PDA

View Full Version : American Families Foreclosed On




michaelwise
07-12-2007, 11:25 AM
I saw on recent news stories on Sheriffs posting foreclosure notices on homes, and peoples belongings being put out on the curb. Due to the privately owned Federal Reserve bank corporation's monetary policies, real families have to endure the painful consequences of the engineered booms and busts. From the dot-com bust to the housing bubble bust, Americans suffer painful financial devastation.

I would like to see video stories of American Families getting foreclosed on. Foreclosures in this country are at an all time record high. We need to put a human face on whats going on with foreclosures, and show the American people the consequences the Fed's mismanagement of our economy and money supply.

Santana28
07-12-2007, 11:30 AM
i think there has been a real effort to inflate home prices over the past 6 years or so, while at the same time making it easier and easier to take out unrealistic home loans with variable rates and no money down, in order for this very thing to happen - to take property away from the american people and transfer it to the banks. if we are all in debt, then we are all in essence slaves to the system. its just sad that this has become the "way of life" in this country... there is no reason for it... burns me up.

michaelwise
07-12-2007, 11:31 AM
They tell me there's no inflation, but a gallon of milk is over 4 dollars, 3 ears of corn for a dollar, a gallon of gas over 3 dollars, the price of a home double what is was 5 years ago,etc. Don't tell me there's no inflation.

david.griffus
07-12-2007, 11:49 AM
They tell me there's no inflation, but a gallon of milk is over 4 dollars, 3 ears of corn for a dollar, a gallon of gas over 3 dollars, the price of a home double what is was 5 years ago,etc. Don't tell me there's no inflation.

Exactly right. Don't even get me started on medical care. Wow.

michaelwise
07-12-2007, 12:10 PM
How about posting videos on Youtube about the devastation caused by the Federal Reserve banksters, and how American families are being affected. This is why we need Ron Paul. It could be a good subject for a Ron Paul commercial.

michaelwise
07-12-2007, 03:51 PM
I understand that seeing American families on TV being evicted from their homes, would be heart wrenching, but thats my point. It's happening and it's the monetary policies of the federal reserve that's at fault.

michaelwise
07-12-2007, 03:56 PM
Tomatoes $1 each. Illegal alien tomato pickers pick 27 bushels of them a day, over 2000 tomatoes a day. Why do they cost so much?

rpf2008
07-12-2007, 04:16 PM
Because they want a huge profit margins. Yatchs aren't cheap you know.

cjhowe
07-12-2007, 04:18 PM
Tomatoes $1 each. Illegal alien tomato pickers pick 27 bushels of them a day, over 2000 tomatoes a day. Why do they cost so much?

A free market thinker would see all of these increased prices as an indication that maybe there is some profit to be made in each of these markets and there might be an opportunity to compete. Either in the fields, or somewhere along the supply chain.

michaelwise
07-12-2007, 04:22 PM
If only psudo-free market thinkers could accept fair rules.

cjhowe
07-12-2007, 04:28 PM
If only psudo-free market thinkers could accept fair rules.

How are they not being fair?

michaelwise
07-12-2007, 04:40 PM
Forcing American workers to compete with $1 an hour Chinese labor, $2 an hour Indian labor, and importing cheep illegal alien labor form south of the border. This is unfair.

cjhowe
07-12-2007, 04:46 PM
Forcing American workers to compete with $1 an hour Chinese labor, $2 an hour Indian labor, and importing cheep illegal alien labor form south of the border. This is unfair.

No one is forcing American workers to compete at any wage. Why does an American see this as an unfair wage, but the Chinese, Indian and Mexican do not?

michaelwise
07-12-2007, 04:53 PM
No one is forcing American workers to compete at any wage. Why does an American see this as an unfair wage, but the Chinese, Indian and Mexican do not?

Our unfair trade agreements, NAFTA,Cafta, etc. force Americans to compete with them, without taking into consideration the disparity in wage levels.

I freely admit that I cannot compete with them, as a machinist. So why do we even bother trying.

cjhowe
07-12-2007, 05:01 PM
Our unfair trade agreements, NAFTA,Cafta, etc. force Americans to compete with them, without taking into consideration the disparity in wage levels.

I freely admit that I cannot compete with them, as a machinist. So why do we even bother trying.

Then why are you supporting Dr. Paul? Managed trade agreements allow governments to decide which companies can compete in foreign markets. Truly free trade would allow any company to compete in foreign markets, further depressing wages in American markets while elevating wages in foreign markets. Free labor markets dictate that if you're unable to receive a satisfactorily wage for your efforts, you're bitching will fall on deaf ears as you're supposed to either change markets or make your labor more attractive (education, skills, etc) so that you can demand a higher wage.

michaelwise
07-12-2007, 05:07 PM
Then why are you supporting Dr. Paul? Managed trade agreements allow governments to decide which companies can compete in foreign markets. Truly free trade would allow any company to compete in foreign markets, further depressing wages in American markets while elevating wages in foreign markets. Free labor markets dictate that if you're unable to receive a satisfactorily wage for your efforts, you're bitching will fall on deaf ears as you're supposed to either change markets or make your labor more attractive (education, skills, etc) so that you can demand a higher wage.

And vice versa. Does China let their currency float? NO. Does other countries erect barriers to us? Yes. Fair trade is a two way street, both sides playing by the same rules; is free trade.

cjhowe
07-12-2007, 05:25 PM
And vice versa. Does China let their currency float? NO. Does other countries erect barriers to us? Yes. Fair trade is a two way street, both sides playing by the same rules; is free trade.

If the trade is dollars for dollars, the currency doesn't matter. If a trader wants to expose themselves to the risk of currency markets that's their choice. Contracts can be made dollars for dollars to eliminate that. Barriers to trade hurt both the country erecting the barrier and those the barrier is erected against.

