Star Trek

Excellent conclusion. I don't think I could improve upon it.

I will, however, still be voting and encourage you to do the same.

hush you.  The poor are evil.  And just so easy to blame.

And so what if someone "hoards" their own money - it's theirs.  But most people that understand money, they invest it.  I have no right to tell someone what to do with their money and nobody should tell me what to do with mine.  If I want to burn it or invest it or give it away, it's none of anyone else's business.

One hundred trillion in unfunded liabilities. That is frakin bull manure, unless you expect all social security taxes and all medicare taxes to immedialtely cease. That is the only way you can even come close to that number. Even then, you would have to project out expected liablities over, I don't know, maybe the next century or so. Then you would have to assume those liabilities as if they existed today. I guess if you don't care whether people actually believe what you say, then you can feel free to make such claims.

I, for one, would have no problem showing ID when I go vote.  Even though I live in an area that when I go into the place I vote at the vounteers there know me and know where I live.  One of them this year was one of the graduating seniors from the local high school.  He may not have known me well, but he knew my last name and was looking it up before I could say anything.

But since I have to show an ID when I fly or for many other things, why not for voting?  I would think that [i]most[/i] people would want to try and make sure the voting is above board.  Even if our votes really aren't counting for anything anymore since it seems that it's all falling upon the electoriate ( sp ) vote(s) anymore.  Sad, really.

There is one thing I do wish they would add to ALL ballots.  One simple choice.......[b]'None of The Above'[/b]  That choice there is becoming the best option out there anymore.  We're only given the dregs of the political choices and told to chose the 'best' of the choices available, which sadly isn't that much of a choice.  Caca A or Caca B isn't much of a choice, really.

Just my POV :: drops two pennies into the jar on her way out of the room ::

The problem with the approach outlined by BamBam is that the same folks who advocate such an approach absolutely and totally refuse to acknowledge its consequences. Reduction of aggregate demand through ending of entitlements has economic consequences. "Hoarding" of money has economic consequences. Burning it (although not a real problem for obvious reasons) has consequences.

When policies trend in the direction advocated and the consequnces occur, what is the response?

No, it is not to say "well that is the cost of the freedome we advocate".  It is rather to blame govenrment interference, and the facts be damn.

This approach also refuses to acknowledge the mutual dependence that we have on each other. The rich cannot gain their fortune unless there are people demanding their products, peopled with money in their pockets to convert that demand into purchases. The rich benefit from infrasture construction, from education of the work force, from protection of the environment, from security provided by military forces and by the police, and even from the regulation of other rich folk.

Yet, when demands are put forward that they pay their fair share through taxes, their poorly informed and deluded loyalist followers whine and complain about government "theft" of the wealth of the rich. All of this complaining built on a house of cards with no foundation in reality. 

I'm watching a segment on voter fraud - amazing how many people have been convicted of voter fraud, but yet the politicians don't want to clean up the voter rolls.  Plus all the convicted felons who vote, etc.

Every legal voter has the right to not only have their vote counted, but also the right to not have it cancelled  by an illegal vote.  It amazes me how many people here are against that very simple concept.