Mainecoons
09-02-2012, 08:03 PM
A Little Rebellion Now and Then Is A Good Thing
Thomas Jefferson thought a little rebellion occassionally was a good thing. I'm not sure what he thought about a full revolution.
Do I think that the US is going to undergo a revolution? Yes, I do. I think it is inevitable and I don't think it will be all that long in coming.
There is actually a formula that some historian devised. When the popularity of the government goes below 17%, revolutions generally take place. Congress is below that now.
There's a promo for the movie "Hunger Games". In the promo, a guy advises one of the contestants "The way to survive is for people to like you". Works the same way in government.
Governments always think that they can control their people with force and intimidation but it never works out that way. Go look at Syria. Don't sell any life insurance policies on the leader of Syria, he's a walking dead man. It may take a bit longer but he is history.
The Russian government got a rude lesson in that in 1999. The government called in the army and the army came with their tanks. The only problem was that the tank commanders parked the tanks, cut them off and climbed up on the turrents and watched the politicians slug it out. When they cranked the tanks again, there was a new government in Russia,
No one likes governments but they are necessary evils. Protecting the nation with a military and providing a justice system are necessary. Everything beyond that is just meddling and is not really necessary. There has to be a mechanism for funding but it doesn't have to be intrusive. A sales tax or property tax will work quite well.
Go back and look at 1900. The country was 125 years old and doing pretty well. There was no Social Security, Medicade, medicare, or income tax. The country was solvent. There was none of the "alphabet agencies". No FBI, TSA, ICE, HSA, EPA etc. The country wasn't falling apart, it was growing. So, the US could live without all that stuff.
In fact, the US could probably live without a standing military. Switzerland does and even Hitler had better sense than to attack it.
Governments tend to grow and expand whether it is needed or not. NYC has 10MM people and 35,000 police. NJ recently caught NYC cops in NJ spying on NJ citizens and they were also caught in upstate NY doing the same thing. You would think that keeping the peace in 10MM citizens would be enought to keep them busy. But no, there they are in NJ with no jurisdiction expanding their reach.
Governments survive by either buying their existance (Lower taxes, bigger checks) or intimidation (police, military, TSA, HSA etc). Generally, they use both.
I was in Puerto Rico one April and the government was running ads showing government infrastructure projects and asking that people pay their taxes. In the US, the IRS always prosecutes some celebrity just before tax time. Same deal, different approach.
The most popular approach by governments to stay in power is government handouts. When the "Arab Spring" was in full swing, the Saudi government announced a new program, gave all of its citizens a few thousand and had no problems. The US gives longer unemployment, larger SS checks, easier food stamps, easier welfare etc. This always works well until the taxpayers revolt or the checks stop. Then the jig is up and you have Greece. In Greece, the tax base is collapsing. Tax collectors went to one of the islands to check receipts. The people met them at the dock and wouldn't let them off the boat.
This is nothing new. In ancient Rome, the government raised taxes so much that farmers couldn't grow enough crops to even pay the taxes, much less live, so they left. The tax base folded, the army wasn't paid so they quit and the barbarians walked in and took over.
Revolutions are unpredictable. The Russians have had 2 in recent times. In 1917, they took the Tsar and his whole family to the woods, shot them and buried them in shallow graves. In 1999, it was so peaceful that it almost escaped my notice.
Once bullets start flying, most of the time the government is cooked. Syria, Lybia, Egypt are all examples. The reason is simple, math. There's always more civilians than government.
The trick to keeping a government together is to keep unemployment down, keep the standard of living up and don't annoy the citizens too much. The US is losing on all counts. The other big thing is to have a neutral justice system. The US is losing the impression that justice is neutral in the US.
There was a story on Drudge this week where the US was after an 83 year old man for not filing an FBAR declaration. The deal is 5 years and $10,000 fine. Right below it was a list of government employees caught for a litany of crimes from child pornography to drug dealing to assisting illegals enter the country and the worst was 2 years in jail. I have no idea what else the 83 year old was into but people who read that were not happy. They see it as a double standard and they are probably right.