When a barrier is erected, there's not as much incentive to trade. Meaning they won't benefit from the entry of products, their consumers pay more and quality isn't improved as rapidly.

michaelwise
07-12-2007, 05:32 PM
I'm 100% for free trade with non currency manipulators, and countries that do not subsidize any of their industries.

cjhowe
07-12-2007, 05:51 PM
I'm 100% for free trade with non currency manipulators, and countries that do not subsidize any of their industries.

If you trade under the same currency, the risks of currency manipulation have no effect on you. Accepting subsidies makes a company less competitive in the long term and helps consumers in the short term. "Unfair" trade should not discourage a company from entering markets.

angelatc
07-12-2007, 06:03 PM
I understand that seeing American families on TV being evicted from their homes, would be heart wrenching, but thats my point. It's happening and it's the monetary policies of the federal reserve that's at fault.

I only partially blame the Fed policies. People kept taking out loan after loan on their houses, jacking their payments up and up.

I have no doubt that it's a scheme, so the elite can buy all the houses and then just rent them back to us. So much for the American dream.

quickmike
07-12-2007, 06:05 PM
In the last few months, Ive been noticing TONS of homes with for sale signs in the yard. I dont think Ive ever seen so many homes for sale at the same time.

michaelwise
07-12-2007, 06:26 PM
If you trade under the same currency, the risks of currency manipulation have no effect on you. Accepting subsidies makes a company less competitive in the long term and helps consumers in the short term. "Unfair" trade should not discourage a company from entering markets.

Currency manipulation by countries like China, causes their goods in our market to be artificially low, and causes our goods in their country to cost too much. This blocks goods from our country from being accepted in their country, because of the high price. This also suppresses small companies from entering their market.

Let me explain it this way. If all our trading partners were teams in the NFL, and one team called China, would be allowed to start on the 50 yard line, every time the got the ball, Would you want to play with them?

kimosabi
07-12-2007, 06:38 PM
It is disgusting what has been allowed to happen in US Housing which has also happened in most Western Country's.

The housing/credit bubble was deliberately created by the Federal Reserve to wipe out the wealth of the poor and middle classes of America.

They did this by reducing interest rates to 1% and lowered lending standards after the Internet Bubble burst which created a speculative housing bubble to the point where someome with no job and no income could get a mortgage for $500,000.

There are over 2 million Americans facing foreclosure from the ARM(Adjustable Rate Mortgages) alone.

What's worse, your pension funds invested in these sub-prime mortgage firms and funded much of the mortgages which are now becoming worthess.

So not only are many American having their Mortgages foreclosed on, they will also cop huge losses in their Pension funds, because your pension funds invested in this toxic Federal Reserve created mess.

America is facing a Federal Reserve created recession and quite possibly a DEPRESSION.

A good place to start looking at all this stuff is here ==> http://ml-implode.com/

They have been tracking all of the Mortgage Lenders that are going bust.

So far :eek: 98 :eek: mortgage lenders have gone bust since late last year.

Remember people, this has all been deliberately engineered by the FEDERAL RESERVE

michaelwise
07-12-2007, 06:58 PM
If we could just get some of the more innocent victims on video; first time home buyers, coaxed into the toxic mortgages, now being foreclosed on, we would have a human interest story that other Americans can connect with. And perhaps be more willing to learn the reason why it happened.

cjhowe
07-12-2007, 07:24 PM
It is disgusting what has been allowed to happen in US Housing which has also happened in most Western Country's.

The housing/credit bubble was deliberately created by the Federal Reserve to wipe out the wealth of the poor and middle classes of America.

They did this by reducing interest rates to 1% and lowered lending standards after the Internet Bubble burst which created a speculative housing bubble to the point where someome with no job and no income could get a mortgage for $500,000.

There are over 2 million Americans facing foreclosure from the ARM(Adjustable Rate Mortgages) alone.

What's worse, your pension funds invested in these sub-prime mortgage firms and funded much of the mortgages which are now becoming worthess.

So not only are many American having their Mortgages foreclosed on, they will also cop huge losses in their Pension funds, because your pension funds invested in this toxic Federal Reserve created mess.

America is facing a Federal Reserve created recession and quite possibly a DEPRESSION.

A good place to start looking at all this stuff is here ==> http://ml-implode.com/

They have been tracking all of the Mortgage Lenders that are going bust.

So far :eek: 98 :eek: mortgage lenders have gone bust since late last year.

Remember people, this has all been deliberately engineered by the FEDERAL RESERVE

It would be great if you could also get the video of these families getting foreclosed on when the bank and builder had a gun to their head making them sign the mortgage.

michaelwise
07-12-2007, 08:42 PM
It would be great if you could also get the video of these families getting foreclosed on when the bank and builder had a gun to their head making them sign the mortgage.

Do I really have to explain the concept of this idea to you? Americans eat the human interest story shit up. It doesn't matter why it happens, just that it happens. Do you really know who we're up against? In order to win we are going to have to have all guns ablazing. Think about it.

cjhowe
07-12-2007, 08:45 PM
Do I really have to explain the concept of this idea to you? Americans eat the human interest story shit up. It doesn't matter why it happens, just that it happens. Do you really know who we're up against? In order to win we are going to have to have all guns ablazing. Think about it.

I'll fully admit that my responses is why libertarians don't win elections. Herding cats and what not. At the same time it's difficult to speak consistently against universal health care when personal responsibility can be turned on and off so willy nilly.

michaelwise
07-12-2007, 08:57 PM
I'll fully admit that my responses is why libertarians don't win elections. Herding cats and what not. At the same time it's difficult to speak consistently against universal health care when personal responsibility can be turned on and off so willy nilly.

I really don't think universal health care should be an issue. Americans are so divided on the issue 50/50, that it should not be emphasized, except for doing away with subsidies to HMOs.

