How far down are we?
How far down the wrong side of the bell-curve is the USA? Can the country turn itself around, and if so, how? Or, is the USA heading for an unrecoverable demise?
- Hot
- New
- Categories...
- Producer's Lounge
- Producer's Vault
- The Gulch: Live! (New)
- Ask the Gulch!
- Going Galt
- Books
- Business
- Classifieds
- Culture
- Economics
- Education
- Entertainment
- Government
- History
- Humor
- Legislation
- Movies
- News
- Philosophy
- Pics
- Politics
- Science
- Technology
- Video
- The Gulch: Best of
- The Gulch: Bugs
- The Gulch: Feature Requests
- The Gulch: Featured Producers
- The Gulch: General
- The Gulch: Introductions
- The Gulch: Local
- The Gulch: Promotions
- Marketplace
- Members
- Store
- More...
Yes, we need a new age of reason. I don't see it down the road, but history has often taken strange twists and turns. One man out of billions changed the way we look at the universe, a handful turned Russia into a "worker's paradise." A cabal consisting of some brilliant men created the first almost free country.
The new age of Reason needs this meme: In the long view, no one wins unless everyone wins. Violence is not a winning strategy. It is a remnant of our animal past and a temporary aberration. It's a by-product of range-of-the-moment reactions. Reason is our next evolutionary step. The handbook has been written.
Here's an idea: People always want to be good and do the right thing, to be heroic. They're just misled by the wrong goals and methods, and fed the wrong programs, for what constitutes good. Simple fix -- always test actions against this standard: Is what I am doing good for everyone, not just for me?
The truly heroic is the voluntary self-restraint from inflicting violence, not how much damage one can impose. Real heroes weigh every choice against the future of humankind. Every individual counts.
Parents are told, indirectly, to teach their children to be kind - while the system gets ready to absorb those children so that they can go over to Afghanistan to guard poppy fields and blow up weddings. All...so we can be "safe", of course.
I don't think it's over their head so much as it is something most of them choose not to look at. It's always easier to go with the flow than to think independently. Independent thinking is no longer encouraged in our society.
Even the so-called "critical thinking" allegedly taught to school children is just a ludicrous scheme to substitute some views for others, still within the control matrix of the rulers. Real independent thought must be stifled, and if it can't be, then condemn or even kill the thinker as a rebel or traitor. It's a case of meme warfare, the confrontation of conflicting ideas. Human heads are merely their vehicle, and human emotions their tool. It's Darwinism of the software.
Rand kept admonishing readers to "check your premises". Not easy for most people to do. The emotions get in the way to help protect the existing hold, to avoid questioning the belief systems in place. Like the body's immune system, the mind's belief systems have a panoply of devices to keep them intact, to resist change, including fear, guilt and loyalty. That's why it's so hard to get people to "change their minds", especially about anything to do with values.
Turning on volitional consciousness the first time is the breakthrough to rationality. In time it can become a habit. Any persuasion we hope to do in that direction is one mind at a time. That's the price of being an individual.
Jan
Jan
I have seen the USA change so much in my lifetime that it is almost unimaginable. We have gone from a flag-waving, pledge of allegiance, patriotic, we are the very best country, to a pessimistic, politically correct, expect the worst country. All just in my lifetime.That leads me to believe that it is possible to turn things around if we have the will to do it. But the belief in entitlement is the thing that the young generation has which will stymie most attempts at creating a free society. They actually seem to equate freedom with dependency.
I started to pay attention to the people that want anarchy in the world, it’s a large list with some very scary people on it. I would even have to add our current President to that list due to his actions alone. The 99% (idiots) don’t want anarchy because it will clear the regulatory burden of small business; they want anarchy to knock you over your head and take what was once yours. The powerful elites what anarchy to take more of our freedoms way; remember Rob Emanuel “Don’t waste a serious crisis”. Our president is planning on importing 10,000 (I heard higher numbers, I believe they will be) Syrian refugees; only reason in the world you would do this after Paris is because you want anarchy. The list goes on and on… domestically and abroad.
I’ve beginning to see and agree with the prepper community but from a knowledge stand point. How am I going to care for my loved ones when the SHTF. Collecting books on basic like field medical procedures, how to make alcohol, gunpowder and water filters (burning wood to make active charcoal). I think I need to start getting a little more serious about my list as I really think a trigger could make this really happen very soon.