Right now, the US is only surviving because it is borrowing $1.2T ayear and spending it. It is paying the employees and giving the rest out to anyone who will keep them in office; corporations, banks, states, and citizens. If the money flow stops, the US is history. And, eventually, the money will stop.
The worst thing that a politician can do is to promise too much. Watching the campaign, both candidates are guilty. Hollander in France did that and in 90 days, his approval rating has dropped into the 20s.
Neither candidate can deliver what the American people want. The world has changed. The unemployment is going to get worse, the standard of living is going to revert back to the baseline and growth is going to stagnate or go negative. Neither candidate can cut spending, raise taxes or decrease borrowing without severe pain. I don't care who gets elected, at the end of their term, household income is going to be lower, unemployment will be the same or higher, the debt will be greater and the percentage of working age people actually working will be lower. And the American people will not be happy.
Maybe the next president will finish his term, maybe not. It will only take something unexpected coming along to start the ball rolling. Maybe a cop will shoot someone in a demonstration. Maybe the bank failures in Europe will bleed over. Who knows? Maybe one of the broke cities will file BK and the retirement checks will stop and a demonstration start and get out of hand. Or, it could just be a fruit vendor setting himself on fire in frustration. That's all it took to ignite the "Arab Spring".
At some point, a historian will sit down and write about the rise and fall of America. I think he will pinpoint the start of the fall around 2000. I think that is the point where the downfall really took off. He will point to somewhere around 1965 as the peak. The ending will be interesting to read.
I have no idea when the revolution will take place, what form it will take or what the outcome will be, but it is coming.
The problem with revolutions is that they are unpredictable. Do you think that the Americans had decded to toss the British out when the American revolution started? They just didn't want the British taking their guns. Once the bullets started flying, it just got out of hand. At that point, most of the Americans wanted to part of the British Empire.
The US is a large, diverse country. A revolution might turn into a civil war and the country might break up. No matter what happens, a revolution will weaken the US. You never see a country come out of a revolution stronger.
Thomas Jefferson thought a little rebellion occassionally was a good thing. I'm not sure what he thought about a full revolution.
Do I think that the US is going to undergo a revolution? Yes, I do. I think it is inevitable and I don't think it will be all that long in coming.
There is actually a formula that some historian devised. When the popularity of the government goes below 17%, revolutions generally take place. Congress is below that now.
There's a promo for the movie "Hunger Games". In the promo, a guy advises one of the contestants "The way to survive is for people to like you". Works the same way in government.
Governments always think that they can control their people with force and intimidation but it never works out that way. Go look at Syria. Don't sell any life insurance policies on the leader of Syria, he's a walking dead man. It may take a bit longer but he is history.
The Russian government got a rude lesson in that in 1999. The government called in the army and the army came with their tanks. The only problem was that the tank commanders parked the tanks, cut them off and climbed up on the turrents and watched the politicians slug it out. When they cranked the tanks again, there was a new government in Russia,
No one likes governments but they are necessary evils. Protecting the nation with a military and providing a justice system are necessary. Everything beyond that is just meddling and is not really necessary. There has to be a mechanism for funding but it doesn't have to be intrusive. A sales tax or property tax will work quite well.
Go back and look at 1900. The country was 125 years old and doing pretty well. There was no Social Security, Medicade, medicare, or income tax. The country was solvent. There was none of the "alphabet agencies". No FBI, TSA, ICE, HSA, EPA etc. The country wasn't falling apart, it was growing. So, the US could live without all that stuff.
In fact, the US could probably live without a standing military. Switzerland does and even Hitler had better sense than to attack it.
Governments tend to grow and expand whether it is needed or not. NYC has 10MM people and 35,000 police. NJ recently caught NYC cops in NJ spying on NJ citizens and they were also caught in upstate NY doing the same thing. You would think that keeping the peace in 10MM citizens would be enought to keep them busy. But no, there they are in NJ with no jurisdiction expanding their reach.