Bryan
07-12-2007, 10:40 PM
Then why are you supporting Dr. Paul? Managed trade agreements allow governments to decide which companies can compete in foreign markets. Truly free trade would allow any company to compete in foreign markets, further depressing wages in American markets while elevating wages in foreign markets. Free labor markets dictate that if you're unable to receive a satisfactorily wage for your efforts, you're bitching will fall on deaf ears as you're supposed to either change markets or make your labor more attractive (education, skills, etc) so that you can demand a higher wage.

There's more to it than that. Here is the states it is basically impossible to "compete" with the slave wages due to other losses of freedom-- at those lower wages you couldn't even pay property taxes that are required- you'll get thrown from your home and just squeezed out of the land control (freedom) arena. Without controlling some natural resources (land to farm on, etc) you can become little more than a slave to those who do "own" it.

This is the fundamental problem with free trade right now- the system is stacked against those who have to compete (not the executives) in areas that force property tax payment. Once again, freedom is the answer.

michaelwise
07-12-2007, 11:44 PM
There's more to it than that. Here is the states it is basically impossible to "compete" with the slave wages due to other losses of freedom-- at those lower wages you couldn't even pay property taxes that are required- you'll get thrown from your home and just squeezed out of the land control (freedom) arena. Without controlling some natural resources (land to farm on, etc) you can become little more than a slave to those who do "own" it.

This is the fundamental problem with free trade right now- the system is stacked against those who have to compete (not the executives) in areas that force property tax payment. Once again, freedom is the answer.

Then it would be in the best interest of the states keep wages from falling.

Bryan
07-13-2007, 09:40 AM
Then it would be in the best interest of the states keep wages from falling.
That is an anti-freedom position because what you are asking is for the state to interfere in the private affairs of two individuals (someone who is offering employment and someone who is offering labor). The state has no business in this.

The simple solution is the abolishment of all mandatory land rent (property tax). It’s pro-freedom and pro-free market.

Americans will never be free unless there is ample counties (ie: choice) that have no property tax, until then you must spin the wheels to make someone else rich in proxy by having your money taken from you (via the need to have land to survive on) and given to some government entity that will be corrupted for someone else’s gain. Anytime you force the payment of taxes some money hungry elitist will figure out how to channel some of that money into their pocket—that’s been happening for a long, long, long time- no reason to think it would change.

Support true freedom- no property tax.

cjhowe
07-13-2007, 10:04 AM
That is an anti-freedom position because what you are asking is for the state to interfere in the private affairs of two individuals (someone who is offering employment and someone who is offering labor). The state has no business in this.

The simple solution is the abolishment of all mandatory land rent (property tax). It’s pro-freedom and pro-free market.

Americans will never be free unless there is ample counties (ie: choice) that have no property tax, until then you must spin the wheels to make someone else rich in proxy by having your money taken from you (via the need to have land to survive on) and given to some government entity that will be corrupted for someone else’s gain. Anytime you force the payment of taxes some money hungry elitist will figure out how to channel some of that money into their pocket—that’s been happening for a long, long, long time- no reason to think it would change.

Support true freedom- no property tax.


I agree whole heartedly about the anti-freedom part. However, property taxes have nothing to do with Americans. They have to do with residents of certain counties and municipalities. If you can convince a majority of follow county and municipalities voters to repeal the property tax, it's done. If you see property tax as chains, you've put them on yourself and you posses the key to unlock them.

michaelwise
07-13-2007, 10:18 AM
Then it would be in the best interest of the states keep wages from falling.

What I mean by this is, states not encouraging illegal alien labor to come in and undercut the legal workers wages.

cjhowe
07-13-2007, 10:42 AM
What I mean by this is, states not encouraging illegal alien labor to come in and undercut the legal workers wages.

But, we don't have free trade, we have a quota system which is a trade barrier. If we had "free trade" they wouldn't be "illegals" unless we continued to have laws regarding documentation.

BuddyRey
07-13-2007, 11:00 AM
This is probably the biggest difference I have with Dr. Paul, because I'm a RABID protectionist. American jobs for American workers is my credo. And it's not only because Americans end up suffering in the long run, but also because foreign workers are exploited. It sounds like hyperbole, but what we have now is, quite literally, 12-year-old Central and South Americans sewing our $200 sneakers together for pennies a day. I wouldn't mind spending more money for products if I knew that no workers were being exploited in the manufacture process, and that a reasonable retail price in comparison to the manufacture price, was being enforced.

cjhowe
07-13-2007, 11:10 AM
This is probably the biggest difference I have with Dr. Paul, because I'm a RABID protectionist. American jobs for American workers is my credo. And it's not only because Americans end up suffering in the long run, but also because foreign workers are exploited. It sounds like hyperbole, but what we have now is, quite literally, 12-year-old Central and South Americans sewing our $200 sneakers together for pennies a day. I wouldn't mind spending more money for products if I knew that no workers were being exploited in the manufacture process, and that a reasonable retail price in comparison to the manufacture price, was being enforced.

Again, seems like a great opportunity for you to compete in the marketplace. As a business you should be free to pay your employees any wage they're willing to take. The raw materials can't be more than 10 bucks...add your high wage workers at 10 bucks/ hour. You should be able to compete with the $200 sneaker.

The only time any worker is exploited is if they are barred from leaving the workplace through the threat of bodily harm, they are not given information on how their work affects their health or through fraud. Everything else is a contract between consenting adults.

Bryan
07-13-2007, 11:20 AM
I agree whole heartedly about the anti-freedom part. However, property taxes have nothing to do with Americans. They have to do with residents of certain counties and municipalities. If you can convince a majority of follow county and municipalities voters to repeal the property tax, it's done. If you see property tax as chains, you've put them on yourself and you posses the key to unlock them.
The issue is the pervasiveness of property taxes, freedom can be lost simply by a lack of real options as we have today. I understand this isn't a clear-cut black and white issue but there are some axioms that I hold on this very important issue, feel free to dispute:

* Real freedom doesn't come by having to convince other people to not steal your money.
* Freedom means that you can't force people to not collect something for living in a small geographical area, such as a subdivision with a home owners association dues.
* Having to move 100's of miles from your homeland to avoid having to pay property tax isn't freedom.
* If there are no counties near your homeland that are free of property tax then to be free you should be able to be exempt from them if you wish.