I have an uneasy feeling that freedom suffers initially until the pendulum swings back the other way in 10, 100 or 1000 years. I don’t think I’ll see the swing in my lifetime.
YOU ARE THE MILITIA.
You are the last line of defense for liberty.
more than one of them. -- j
.
Anarchy does not mean chaos, it simply means "no rulers." It means that all people are truly equals, and politicians and government employees aren't assumed to be above us, as a ruling class. Anarchy means we choose our leaders voluntarily, and are free to withdraw our support if we don't like what they do. It means that we pay for protection (police and military) and court services voluntarily and can, again, withdraw financial support if we disagree with the way the services are provided or their pricing. Ayn Rand advocated voluntary funding as well; it's the only way to keep government accountable and efficient.
Who exactly in the anarchist/voluntaryist movement do you find "scary?" Murray Rothbard? Larken Rose? Jeff Berwick? Jeffery Tucker? Adam Kokesh? Judge Napolitano? Ron Paul? I find them brilliant, logical, and persuasive.
Seems to me that the term anarchy means different things to different people. I for one do not want anarchy due to that fact that no one will be able to conduct business in a constantly changing environment. You seem to be crossing anarchy with libertarianism, I don’t subscript to the libertarianism philosophy 100% ether, I agree with a lot but not all. I’m an objectionist, meaning I’m doing what is in my best interest, having a community in a state of anarchy is not in my best interest.
Anarchy is not a form of government but a lack of government; anarchy would lead to our enslavement or death. Without organization we can’t defend our boarders; without a small federal government, we don’t exist as a country. Anarchy is an excuse for martial law…
Ayn Rand rejected both libertarianism and anarchist, I agree as it seems like a fantasy land where we have no rules at all. Without the experience of having children, I might have agreed but wanting an environment where my children can grow up to their fullest potential is important to me. The best chance of that happening is a stable small government that provides only the basics like national security and due process.
Mitch
Gives people like me a clear and certain edge fo we will use any weapon available including forming a new government. Whose to stop us?
Maybe you are one of the bad people who would try to form a government to impose your will on others, but I think there are a lot more good people who would stop you.
We need a judicial branch of the government, without it… I just take your stuff because I’m smarter and have more guns.
You are correct. My reasoning is as follows: Humanity is nowhere near mature enough to deal with Anarchy. It could happen in some fantasy future but certainly not within the foreseeable. I'm sure that there are thousands, perhaps millions of persons to whom Anarchy would work, but then, what about the remaining almost 7 billion? We, as well as untold millions have high ideals, but they are miniscule compared to those who wish to be uninvolved, who are evilly aggressive, and are of mixed premises. Perhaps an evolution of philosophy, a major catastrophe, or cataclysmic event will cause a shift toward reason, but then, perhaps not.
That should have been "humanity," not humidity. Me and the spelling checker both goofed.
1. MYOB (Mind your own business)
2. The absolute right to say NO.
Taxes are force-based. There is nothing in logic or morality which allows one certain group of people the right to take by force, from peaceful people, money to fund what the thieves believe is important. And yet, that is our system of taxation and government.
Government though I wonder about this one needs a budget to carry out it's purposes. The control of that is in the hands of the responsible citizens. Since none of them are voting anymore it's up for grabs. Why do i say that? Because the voting is rigged from candidate selection to candidate retirement. as a millionaire. Vote for someone or something else and it's given to the individual you opposed. Stolen by a crooked evil system. So...that IS our system and our shame. We could have voted differently but we spent too many decades choosing evil.
At this point, I think the only solution is to convert government from a monopoly to a voluntarily-funded service provider.
Ayn Rand stated that she felt that America got it correct with the Constitution and Bill of Rights but didn’t go far enough. She felt as though financial freedom needs to be included. Can we have a mulligan?
True enough. But, in fact, the rate had reached 77 percent by 1918, just five years after Congress created its first, single-digit levy.
taxhistory.org
But, it will take life times before enough individuals can open their reasoning minds to question quotes like this,
“Nothing is certain except death and taxes.”
Ben Franklin
This is a great blog and thread.
