Signs of the coming American collapse

[Static]

removed - Jennylives

[steven lloyd]

removed - Jennylives

[steelrules]

removed - Jennylives

[JLives]

Stay on topic and cut out the personal attacks please.

[sooperphreek]

AMERICA!!!! #%$^ YA!!!

[steelrules]

Their back, 4% down $20,000 and you get the keys to a $500,000 house.
http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/20 ... ent-market

[Homeownertoo]

I only post this as a warning to Canadians, and more specifically British Columbians, regarding our future if we follow the same political paths taken by the two jurisdictions (Detroit and California, for those who don't know how to access a web link) featured in the article.

http://www.newgeography.com/content/003024-is-california-new-detroit

What is interesting is that in both cases, voters elected, and then re-elected repeatedly, the same clutch of politicians that set them on the path to ruin -- and, not surprisingly, socialists in both cases. Why would they do this? I suspect that most people are not politically sophisticated and are quite easily swayed to support the candidate who tells them they really can have it all, forever. And when things start going wrong, they remain persuaded (I don't know why that word is highlighted) by the candidate/encumbent who assures them (s)he has a plan and there is no need for belt-tightening or sacrifice. The fact that these politicians are, and always were, charlatans, is apparently beside the point.

It is patently clear, for example, that Obama is a charlatan of the first order. He will probably be re-elected by a concerned electorate that is largely dependent on government (welfare, employment, business contracts), that is terrified of having thier largesse challenged, and hopes Obama really does know what he is doing. He doesn't, of course, any more than the politicians of Detroit and California were at all competent, and is only concerned about seeing the triumph of his political ideology, whatever the cost.

Anyway, it is a warning for us; do we want at this late stage to be ruled by people who haven't a clue beyond their ideological agenda. The alternatives are, frankly, not all that appealing. But some choices should never be made. We burned our fingers in '72 and again in the '90s. Today we risk burning more. BC need not follow Calilfornia's example. But there are many British Columbians who are itching to do so.

[Woodenhead]

left wing nutjobs right wing nutjobs left wing nutjobs right wing nutjobs left wing nutjobs right wing nutjobs left wing nutjobs right wing nutjobs left wing nutjobs right wing nutjobs left wing nutjobs right wing nutjobs

You people are so redundantly one-dimensional - thanks for the endless laughs.

[steven lloyd]

... when things start going wrong, they remain persuaded (I don't know why that word is highlighted) by the candidate/encumbent who assures them (s)he has a plan and there is no need for belt-tightening or sacrifice.

The middle-class, lower middle-class and lower income groups (making up the voting majority) might be far more ready to buy into the belt-tightening and sacrifice paradigm if they saw their politicians and "leaders" setting some example. Rather than just expecting something for nothing, I suspect many are simply sick of the hypocrisy homes. I know I am.

[Homeownertoo]

The middle-class, lower middle-class and lower income groups (making up the voting majority) might be far more ready to buy into the belt-tightening and sacrifice paradigm if they saw their politicians and "leaders" setting some example. Rather than just expecting something for nothing, I suspect many are simply sick of the hypocrisy homes. I know I am.

That's a good point. It is becoming increasingly clear, or at least increasingly common, for the political class to emulate the private-sector model of untrammeled greed at its higher levels, with none of its responsibility or market discipline. The bureaucracy, in addition to replicating itself into endless new layers of uselessness that gobbles up any new funding before it ever reaches the ground, has seen the light of awarding itself ever-higher salaries and bonuses, with the politicians backing them to the hilt. It's hard not to feel there is a war on against the taxpayer and voter, to take their money and votes for thinly disguised personal gain regardless of its impact on sound public finance and the delivery of public services.

I regard this development as a latter stage of the political paradigm (http://www.newcriterion.com/articles.cfm/Future-tense--X--The-fourth-revolution-7395) we've lived through for the past three generations, and it is why I consider it extremely dangerous at this point to hand power over to the Left.

We need a bevy of Paul Ryans to take charge. Sadly, I suspect we have none.

[steven lloyd]

It is becoming increasingly clear, or at least increasingly common, for the political class to emulate the private-sector model of untrammeled greed at its higher levels, with none of its responsibility or market discipline. The bureaucracy, in addition to replicating itself into endless new layers of uselessness that gobbles up any new funding before it ever reaches the ground, has seen the light of awarding itself ever-higher salaries and bonuses, with the politicians backing them to the hilt. It's hard not to feel there is a war on against the taxpayer and voter, to take their money and votes for thinly disguised personal gain regardless of its impact on sound public finance and the delivery of public services.

Well stated. With this I agree 100%. Unfortunately, I don't see any right-wing candidates as being in any way superior to any left-wing candidates. Until there's some real accountability to the electorate at large it's all a big con in my opinion.

[Homeownertoo]

Unfortunately, I don't see any right-wing candidates as being in any way superior to any left-wing candidates. Until there's some real accountability to the electorate at large it's all a big con in my opinion.

While it often is, there is no equivalency between the public finance agendas of the right and left.

The problem with the left is usually not one of moral clarity, it is that it sees all social problems through the lens of government action. There is, for example, no theoretical reason why the left should not nationalize all food and housing distribution (though the food stamp program in the US is approaching that level). Yet it is obvious what the impact of such a socialization of such important sectors would be, and not just on the provision of food and housing. Just have a look at the nearest Indian reserve or a food market in North Korea, if you get the chance.

So it is not really an issue of superiority of candidates. What matters is whether they comprehend the limited competence of government. If a candidate contemplates no such limits, as is often the case on the left (indeed, they are usually imbued with a sense of their own capacity to effect positive change), then there are no limits to the amount of damage such a candidate can and will do in office. A candidate who believes in limited government automatically limits the damage engendered by his own incompetence. Again, this is why I believe putting power in the hands of the left is especially disturbing at this time -- government has grown so big and faces such immense challenges, there is precious little remaining margin for the left to fritter away.

[steelrules]

Homeownertoo,
Please give us your opinion on UN Agenda 21, both the left right and most cities have bought in to this green Kool-aid.
Agenda 21 is the definition of fascism making your left right paradigm argument moot.

[Glacier]

[Captain Awesome]

Is it time to man the chockpoints?

SHTF on the way?

Should I buy gold?