Freedom isn't about choosing the lesser of evils of places to live, each of which want to take large sums of your money from you just so you can having a place to settle that is needed for basic survival.

From my view, this philosophical base falls in line with the United States Declaration of Independence "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed". If one doesn't give their consent to pay property tax to use something that was a free gift of nature needed for survival where can they go to not be "governed"?

I view this as the most fundamental problem with the lack of freedom in America.

cjhowe
07-13-2007, 11:46 AM
Thank you for your comment, replies inline.

The issue is the pervasiveness of property taxes, freedom can be lost simply by a lack of real options as we have today. I understand this isn't a clear-cut black and white issue but there are some axioms that I hold on this very important issue, feel free to dispute:

* Real freedom doesn't come by having to convince other people to not steal your money.

It does when the people who are stealing your money convinced a majority of others that it was okay in a proper legislative manner. If you want to get into issues about incorporation and annexation of surrounding land into a city, I probably side with you. But in a clear case where there exists a community and the community decided that stealing of your money through a property tax was okay, your on your own in saying that it is then wrong. I'll help you repeal it, provided you have a plan to continue the services that I enjoy from the city, but I'm not going to say it's wrong or anti-freedom.


* Freedom means that you can't force people to not collect something for living in a small geographical area, such as a subdivision with a home owners association dues.

Home owners association is a matter of consenting adults contracting, not a freedom issue.


* Having to move 100's of miles from your homeland to avoid having to pay property tax isn't freedom.

Moving 100s of miles to avoid property tax is a choice, not a freedom issue.



* If there are no counties near your homeland that are free of property tax then to be free you should be able to be exempt from them if you wish.

The only way you should be able to be exempt from the tax is if you excommunicate yourself from the community, that includes the land.



Freedom isn't about choosing the lesser of evils of places to live, each of which want to take large sums of your money from you just so you can having a place to settle that is needed for basic survival.

Freedom is about choice. Some choices are more complex than others. The community that you live in says that if you want to enjoy the roads, schools, and other services provided by the community, you must pay taxes in the manner that has been agreed upon by the community for which you have an opportunity to have your voice/vote counted.



From my view, this philosophical base falls in line with the United States Declaration of Independence "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed". If one doesn't give their consent to pay property tax to use something that was a free gift of nature needed for survival where can they go to not be "governed"?

I view this as the most fundamental problem with the lack of freedom in America.

The governed is more than a single person. Every power that the government has was given to it by the people. No exception. Your choice is then to either agree to the demands of the government, change the government or start a new one. Ask the founding fathers, no one owes you the last one, you have to take it and it can get a bit messy.

michaelwise
07-13-2007, 11:53 AM
Again, seems like a great opportunity for you to compete in the marketplace. As a business you should be free to pay your employees any wage they're willing to take. The raw materials can't be more than 10 bucks...add your high wage workers at 10 bucks/ hour. You should be able to compete with the $200 sneaker.

The only time any worker is exploited is if they are barred from leaving the workplace through the threat of bodily harm, they are not given information on how their work affects their health or through fraud. Everything else is a contract between consenting adults.

I disagree with "the only time", however, American workers are permitted to quit any time they want. Whenever I finally get fed up with my employer, I up and quit my job, and give myself a sabbatical. 1st sabbatical was 6 months, 2nd 12 months, 3rd 18 months, current ? months. I can do this because I make sure I have at least 2 years of living expenses in my checking and savings account, and carry zero debt.

As a machinist with 20 years of experience, I always feel like I am back peddling
when it came to my compensation. At my last job with a Fortune 500 company, I walked in on a Friday and immediately spoke with my supervisor. I told him I wanted $5 more an hour and an additional week vacation, or I quit. I explained that adjusted for inflation, I made much more 10 years ago than I do today. After a lengthy discussion and a meeting with a higher up, they would not meet my demands, they said it's not company policy. I said I don't give a rats ass what company policy is, do whatever it takes to make it happen, or I quit. They said in 2 weeks, I said no, today. And that was the end of that. I've been off since the beginning of March, and loving every minute of it.

So yes, I do support the right to quit, and encourage everyone who can, to do so.

cjhowe
07-13-2007, 12:14 PM
I enjoyed your story. Isn't it great to have the freedom to contract?

I disagree with "the only time",

I suppose there could be other remote instances where one could be exploited, however I can't think of another off the top of my head.

constituent
07-13-2007, 12:40 PM
Please allow me to interject...

I often hear about how our wages, jobs, etc. are threatened by the 1/hr. labor in other countries, and I almost have to laugh (or cry, I'm not sure which)...

Stick with me here...

The real threat to the american worker is the continued privatization of the criminal justice system.. this is one area where profit motive does not belong. Many people do not realize that of the hundreds of thousands (millions?) of individuals incarcerated on a semi-permanent basis... most of those, even the most dangerous and hardened, fear both the monotony and the violence of life in a cage... Accordingly they are willing to work for .69/hr, sometimes less. State work programs pay for the training, prison operators contract out the labor, the nearly free (irony much?) labor creates a system where no one can compete.

It's bad in China and elsewhere, particularly in light of recent slavery scandals, but the threat of life in a cage? Fluff that! In America no less. I've worked call centers before and the cubicle florescence is enough to drive you to insanity whether or not you have a place to call home... but wait, it isn't just call center jobs being shifted to prison labor anymore, it is also traditionally high-paying (decent anyway) tech and manufacturing jobs.

Can someone help me out, what was the name of that chip manufacturer in Lockhart, TX that moved their operation to wackenhut?