I concur with you. Anarchy is not congruent with human nature right now and may never be. There is always somebody that wants to live off of others and will organize a local gang or small army in order to rule. The Attilas would rise. People of reason could make it work, but the world is populated with too many lunatics and fanatics. Little collective fiefdoms would be constantly popping up and trying to fight their way to the top. I still find Rand's reasoning sound and unassailable.
http://aynrandlexicon.com/searchresul...
"[T]he great security against a gradual concentration of the several powers in the same department, consists in giving to those who administer each department the necessary constitutional means and personal motives to resist encroachments of the others. The provision for defence must in this, as in all other cases, be made commensurate to the danger of attack. Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place. It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions." ([1788] n.d., 337 Madison, Federalist 51
Respectfully,
O.A.
"So you really want a society without rules, laws or structure at all?" Again, please try to put aside for a moment the social brainwashing, and actually read the words I've written. I wrote about voluntarily-funded protection and dispute resolution services; isn't it obvious and necessary that there would be rules which they are enforcing?
Anarchists believe in the NAP, the non-aggression principle. You are free to do as you choose, with the exclusion that you may not harm, or threaten to harm, another person or his/her property. There are nuances to the rule which can be worked out through application, but it is, in my opinion, the one main rule which should be enforced. There should be no "victimless crimes," and there shouldn't be such a profusion of ridiculous laws that the average person commits several felonies a day without even knowing it.
No government welfare one bit what so every, you must support yourself or parish.
No government education system, we can do better for less.
No restrictions on freedoms, physical, financial or virtual.
No taxation on income, property or wealth - some form of income would be necessary to support our boarders.
Now, with anarchy…
We wouldn’t have local law enforcement or a judicial system. You wouldn’t have recourse for damages.
I could develop a swarm of drones that can be used for offensive purposes. Like killing you to take what you have because I like it.
You would spend that vast majority of your wealth defending what you have. I would become very wealth selling you systems to defend yourself.
We wouldn’t be not a country let alone a country I would wish to live in.
Under anarchy, we would fall to hostel governments.
If you are truly interested in how an anarchist society could function, and exceed the current force-based system in effectiveness, while reducing the cost, there are tons of material available online and in books. https://markstoval.wordpress.com/2012... That article makes a great point: we don't all have cops following us and "protecting" us every day. The vast majority of our daily interactions with friends and strangers are currently ruled by anarchy and the non-aggression principle. Bad people will occasionally hurt good people under anarchy, just as they do under the current system, but I would argue that, first, most people are good and peaceful and want to get along and, second, that protection from bad behavior and consequences given for it would be fairer and more swift and sure if these services were delivered by a non-monopolistic business.
By the way, if you think police today exist to protect and serve the public, please consider the case of Joe Lozito, who was attacked and repeatedly stabbed while two officers watched from behind a locked door. The courts decreed yet again that police have NO duty whatsoever to protect or serve citizens. http://www.copblock.org/27067/police-...
We currently give an average of 50% of our wealth to the various governments. Are you arguing that we're all getting our money's worth? Because I'm sure not. What other service or good would you want to buy from a monopoly? Cell phone service? Cable t.v.? Groceries? A car? If you wouldn't want to buy these things from a monopoly, why not? Maybe because they have no accountability, because they can give you a poor-quality good or service and you have no other option, and because they can raise the price any time they want because they're the only game in town? The arguments against monopolies seem so clear, so how do you get to the conclusion that a monopoly on protection and dispute resolution services held by the government is somehow uniquely favorable to the citizens?
Between public schooling and the media and entertainment industries, we're all immersed in a social and political system whose only goal is to protect itself. We're taught to worship government, view it as a protector and have faith in it. If we stop and think logically about the reality of the system though, I think we'll all agree that we can do much better.
I do think there is more people who feel the same way that are not speaking about it.
This year for the first time ever our local hardware/supply store selling canning jars, by the pallet. I took that as another indicator of tough times ahead. Hopefully I'm wrong.
I think that we will just keep muddling along. The socialists will continue to grab and redistribute our wealth, our freedoms will continue to gradually erode (though there are some successful pushbacks happening), but there is So Much of what we have that it will take another generation or so of government irresponsibility to deplete that reservoir. And, during that time, more technology will be produced that may make socialism irrelevant.