Governments survive by either buying their existance (Lower taxes, bigger checks) or intimidation (police, military, TSA, HSA etc). Generally, they use both.
I was in Puerto Rico one April and the government was running ads showing government infrastructure projects and asking that people pay their taxes. In the US, the IRS always prosecutes some celebrity just before tax time. Same deal, different approach.
The most popular approach by governments to stay in power is government handouts. When the "Arab Spring" was in full swing, the Saudi government announced a new program, gave all of its citizens a few thousand and had no problems. The US gives longer unemployment, larger SS checks, easier food stamps, easier welfare etc. This always works well until the taxpayers revolt or the checks stop. Then the jig is up and you have Greece. In Greece, the tax base is collapsing. Tax collectors went to one of the islands to check receipts. The people met them at the dock and wouldn't let them off the boat.
This is nothing new. In ancient Rome, the government raised taxes so much that farmers couldn't grow enough crops to even pay the taxes, much less live, so they left. The tax base folded, the army wasn't paid so they quit and the barbarians walked in and took over.
Revolutions are unpredictable. The Russians have had 2 in recent times. In 1917, they took the Tsar and his whole family to the woods, shot them and buried them in shallow graves. In 1999, it was so peaceful that it almost escaped my notice.
Once bullets start flying, most of the time the government is cooked. Syria, Lybia, Egypt are all examples. The reason is simple, math. There's always more civilians than government.
The trick to keeping a government together is to keep unemployment down, keep the standard of living up and don't annoy the citizens too much. The US is losing on all counts. The other big thing is to have a neutral justice system. The US is losing the impression that justice is neutral in the US.
There was a story on Drudge this week where the US was after an 83 year old man for not filing an FBAR declaration. The deal is 5 years and $10,000 fine. Right below it was a list of government employees caught for a litany of crimes from child pornography to drug dealing to assisting illegals enter the country and the worst was 2 years in jail. I have no idea what else the 83 year old was into but people who read that were not happy. They see it as a double standard and they are probably right.
Right now, the US is only surviving because it is borrowing $1.2T ayear and spending it. It is paying the employees and giving the rest out to anyone who will keep them in office; corporations, banks, states, and citizens. If the money flow stops, the US is history. And, eventually, the money will stop.
The worst thing that a politician can do is to promise too much. Watching the campaign, both candidates are guilty. Hollander in France did that and in 90 days, his approval rating has dropped into the 20s.
Neither candidate can deliver what the American people want. The world has changed. The unemployment is going to get worse, the standard of living is going to revert back to the baseline and growth is going to stagnate or go negative. Neither candidate can cut spending, raise taxes or decrease borrowing without severe pain. I don't care who gets elected, at the end of their term, household income is going to be lower, unemployment will be the same or higher, the debt will be greater and the percentage of working age people actually working will be lower. And the American people will not be happy.
Maybe the next president will finish his term, maybe not. It will only take something unexpected coming along to start the ball rolling. Maybe a cop will shoot someone in a demonstration. Maybe the bank failures in Europe will bleed over. Who knows? Maybe one of the broke cities will file BK and the retirement checks will stop and a demonstration start and get out of hand. Or, it could just be a fruit vendor setting himself on fire in frustration. That's all it took to ignite the "Arab Spring".
At some point, a historian will sit down and write about the rise and fall of America. I think he will pinpoint the start of the fall around 2000. I think that is the point where the downfall really took off. He will point to somewhere around 1965 as the peak. The ending will be interesting to read.
I have no idea when the revolution will take place, what form it will take or what the outcome will be, but it is coming.
The problem with revolutions is that they are unpredictable. Do you think that the Americans had decded to toss the British out when the American revolution started? They just didn't want the British taking their guns. Once the bullets started flying, it just got out of hand. At that point, most of the Americans wanted to part of the British Empire.
The US is a large, diverse country. A revolution might turn into a civil war and the country might break up. No matter what happens, a revolution will weaken the US. You never see a country come out of a revolution stronger.