So anyway, long story short... the true threat to wage-earners in this country is not "Joe Chinaman (frank capra)," nor Johnny Rodriguez trying to keep food on the table and britches on bottoms, it is the looming threat of a global fascist police state with privatized justice, privatized prisons, etc.

And on symantics, if you are in business there is nothing "private" about it.

constituent
07-13-2007, 12:42 PM
Oh yeah, and the "private" companies win twice... first the state or whoever pays them per terms of the contract, then the corporations pay them in exchange for the labor that they provide...

Can someone please bring up the Civilian Detainee Act?

and to bring it back on topic.... Families in Foreclosure

I am a young, married father. When the developers were rabidly devouring our beautiful country side in the early to mid years of this decade, I had the sense to say that it wasn't sustainable, nor necessary and that our overfed nation had not actually done anything to deserve this universal upgrade. Accordingly, I stayed out of the housing market and now stand to benefit from the prices leveling off. The ripple effects of this careless spending and vacuuming of inflation are enormous and particularly clear in the apartment and home rental markets where prices have also skyrocketed to compensate the property owners for the perceived increase in the value of their property. The result? My rent has continued to climb over the past several years, and furthermore... not everyone is being foreclosed upon... by playing smart economics and thinking before I buy, I also have missed out on the extra cash on hand that those fools have used to purchase and fuel the cars they can't afford and drink the fuel purchased with our soldiers blood... and yet I should care? And if there is some sort of bail out for the poor suckers with their heads up their a$$e$ ($$$$$), we will be screwed again by the continued artificially inflated housing market, and will continue to suffer the end product of the inflation these folks have helped to create (gas, groceries, housing, etc.).

constituent
07-13-2007, 12:52 PM
Ahh man, is there any way to get the "senior" removed from before "member?" or will I have to make a new account... or can I have my posting numbers cleared or something please please please?

Bryan
07-13-2007, 12:56 PM
Thanks for the response- hope this reads well. :)


It does when the people who are stealing your money convinced a majority of others that it was okay in a proper legislative manner. If you want to get into issues about incorporation and annexation of surrounding land into a city, I probably side with you. But in a clear case where there exists a community and the community decided that stealing of your money through a property tax was okay, your on your own in saying that it is then wrong. I'll help you repeal it, provided you have a plan to continue the services that I enjoy from the city, but I'm not going to say it's wrong or anti-freedom.

I don't see this as contradicting my point but I agree that if you move into an area that has established rules then you are agreeing to those rules by contract. If those rules allow for legislative measures to increase your tax then that is something you already agree to and isn't stealing. Having the fundamental rules changes on you after you moved somewhere (such as annexation) is a different story.



Home owners association is a matter of consenting adults contracting, not a freedom issue.
I know I used a double negative in my statement but I agree with your point. My statement can be twisted into: it isn't freedom to prevent consenting adults to form a contract. ... (another double negative :p).



Moving 100s of miles to avoid property tax is a choice, not a freedom issue.
Here's a hypothetical question- consider someone who grows up and is ready to start their life on their own but doesn't want to live some place where they are forced to have to pay property tax. Suppose the only option is to move 2,000+ miles into the desert, how is this not an issue of freedom? Sure, there is still a choice of sorts but it's a pretty sorry choice, how is this not oppression? I understand this is a bit far-fetched but the question is where to draw the line? If someone has to move 1 mile, is it that big a deal in order to preserve the wishes of everyone else? What about 10 miles? 100? 1000? Not everyone will agree but I say that if we want to live in a free, just, productive and peaceful society we must listen to everyones points on their lack of liberty and address them as best possible. If people want to live where there are no property taxes then there should be amble choices for them to do so.


The only way you should be able to be exempt from the tax is if you excommunicate yourself from the community, that includes the land.
What do you include in excommunicate? How about just agree to not take advantage of the services that those taxes pay for? Does there need to be any social interaction issues involved?


Freedom is about choice. Some choices are more complex than others. The community that you live in says that if you want to enjoy the roads, schools, and other services provided by the community, you must pay taxes in the manner that has been agreed upon by the community for which you have an opportunity to have your voice/vote counted.
I'll agree, the question is, if you don't like any of the community chooses then freedom dictates that you should have the choice to not be a part of any of these communities. If not, they you can be subject to the tyranny of the power bases of one of those communities.


The governed is more than a single person.
Says who? Government is an arbitrary entity.



Every power that the government has was given to it by the people. No exception.
I'd say that depends upon your definition of "the people", I've talked with many individuals who have disavowed any and all allegiance to any government- they are not to be included in power grabs of "the people". Of course the government enforcement agents will still imprison them...


Your choice is then to either agree to the demands of the government, change the government or start a new one.
I agree these are the options- I choose "change the government" though education of what I view as freedom.


Ask the founding fathers, no one owes you the last one, you have to take it and it can get a bit messy.
You're right and if you have to fight to take something that is rightfully your own then you're dealing with tyranny.

constituent
07-13-2007, 01:50 PM
Bryan, really though...

"Just not take advantage of those services that those taxes pay for"

You mean like roads, ditches, water, etc.? Gimme a break...

This might work if we didn't have private property and in Texas the right to kill trespassers without so much as a warning shot, I'd have been dead years ago. Would these people then be confined to only their private property and the property of those so gracious as to allow passage?

And who would be in charge of enforcing this voluntary non-use of the public's utilities? I suppose some entity payed for by all the other taxpayers. And I promise you, someone steps on their land or whatever, they will demand a law enforcement officer come to protect them and dispose of the trespasser. Who will pay that guy's salary?