Jan
Jan
2015 - 1776 = 239, which should mean the USA getting old and acquiring (mental?) health problems that will eventually kill it, such as turning socialist among other things that should have been avoided.
http://www.usdebtclock.org/
Those of us here at the Gulch are the 15%ers. We get it. We see that something's wrong.
At worst, life continues pretty much as it always has and is generally upward and onward. Things are getting better, as they usually do. Yes, there was a Bronze Age Collapse. Yes, there were the Huns, and the Mongols, and the Turks, and the Black Death, and Yellow Fever ... And, yes, now we have ISIS and new biological threats on the horizon...
But, when Julius Caesar conquered Gaul, he killed one million of them. In one incident, his troops chopped the arms off several thousand captives, and for that, we look to the Great and Glorious Roman Republic cum Empire, Pax Romana - "I found it a city of brick and left it a city of marble," said Octavian Caesar in his dotage.
To understand the difference between that and the skyscrapers of New York City is to grasp the essential attributes of a truly successful civilization versus what Ayn Rand called "monument builders."
Allow me to suggest that we do not perceive large changes while they are rolling forward. No one woke up on Christmas Day 803 and said, "Hey! The Dark Ages are over!" any more than they went to bed on September 4, 476, and said, "Damn, the Dark Ages are here. See you in 375 years. I'm sleeping through this..."
Let me ask you: When was the American Revolution?
See "Knowledge Maps" here http://necessaryfacts.blogspot.com/20...
and
"Visualizing Complex Data" here: http://necessaryfacts.blogspot.com/20...
I hasten to add that personal knowledge based on a background in areas not all of us have examined, researched or accepted instruction in are just as valid a source of opinion as cites or sources from others. Although to be truthful I give no credence to the social science crowd and much more to the hard science groups depending on proven veracity. My own area of Political Science and History has taught me that much.
"I think is not the same as I know."
For the most part, you are certainly correct. But, here comes the "however." History shows us that things change radically for no apparent previous reason. I call it "historical mutations." The only things truly predictable is that predictors will predict.
Not a shred of objectivist here. Just a cup of Hemlock.
The first three were Lenin, Stalin, and the leaders of the Democrat Party. The second was Adolf Hitler. The last sentence was George Goebbels, but I switched Hitler for Obama.
It is the long trail of Plato, Kant Hegel, on to Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Hitler and the leaders of Socialism in the US today featuring George Lakoff and the secular progressives. That line of reasoning did not start with Aristotle and end with. It was 58 degrees F. at seven AM local time. "It ends with give me my orders and I will carry them out." "Shoot yourself." "Bang,":
There is no 'however.' A is A. Objectivist If i hit you in the head with this rock it will hurt. That is true today, it was true yesterday and it will be true tomorrow. A is A. Subjectivist. If i hit myself in the head with that rock it may or may not hurt and because it did nor did not today doesn't mean the same held true yesterday or wil lhold true tomorrow.
But your sentence does have a practical use. Subjectivism leads to dogmatism, the blind faith
that allows men to commit suicide upon order.
History in fact shows us no such thing.and never without reason. There is always a reason for those with the intellect and reasoning ability to go looking for the answer . Predictors I'll leave to the worshipers of the spirit world. These days not even weather forecasters can use that excuse.
Plato was and remains the founder of present day left wing philosophy.....the only thing you are missing is figuring out where the center is. I say not the center of the left but the Constitution. Chirp!
Plato's chain of followers are Kant, Hegel, Neitsche, and in the political world Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, AND Hitler and in the us the Progressive socialists from Woodrow Wilson to Obama and Hillary supported by secular progressives funded by the billionaires Soros and Lewis ....included is the present day Democrat turned Socialist admittedly group and Republicans in name only and by association their supporters ALL have certain beliefs in common.
Government the people in a very socialist sense people as part of a group or collective which is the real entity that counts. One leader one party such as the combination of Democrats and Rinos. Plato exempted certain individuals from the collective group philosophers primarily and that's extended to an elitist ruling class. Nutshell version. Hillary is in fact a secular progressive and their poster girl hand maiden at present. Plato's line of thinking led to pragmatism whatever serves the moment and phrases such as the truth is whatever serves the party.
Aristole's line of thinking led to a country created by an idea..USA...not by force with citizens over government.,...that is what we are losing along with independence, freedom, the right to think and reason and express those thoughts. The right to control government. It also led to objectivist thinking.
