BillFitzmaurice.info

Bill Fitzmaurice wrote:

el_ingeniero wrote: Ammunition is also registered.

Chris Rock got it right. Guns don't kill people, bullets do. Let everyone have a gun. Price the ammunition at $100 per bullet.

And I don't need a BFM sound system to make 110 decibels at 100' from the stage. I have a voice box.

Bill Fitzmaurice wrote:

Well, it would appear that the hardcore rioters, who have a strong anti-government message, have been defeated by rain

It also appears that the main component of the rioters is, surprise surprise, unemployed young men. And the main anti-government message? That the dole has been cut and they want it back.
The cure for the lack of jobs for these losers?
Switzerland does require that every member of the militia (pretty much every adult male between the ages of 20 and 30)

Yep. That would be the cure, because you really don't want to train several million young men in modern warfare without making sure they can make a decent living without using their weapons.

If the system doesn't show loyalty to them, the system isn't justified in expecting their loyalty. Obedience without loyalty is slavery.

DJPhatman wrote: Amazon UK has just reported a 5000% increase in aluminum baseball bats, and police-style batons. Yes, children, that is five thousand percent!

Poms buying baseball bats.

Thread Title: It seems that England has fallen apart.

That in itself is self explanatory - no riots even necessary

However Amazon do not give the proper statistics. From one baseball bat a year to 50 is also 5,000 percent

Anyhow, this is my one and only post on the matter - too political in this forum for my liking.

el_ingeniero wrote: Yep. That would be the cure, because you really don't want to train several million young men in modern warfare without making sure they can make a decent living without using their weapons.

If the system doesn't show loyalty to them, the system isn't justified in expecting their loyalty. Obedience without loyalty is slavery.

Yeah, those war mongering Swiss have quite the nerve don't they.

National service isn't about warfare, it's about service to the nation. Keep that in mind the next time the National Guard comes to the aid of disaster victims. Military training isn't about warfare either, it's about discipline and teamwork, traits that are useful throughout life, not just for a two year stint. And the system isn't obligated to provide anyone with a job, just the freedom to do whatever you want so long as it doesn't infringe on anyone else's rights to do what they want.

cheapbasslovin wrote:

bzb wrote:I see, so you're fine with giving other people's money away, just not yours.

Actually I believe there are very few people paying their fair share in taxes, including myself, but I'll be damned if I'm going to be the only one falling on my sword and overpaying (adequately paying). The national debt didn't create itself.

Bill, you got where I was going.

The point isn't that people aren't cheating on their taxes, or working the insanely complex and flawed tax system, or folks paying whatever your definition of "fair share" is - considering those on welfare pay zero - it's that you're willing to attempt to "fix" the education system by throwing more money at it... as long as it's someone else's since you don't pay much into that system.

The national debt was caused by that kind of thinking. "Spend more money on xxx social service - but not my money. Take it from those rich people, who already pay more than half of the tax collected."

Then when we figure out we can't support throwing out money to everyone and everything, the politicians will cut things out of the budget, and a riot happens. Until the rain comes, apparently.


As a centrist who frequently votes Libertarian, it's increasingly difficult to continue living in this country. The two-party, "political royalty" system is difficult to overcome, and both sides just want to spend us into oblivion, albeit with different end goals on where that money goes. We need to go back to being the innovators, the leaders, and the ones willing to take risks, rather than just point to another flawed system that's already in place "over there" and try it out in our far more diverse country.

I love my country, but I'm at a loss at what to do. I don't want to have riots in the streets because welfare checks were cut.

bzb wrote:
The national debt was caused by that kind of thinking.

The debt doubled during GWs tenure in office, which also corresponded with a Republican controlled Congress. Don't lose sight of that fact. There's plenty of blame to go around.

Oh absolutely, I blame the entire system for most of the issues plaguing our country. There is no label, whether Democrat or Republican, for "good politician in Washington." It's the primary reason I vote Libertarian, even if I don't agree with their stance 100%... it's better than the alternative.

Even then, it was still the same thinking of "use someone else's money" when Bush was spending it. Plenty of pet projects and irresponsible spending.

The only major difference was they had no real plan of getting the money from anyone, rather than target the rich.

bzb wrote:Oh absolutely, I blame the entire system for most of the issues plaguing our country. There is no label, whether Democrat or Republican, for "good politician in Washington." It's the primary reason I vote Libertarian, even if I don't agree with their stance 100%... it's better than the alternative.