Don't get me wrong I'm with you on much of this... but in our quest for freedom we must realize that often the very freedom we expect some help in maintaining (public utilities, fire, police, roads), is purchased at the expense of someone else... in my view (and it's out there for around here) private property is theft. If my right to own private property shall not be infringed, or however it is worded as I don't have my constitution handy at the moment, and all of the property is owned and much is purchased through ill, perhaps even illegal means (recession, boom/bust, etc.)... have the current property owners not infringed upon the rights of everyone else, including the future?

help me out here.

constituent
07-13-2007, 01:57 PM
And I do agree that government is arbitrary... isn't that the point? is that not what we are advocating? a return to arbitration rather than continued authoritian rule and as a function of that rule, centralized economic planning (IMF, World Bank, the fed, zoning ordinances and w/ them large subdivisions, and accordingly Home Owner's Associations, that drive up the property taxes for those not within the fence thus making a semi-autonomous existence impossible within muffler's range?)

michaelwise
07-13-2007, 01:59 PM
Just wait till the news starts quoting the 2nd quarter foreclosure numbers. Greatly worse than the 1st quarter numbers that they've been quoting for the past 3 months. The next 3 quarters are projected to get progressively worse. This is the result of the Fed monetary policy.

constituent
07-13-2007, 02:14 PM
don't be so kind to all of the people who signed "adjustable-rate" mortgages, you can't tell me they had never heard of interest rates over 3 1/2 %. You can't tell me they couldn't read their contract... if they couldn't they might actually have something to go on, but otherwise... buyer beware.

cjhowe
07-13-2007, 02:28 PM
The comments that I've omitted, I think have been sufficiently answered by constituent.

Thanks for the response- hope this reads well. :)


Here's a hypothetical question- consider someone who grows up and is ready to start their life on their own but doesn't want to live some place where they are forced to have to pay property tax. Suppose the only option is to move 2,000+ miles into the desert, how is this not an issue of freedom? Sure, there is still a choice of sorts but it's a pretty sorry choice, how is this not oppression? I understand this is a bit far-fetched but the question is where to draw the line? If someone has to move 1 mile, is it that big a deal in order to preserve the wishes of everyone else? What about 10 miles? 100? 1000? Not everyone will agree but I say that if we want to live in a free, just, productive and peaceful society we must listen to everyones points on their lack of liberty and address them as best possible. If people want to live where there are no property taxes then there should be amble choices for them to do so.

However, you're now placing the burden of providing those on some entity whose constituents favor the property tax.



I'll agree, the question is, if you don't like any of the community chooses then freedom dictates that you should have the choice to not be a part of any of these communities. If not, they you can be subject to the tyranny of the power bases of one of those communities.

Freedom dictates that someone should be able to provide that option, not that the choice should already exist. You are provided the option through legislative means.



Says who? Government is an arbitrary entity.

Says the document you were quoting from... That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men...
Men is plural. Government is a social contract.



I'd say that depends upon your definition of "the people", I've talked with many individuals who have disavowed any and all allegiance to any government- they are not to be included in power grabs of "the people". Of course the government enforcement agents will still imprison them...

You can disavow all you want, you are still an occupier in sovereign land.



I agree these are the options- I choose "change the government" though education of what I view as freedom.


You're right and if you have to fight to take something that is rightfully your own then you're dealing with tyranny.

You are dealing with tyranny if you didn't wilfully give it up in the first place. All of the freedoms that we complain have been stolen from us in America, have not been stolen. We have volunteered or traded them away.

constituent
07-13-2007, 02:38 PM
cjhowe-

just my opinion here, but I'm not so sure anyone ever had these freedoms we all love to imagine our nation's hx provided our ancestors... anymore i'm not certain that "america" isn't just a phantom limb.

cjhowe
07-13-2007, 02:45 PM
cjhowe-

just my opinion here, but I'm not so sure anyone ever had these freedoms we all love to imagine our nation's hx provided our ancestors... anymore i'm not certain that "america" isn't just a phantom limb.
could you elaborate?

ShaneC
07-13-2007, 02:54 PM
Regarding housing, I'm just going to give my little story here, and if anyone can PM me some advice or something, I'd greatly appreciate it.

I'm 26. I make decent money for someone who is 26, around $50k a year now after bonuses. Oh, now I'm married as well, so I guess our household income is closer to $70k.

Over the past ~7 years, I've paid out around $65k in rent.

I applied for a (VA Loan) home loan. I was only approved for $110k.

$110k! HUD housing in the area runs about $165k, meaning I'd have to be me and 1 dependent making less than $41k per year!

WTF!

The average non-HUD townhouse starts at about $215k.

I don't want to move into the "ghetto" (average of 3 shootings per night, plus X number of home invasions, robberies, thefts, etc).

What is a "kid" such as myself supposed to do?

Any thoughts, advice, or opinions are greatly appreciated.

Please PM them though.

constituent
07-13-2007, 03:06 PM
Suck it up... one day ShaneC, i promise we'll swap tears over beers on these many issues ... it does suck though.


had fun the other day on the july 21 and 23 threads btw.

constituent
07-13-2007, 03:11 PM
cjhowe-

1) Slavery

2) Conscription

3) Standard Oil

4) Was it U.S. Steel that the national guard was sent in to kill all the striking workers?

5) The Society for The Protection of German Immigrants to Texas (an extraordinary piece of the human puzzle and a rewarding subject for those interested in scholarly pursuits)

6) The fed and any number of other quasi-political institutions out there.

7) The Welfare State

8) The War on Drugs

9) The Patriot Act

constituent
07-13-2007, 03:13 PM
I'd like to start a thread for all of those

Slavery: What does it say about the foundations of America?

Conscription: More involuntary servitude?

etc.

constituent
07-13-2007, 03:14 PM
Oh yea, wait....

The Great Bailout!

I can't believe I forgot that doh!

ShaneC
07-13-2007, 03:24 PM
Suck it up... one day ShaneC, i promise we'll swap tears over beers on these many issues ... it does suck though.


had fun the other day on the july 21 and 23 threads btw.

I've been sucking it up for close to 8 years now actually.

The real question is, do I rent or do I buy?