Two types of socialism.. National and International for easy labels. The first allows ownership under State Economics meaning tight control of everything also called fascist economics. The second is the government owns and controls everything using Marxist Leninest economics. Both are heavily fascist meaning any and all means to control everything.
Three groups make up the elitists under an overall neo aristocracy which is neo feudalistic in it's beliefs..Government or Statists, Big business or corporatists, Union Leaders (not union members) or some other form of controlling labor at the bottom. State Economics here relies on Keynesian principles. Borrow from the future
Where they are losing control is they forgot one of Keynes requirements in debt economy which was ability to pay the interest. The out - so far - is using a crisis to create inflation, devaluation, and debt repudiation. One form of the latter is devaluing buying power to retirees but not counting the loss in the Cost of Living Allowance instead holding that at or near zero.
thus as matter of percentage the elitists at the top get richer and the rest of us poorer not so much in terms of cash count but in buying power increases and decreases.
Short quick and dirty except for ..get rid of the constitution which they are doing WITHOUT amendment the legal way but by court cases with friendly judges. One thing at a time...
- Same Sex is one
- replacing 'probable cause' with 'suspicion of' another
- dumbing down education and ending up with fascist oriented students a third.
- control of all forms of income was one of the first
- dismantling checks and balances another-
- the military draft system
- laundry list of how it came about
Do you still have the Charger...my last similar was the Plymouth Police Package version.
See if you agree.. with all except the make of the auto...
Conclusions:
The Center is the Constitution not the Center of the Left.
If you support any of the systems or candidates of the left you are supporitng the left
Problem?: The system of selecting candidates and voting is no longer a free and open system but designed to control the eventual outcome where which ever wins is still a left winger. Question: How to regain that and other lost freedoms. I will add voting for anyone else is listed under winner take all as landslide in the opponents favor. no longer an option.
One possibility is mass defection from the system or a vote of no confidence by not voting. Something they are afraid of as the talk now is mandatory voting or a fine. That group now stands at 35 to 45 percent on and off year elections
Second possibility destroy them politically at the roots - locally -
Third possibility - Military upholds their oath of office.
(Note: I'm sure some of our more experienced Gulchers will polish this short version as needed. For the record it was a BMW900 I don't do Harleys. I like systems that work and work for me. The motorcycle analogy of politics and philosophy)
Perhaps some in the Gulch can use the lesson.
A: Harley was here.
Q: If you here somethng like urrrrrRRRRRRrrrrruuuuuuhhhhhhhh h h h h then nothing it indicates?
A: Harley at full throttle.
An old t shirt had the BMW engine as the Starship Enterprise. Twin opposed mounted on a logo'd disc. Busy shooting opposing attack spacecraft with phasers etc. All marked with Kawasaki, Yamaha, Honda and Ducatti logos . The most asked question to it's printed message "Every Star A Sun" was/: Why no Harleys?
A: How you going to shoot something out of space that can't get off the ground?
My friends bought two brand new 100th anniversary Harleys. Driving to Seattle to pick them up the son asked where's mine?
A: "Only room enough in the pick up for two."
Back when Rogue Valley Road Riders of S. Oregon sponsored a Labor Day weekend rally with guided tours each day for a week. One day all the ride leaders rode Harley's. All the assistants rode Hondas or BMW's. Twelve or so tours not one Harley would start. Something about moisture in the air and in the systems. That is a true story.
Q: RING A Ding ding ding ding..silence. Like a fan with a bolt tossed in the blades. What is it?
A: Harley attempting to reach full throttle.
Shall I go on? The rest is self explanatory
How far down is down?
All The Way and then we start building Beemers again.
Now as for SUVs.......Jeeps without diesel engines whose dumb idea was that? Kinda like the Republican party with out Republicans.
http://www.amazon.com/Unsustainable-T...
the States rejecting D.C. fascism secede and drag the others,
kicking and yelling, into the future -- the NEW S. A. -- j
.
The are both from the Left, both believe in government over people, collectivism, etc etc. ad. nauseum both the last two from the right wing of the left instituted the police state.
The center - believers in the Constitution and the near right or near left (Libertarians) who believe in Citizens over Government have no candidate and if they did would there candidate appear on the ballot or would it be top two vote getters from the primaries only with the rest excluded.