Even then, it was still the same thinking of "use someone else's money" when Bush was spending it. Plenty of pet projects and irresponsible spending.

The only major difference was they had no real plan of getting the money from anyone, rather than target the rich.

The Bush Tax Cuts hardly targeted the rich. Not that it matters that they rewarded their contributor base, as that's not the problem. It's the corporate structure that's AFU; investigate why GE paid less in taxes than I did.

bzb wrote: The point isn't that people aren't cheating on their taxes, or working the insanely complex and flawed tax system, or folks paying whatever your definition of "fair share" is - considering those on welfare pay zero - it's that you're willing to attempt to "fix" the education system by throwing more money at it... as long as it's someone else's since you don't pay much into that system.

I'm going to give an analogy and I know you aren't going to agree with it, but this is what I believe and where I am coming from:

I'm going to build myself a pair of t39s and they are going to be the greatest things ever. I can't really afford BB so I'm going to pick up some 3/8 cdx, I think it should work fine. I've gotten to the point where I need some drivers and that 3012LF is pretty steep, so I'm going to walmart and picking myself up a car audio woofer since it's cheaper and speakers are all the same. I am also going to avoid the crossover since the speaker should be allowed to breath.

Now my rig sounds like crap, I ask the forum why and they suggest I use all the recommended materials, but why would I want to put more money into something that isn't working? I'm going to go buy some JBL stuff.

I believe it isn't working in part because it is underfunded. You can't fix underfunding without... funding. It's that simple. IMO.

Here in Pahrump, you can still walk around with a gun on your hip, provided that you have the proper permit (very easy to get). I don't do it, but a LOT of people do, and it's not a problem HERE. It's not at all unusual to walk into a local store and see the person behind the counter "packin heat". Most of the people you see sporting a gun appear to be "law abiding" plain folk, not thugs. Some businesses have signs stating that you can't wear your gun into their establishment, but most don't! Like I said, I don't carry a gun around, but I have no problem at all with those who do ... HERE.

I hope this situation over in the UK isn't an indicator that events like this may happen more frequently, and on a larger scale, as the economy of many major countries continue to plummet. The US economy is in dire straights, and a lot of people are at wit's end about it. This event in the UK may mostly be low-lifes, but how long can plain folk hold-out before they also revolt?

Bill Fitzmaurice wrote:

bzb wrote:Oh absolutely, I blame the entire system for most of the issues plaguing our country. There is no label, whether Democrat or Republican, for "good politician in Washington." It's the primary reason I vote Libertarian, even if I don't agree with their stance 100%... it's better than the alternative.

Even then, it was still the same thinking of "use someone else's money" when Bush was spending it. Plenty of pet projects and irresponsible spending.

The only major difference was they had no real plan of getting the money from anyone, rather than target the rich.

The Bush Tax Cuts hardly targeted the rich. Not that it matters that they rewarded their contributor base, as that's not the problem. It's the corporate structure that's AFU; investigate why GE paid less in taxes than I did.

I still believe corporate tax isn't where we/they/anyone should be looking for tax revenue, anyway. My corporation pays zero effective tax. I just pass on any of that to my customers, it's part of my calculated overhead.

Any time the company I work for is taxed further, there's some sort of other charge that appears on the customers' bill.

I'm not defending corporations breaking the law or their insanely corrupt lobbyist organizations (with their dealings with the politicians) - I'm just saying that the consumers of this country are ultimately paying the taxes, anyway.

cheapbasslovin wrote:

bzb wrote: The point isn't that people aren't cheating on their taxes, or working the insanely complex and flawed tax system, or folks paying whatever your definition of "fair share" is - considering those on welfare pay zero - it's that you're willing to attempt to "fix" the education system by throwing more money at it... as long as it's someone else's since you don't pay much into that system.

I'm going to give an analogy and I know you aren't going to agree with it, but this is what I believe and where I am coming from:

I'm going to build myself a pair of t39s and they are going to be the greatest things ever. I can't really afford BB so I'm going to pick up some 3/8 cdx, I think it should work fine. I've gotten to the point where I need some drivers and that 3012LF is pretty steep, so I'm going to walmart and picking myself up a car audio woofer since it's cheaper and speakers are all the same. I am also going to avoid the crossover since the speaker should be allowed to breath.