I <3 beer. We can agree on that at least

michaelwise
07-13-2007, 04:10 PM
Regarding housing, I'm just going to give my little story here, and if anyone can PM me some advice or something, I'd greatly appreciate it.

I'm 26. I make decent money for someone who is 26, around $50k a year now after bonuses. Oh, now I'm married as well, so I guess our household income is closer to $70k.

Over the past ~7 years, I've paid out around $65k in rent.

I applied for a (VA Loan) home loan. I was only approved for $110k.

$110k! HUD housing in the area runs about $165k, meaning I'd have to be me and 1 dependent making less than $41k per year!

WTF!

The average non-HUD townhouse starts at about $215k.

I don't want to move into the "ghetto" (average of 3 shootings per night, plus X number of home invasions, robberies, thefts, etc).

What is a "kid" such as myself supposed to do?

Any thoughts, advice, or opinions are greatly appreciated.

Please PM them though.

Do a little research, and find out whats going on with housing bubble. before buying.
Check out the authority on the housing bubble.

http://thehousingbubbleblog.com/

Bryan
07-13-2007, 04:30 PM
Bryan, really though...

"Just not take advantage of those services that those taxes pay for"

You mean like roads, ditches, water, etc.? Gimme a break...
Yes, and no "break" is necessary. :) Many of these are already set up to be on a pay-for-use system. If you hook up on to the water system you get a water bill for that, others use an on property well. If you drive on road you pay to register your car and pay gas tax (another issue). Why would property tax be needed for these things? One can make this same argument for anything that is used for property tax.


This might work if we didn't have private property and in Texas the right to kill trespassers without so much as a warning shot, I'd have been dead years ago. Would these people then be confined to only their private property and the property of those so gracious as to allow passage?
That doesn't sound like freedom and thus a poor system, so, no. I view this issue as one of the few impossible balances our society must make- the right to private property vs. the right to travel freely. I can be shown that the two contradict each other but both are necessary for a free society, so you have to find a balance of what land is available for public use. The second part of this issue is dealing with improvements on these public areas, such as roads. Is it reasonable for someone to use a land corridor without cost between two cities when they don't contribute to any wear on the improvements, such as riding a horse off the shoulder in the grass? Land corridors are a very complicated issue and getting a bit too off topic. :)




And who would be in charge of enforcing this voluntary non-use of the public's utilities?
Any person who wants to protect their property or interests always is the one to do what they feel is needed to protect their interests. Otherwise you end up with a system that will force the poor and politically unconnected to protect the interests of the rich and politically connected... sound familiar.



I suppose some entity payed for by all the other taxpayers. And I promise you, someone steps on their land or whatever, they will demand a law enforcement officer come to protect them and dispose of the trespasser. Who will pay that guy's salary?
If you don't contribute to law enforcement then don't expect any assistance in helping you out- simple. You want a service, you pay for it. :) Consider, all services are arbitrary as well as the prescribed level of them- some community may want 10x the number of dog catchers per law enforcement officers for whatever reason.



Don't get me wrong I'm with you on much of this... but in our quest for freedom we must realize that often the very freedom we expect some help in maintaining (public utilities, fire, police, roads), is purchased at the expense of someone else...
I agree that it is a good investment to pay for some services to maintain freedom but I wouldn't expect to force others to pay for the same- that isn't freedom. Again however, they also have the choice. The key is about choice- placement to go that do have property tax and places that never can have them by regardless of whatever "legislative measures" are taken.



in my view (and it's out there for around here) private property is theft. If my right to own private property shall not be infringed, or however it is worded as I don't have my constitution handy at the moment, and all of the property is owned and much is purchased through ill, perhaps even illegal means (recession, boom/bust, etc.)... have the current property owners not infringed upon the rights of everyone else, including the future?
This is good stuff, we really have to get together and talk. :) I find our current system of natural resource distribution is very problematic and fundamentally contribute to social injustice based on our poor ideological choices.

cjhowe
07-13-2007, 04:33 PM
cjhowe-

1) Slavery

2) Conscription

3) Standard Oil

4) Was it U.S. Steel that the national guard was sent in to kill all the striking workers?

5) The Society for The Protection of German Immigrants to Texas (an extraordinary piece of the human puzzle and a rewarding subject for those interested in scholarly pursuits)

6) The fed and any number of other quasi-political institutions out there.

7) The Welfare State

8) The War on Drugs

9) The Patriot Act

I'm pretty sure I qualified it as exploitation of workers and put 3 caveats. I'm not sure your examples fall within the qualification.


The only time any worker is exploited is if they are barred from leaving the workplace through the threat of bodily harm, they are not given information on how their work affects their health or through fraud. Everything else is a contract between consenting adults.

Bryan
07-13-2007, 04:42 PM
However, you're now placing the burden of providing those on some entity whose constituents favor the property tax.
If leaving someone alone is a burden, then "yes". Otherwise, please explain.


Freedom dictates that someone should be able to provide that option, not that the choice should already exist. You are provided the option through legislative means.
I would agree that that is a reasonable direction but if those legislative means deny you of freedom then you have a problem.


Says the document you were quoting from... That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men...
Men is plural. Government is a social contract.
Arguably so but I'd say that the overall context and meaning given the discussion of "unalienable Rights" from ones Creator implies that the "men" is more of a singular form of a reference to mankind... but we're splitting hairs here. :)

Since I agree that government is a social contract I'd say that it can only be a contract if you have an option to not agree to it. The question comes down to sovereign individualism vs. being required to be governed. If you are required to be governed then the question is, what is the roll of this governing? As Dr. Paul teaches, the roll of government should only be to protect liberty. Is it a problem to force the protection of liberty onto someone else? Conversely, if the roll of this government is to force your compliance with arbitrary rules that suits someone else's interests then freedom is lost.

From my view there are two legitimate forms of government:
- one that allows anyone to opt into or out of.
- one that serves only to promote the liberty of everyone (which means no forces taxation and a lot more).

