Wow, ! Talk about conspiracy theories. I guess there's no better site than ATS for it. A really interesting read but I think the author supposes quite a bit that may not actually be true still his theory is no more ludicrious than anyone elses. When it comes to his theory of moving the US government's role back to only defense and law enforcement, (as the constitution intended) I think he may be onto something. It sure seems thats the way its going but we are still so overwhelmed with social programs, I doubt they will ever be totally gone. I think social security is one which could stay as well as unemployment insurance and medicare (although it really needs restructuring).

Originally posted by astrocreep
Wow, ! Talk about conspiracy theories. I guess there's no better site than ATS for it. A really interesting read but I think the author supposes quite a bit that may not actually be true still his theory is no more ludicrious than anyone elses. When it comes to his theory of moving the US government's role back to only defense and law enforcement, (as the constitution intended) I think he may be onto something. It sure seems thats the way its going but we are still so overwhelmed with social programs, I doubt they will ever be totally gone. I think social security is one which could stay as well as unemployment insurance and medicare (although it really needs restructuring).

Is not guessing that much, at least shows in any case the logical, it may be that something is not completely accurate, but i believe in the article.
About social programs, just give time to time, more to the rich less for everybody.

I'm glad you brought this post back up C.A. I was just thinking of it while hearing that Washington is prime to sign the largest increase in social programs in 40 years. It seems the president is actually going the opposite way from which this article suggest by increasing government's responsibilities in entitlement programs. It seems the Dems, not calculating this move are scrabbling to keep their issue theirs.

Originally posted by astrocreep
I'm glad you brought this post back up C.A. I was just thinking of it while hearing that Washington is prime to sign the largest increase in social programs in 40 years. It seems the president is actually going the opposite way from which this article suggest by increasing government's responsibilities in entitlement programs. It seems the Dems, not calculating this move are scrabbling to keep their issue theirs.

too much increase for the debt that US is suffering, debt that must be paid by all the citizens, which already are paying 50% in total *media* of their salaries just to pay fed tax...
Don't know how this will go but i think it doesn't make a lot of sense....
And with the federal bank buffff, it's owning america and it's citizens, just 2% of the americans own their homes, that is scary

Well, C.A., I can't say I'm excited about paying for drugs for all seniors, even the wealthy , but we have always been a country of conscious when it comes to those that can't feed, cloth, and shelter themselves. Even if they are able but just unwilling or lazy and it seems we are now developing a society that will get anything it claims it needs, whether its a neccesity or not, on the dime of those who do earn their way only to see half their earnings taken away to distribute to those who feel somehow entitled to it by nothing more than virtue of being born. Many in our country see no shame in someone else paying their way. They refer to welfare checks as "my check" and "my money" and if its late, someone will swing for it like they had earned it. I could never sleep until noon, role out of bed with a drug needle still in my arm, walk by my 5 half-starved kids on my way out to spend my welfare check on more drugs all the while cursing "the man" for "keepin me down". If we end that ideology, we end all our problems.