tell my future children about should I happen to live through the reorganization.

I hope enough people will be fighting for freedom as opposed to order and we do end up with something far more confederate as opposed to something completely authoritarian.

 

[JulesMaximus]

No, only a complete idiot would want that.

 

[momeNt]

No, only a complete idiot would want that.

That's constructive conversation. Are there any governments that you would like to see collapse at least?

 

[sourn]

He post may not have been "constructive", but it was the truth.

Honestly what do you think would happen in full on government collapse. Do you think these other countries would just leave us alone when we'd be ripe for the picking. Ya, doubtful.