Anything else results in lost freedom, which is tyranny. I understand these are difficult issues but they are really the most fundamental ones.

michaelwise
07-13-2007, 06:06 PM
I was of a mind that health care is such a vital service to the public, as national defense is, That it should not be left to private companies to provide; who have a vested interest in maximizing profits at the patients expense. I believe that private management is why there is 50 million Americans without insurance, nearly 20% of the population. How great is our health care system for that 20% of the population?

I could go for an opt out system, for national security reasons. More healthy bodies means a stronger defense. This would work only under a true constitutionally governed system, implemented after The Great Depression II that is on it's way. The money for this system would be evenly apportioned per employee to the employers, and would cost employers half what they are paying now.

And strike the forbidness non compete clause in the prescription drug bill.

If Universal health care is unconstitutional, perhaps we could vote on a constitutional amendment for it. I could live with the decision either way.

cjhowe
07-13-2007, 07:24 PM
If leaving someone alone is a burden, then "yes". Otherwise, please explain.

Note: I'm basing the following off of two assumptions.
1. All municipalities and counties in Texas have a property tax.
2. All municipalities and counties in Texas have voted for the property tax to exist
This does not apply to those lands that have been annexed into a municipality without the owner's consent.

You're placing a burden on an entity to provide an area for you and others to not pay property tax. In Texas, at least, every county has voted in favor of a property tax. So, to live in Texas, a county has to abandon the manner they raise revenues in opposition to the will of the residents of that county. Wouldn't you say that's a burden?


I would agree that that is a reasonable direction but if those legislative means deny you of freedom then you have a problem.

The people gave this power to the legislature, so it remains the legislature's power until it is taken back.



Arguably so but I'd say that the overall context and meaning given the discussion of "unalienable Rights" from ones Creator implies that the "men" is more of a singular form of a reference to mankind... but we're splitting hairs here. :)

Since I agree that government is a social contract I'd say that it can only be a contract if you have an option to not agree to it. The question comes down to sovereign individualism vs. being required to be governed. If you are required to be governed then the question is, what is the roll of this governing? As Dr. Paul teaches, the roll of government should only be to protect liberty. Is it a problem to force the protection of liberty onto someone else? Conversely, if the roll of this government is to force your compliance with arbitrary rules that suits someone else's interests then freedom is lost.

Slight correction. It is the role of the FEDERAL government to protect liberty. The role of state and local government is quite different.


From my view there are two legitimate forms of government:
- one that allows anyone to opt into or out of.
- one that serves only to promote the liberty of everyone (which means no forces taxation and a lot more).

Anything else results in lost freedom, which is tyranny. I understand these are difficult issues but they are really the most fundamental ones.
Unfortunately, that's not the government that men made on this continent before during and after the revolutionary war. Had that social contract been made, we would have surely lost our sovereignty.

michaelwise
07-13-2007, 07:35 PM
Note: I'm basing the following off of two assumptions.
1. All municipalities and counties in Texas have a property tax.
2. All municipalities and counties in Texas have voted for the property tax to exist
This does not apply to those lands that have been annexed into a municipality without the owner's consent.

You're placing a burden on an entity to provide an area for you and others to not pay property tax. In Texas, at least, every county has voted in favor of a property tax. So, to live in Texas, a county has to abandon the manner they raise revenues in opposition to the will of the residents of that county. Wouldn't you say that's a burden?

The people gave this power to the legislature, so it remains the legislature's power until it is taken back.


Slight correction. It is the role of the FEDERAL government to protect liberty. The role of state and local government is quite different.

Unfortunately, that's not the government that men made on this continent before during and after the revolutionary war. Had that social contract been made, we would have surely lost our sovereignty.

Is this discussion about the nuances of freedom and liberty?

To me, the Constitution maximizes our freedom and liberty. It does not make our freedom and liberty infinite. If it did, well, that would make us all Gods.

michaelwise
07-14-2007, 10:10 AM
Do I really have to explain the concept of this idea to you? Americans eat the human interest story shit up. It doesn't matter why it happens, just that it happened. Do you really know who we're up against? In order to win we are going to have to have all guns ablazing. Think about it.

denvervoipguru
07-14-2007, 05:25 PM
The wealth this country has created should provide us a standard of living SO HIGH that we only have to work 5 hours a week...but the value of our currency has been RAPED (http://www.fdrs.org/fractional_reserve_banking.html) by the so called "Federal Reserve System".

The dollar is worth only .04cents of what it was in 1930 money, meanwhile the Rothschild dynasty is worth an estimated 300 Trillion (yes, I meant a 300 million billions)

"Give me control of a nation's currency, and I care not who makes its laws." - Meyer Rothschild

michaelwise
07-15-2007, 12:27 AM
The wealth this country has created should provide us a standard of living SO HIGH that we only have to work 5 hours a week...but the value of our currency has been RAPED (http://www.fdrs.org/fractional_reserve_banking.html) by the so called "Federal Reserve System".

The dollar is worth only .04cents of what it was in 1930 money, meanwhile the Rothschild dynasty is worth an estimated 300 Trillion (yes, I meant a 300 million billions)

"Give me control of a nation's currency, and I care not who makes its laws." - Meyer Rothschild

Funny you should mention Rothschilds. Do you really know the history of the Rothschild's? Check out the video called Money Masters.

http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=Money+Masters

SeanEdwards
07-15-2007, 02:29 AM
Tomatoes $1 each. Illegal alien tomato pickers pick 27 bushels of them a day, over 2000 tomatoes a day. Why do they cost so much?

Fresh tomatoes are $2.99/lb where I live. That is sick.

cjhowe
07-15-2007, 07:24 PM
Fresh tomatoes are $2.99/lb where I live. That is sick.

How much are tomato seeds? High prices are usually a sign to the market to change its habits. How many pounds can you get off a home grown tomato plant?