Never mind those two categories have no candidate and if they did would be so busy squabbling and debating it wouldn't matter
.
So let's change the question to 'Besides voting for what is in your opinion is the lesser of two evils - two left wing socialist fascist leaning candidates and a flock of similar ones for Congress and by doing doing so putting yourself in the group that supports evil - what other choices do you have?
A. Write In ballot or possibly third part in some states - Winner takes all will claim them even though the winner was the individual you were voting against. For seven years there are no statistics kept for those candidates no way of measuring them. They have been legally marginalized.
B. The only choice left besides voting for evil and continuing the slide to the left is do not vote. Being registered and not voting in poly sci terms is called the 'undervote.' It's a measurement of lack of confidence and serves to replace the idea of None Of The Above.
Even in elections where it causes winner by a plurality not a majority it is not counted under our current rules of elections.
If you google up the definition of one party elections or the move from multi party to two strong others weak parties to two party it inevitably ends up as one party with two faces, forms, or wings.
That's where we are now.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...
The danger lies when the two dominant parties become joined at the hip through cross-partisanship or bi-partisan ship or other such marriages of convenience AND espouse similar viewpoints and support the same end goals.
Republicans as socialist coporatist/statist and Democrats as sociaist statist/corporatists have done exactly that ending up as The Government Party in favor of Government Over People.
Follow the link to the little chart and pay attention to the section at 11 o'clock that says ' further makes rules to perpetuate itself'
So is it a Republican Government or is it a Socialist Republican Government?
The way out of this trap is repudiating the definition of center as center of the Left and return it to the Constitution as the Center of the Country.
Repudiation of the current voting system does not come from supporting it in any of it's left wing flavors. It comes when the majority refuse to play their game and make their reasons known.
What good does that do?
It's a clear signal to the military - remember them? Our Sons and Daughters - to honor their oath of office as they have the legal right and the legal duty and the responsibility of protecting and defending the Constitution and NOTHING else.
When a majority of the nation has refused to participate in the left wing version of voting that tells the military it's time to conduct what might be called a counter revolution.
That's the in place system but it takes a clear signal from the public.
It's also why there is a huge movement to put mandatory voting into law. As it short circuits that final protection.
Don't vote for either side and ask the military to do their duty.
You have the balls to do that we get our country back if not welcome to the USSA
Join me! Secession of the States and Civil War if need be!
Insanity humanity.
Which leaves the government of Obama in peril as it's legitimacy has been repudiated by a clear vote of no confidence.
How many of the other states the remaining 24 are scheduled to receive refugees or immigrants?
How many of the minority states are not scheduled to receive any of the immigrants. How many are being economically blackmailed by the Obama Government? How many have been threatened and withstood those pressures?
How many of you trust, really trust, the Government to conduct a proper vetting or to follow some plan that puts those more immediately capable of passing a security check at the top of the list? If it's speed you want and security that's how you get it.
Or will Obamists say one thing and do another to retain power perhaps with more of care less Kerry's secret side deals and by the way. Wha this happening now this crisis has claimed the front pages from that crisis?
The best course of action is to follow the footsteps of the parliamentary governments. When the nation has no confidence - resign. Admit your failure and admit your shame. You've already committed political suicide.
Syrian refugees not welcome in 31 U.S. states - CNN.com
www.cnn.com/2015/11/16/world/paris-at...
6 days ago - More than half the nation's governors say Syrian refugees not welcome. ... (CNN)More than half the nation's governors say they oppose letting Syrian refugees into their states, although the final say on this contentious immigration issue will fall to the federal government.
Sometimes it's the only game in town. Even if the game is fixed you can't win if you don't play.
The inscription on the Statue of Liberty should be changed from "huddle masses yearning to breathe free" to "befuddled asses yearning to receive freebies".
Will we as a nation wake up after 0's reign of terror ends and will who ever succeeds him actually come to the realization that 0 has led the country down hill and they will really have to deal with the population of people like us.
If we don't, there is almost no hope.
I'm retired and primarily living on savings. Who knows how long that will be viable. Will you all be so kind as to support me? I think I'd swallow the end of my S&W before that happens.
All the planning, work, saving only to have some jerks in DC screw you.
The very definition of the vicious circle.