Now my rig sounds like crap, I ask the forum why and they suggest I use all the recommended materials, but why would I want to put more money into something that isn't working? I'm going to go buy some JBL stuff.

I believe it isn't working in part because it is underfunded. You can't fix underfunding without... funding. It's that simple. IMO.

And here's my analogy in part, then:

I'm want some T39s, but I can't afford any of it. So I'm just going to make you pay for it by voting in my guy, and he'll use the force of the law and a gun to make you pay for it. Then I'll use them. Thanks.

Actually, I won't even bother saying thanks, either. You owe me simply because I exist.

The education system ISN'T underfunded. The funds are simply being misappropriated. Throwing more money at it won't fix the underlying problem.

Secondarily, teachers AREN'T worth more. Yes, I believe they are valuable members of our community. But you don't have to be super economist guy with 9 degrees to understand supply and demand. It's the same reason why we pay marketing kids $25k a year, when they're clearly responsible for millions in revenue. On the other hand, top teachers ARE sought, and they ARE paid more than most, and the top ones are paid $70k+. The majority of teachers in this country just "get by" and think they're doing the world some gigantic favor (a common attitude with many government employees).

You want undeniable proof that you're completely thinking backward on this subject? You do know that private school kids outperform public school kids, right? That's a statistic you don't deny, correct?

Well, private school teachers are paid less than public school teachers. Private schools also operate on less money per student.



On an unrelated note, I don't know how you guys roped me back into this.

Bill Fitzmaurice wrote:

el_ingeniero wrote: Yep. That would be the cure, because you really don't want to train several million young men in modern warfare without making sure they can make a decent living without using their weapons.

If the system doesn't show loyalty to them, the system isn't justified in expecting their loyalty. Obedience without loyalty is slavery.

Yeah, those war mongering Swiss have quite the nerve don't they.

National service isn't about warfare, it's about service to the nation. Keep that in mind the next time the National Guard comes to the aid of disaster victims. Military training isn't about warfare either, it's about discipline and teamwork, traits that are useful throughout life, not just for a two year stint. And the system isn't obligated to provide anyone with a job, just the freedom to do whatever you want so long as it doesn't infringe on anyone else's rights to do what they want.

Let me restate myself: A nation that doesn't take steps to make sure that everyone has an opportunity at a decent life, isn't a nation that ought to expect positive outcomes from national service.

Switzerland has an unemployment rate of 2.8%, $20,000 more GDP per capita than the US, inflation at less than 1%, and a distribution of income like the US had in the 60's.

Contrast that to the US, where unemployment stands at well over 15% using realistic measures, inflation is rising, and we have a distribution of income more like a banana republic.

Switzerland makes very sure that their citizens have skin in the game. The US has pretty much made it certain that certain people may not participate in the economy (shipping their jobs overseas), and moreover connives at allowing Wall Street and corporate elites to strip mine the economy here.

bzb wrote:You want undeniable proof that you're completely thinking backward on this subject? You do know that private school kids outperform public school kids, right? That's a statistic you don't deny, correct?

After controlling for socioeconomic status, not so much difference between public and private schools. Private schools have parents more likely to invest in their children's education, have students with better medical and dietary supports, etc. The sol difference seems to be the private schools seem to do a more to develop critical thinking abilities, that's all.

bzb wrote:Well, private school teachers are paid less than public school teachers. Private schools also operate on less money per student.

The best performing schools seem to be Catholic outfits run by holy orders. Teachers who adhere to vows of poverty are going to skew salary statistics somewhat. While we're at it, a good number of schools run by hard-core religious type have teachers that can't work in public schools because they aren't certified, said teachers being volunteers married to a breadearner. Not objecting, just saying.

There's so much going on here I don't even know where to begin.

Based on your analogy, bzb, it sounds like you think public education is a bad thing. If that is the case then I can pretty well stop chatting with you right now. Public education is a good thing, and a necessary thing for our nation to grow and be competitive. For all the points en ingeniero made and more they are not worse performing than private schools, at least not if on a level playing field. If you want the nation to continue to move toward a super rich class and a working poor class with little in between, killing public eduacation is the way to go.

One thing that I have found troubling about your arguments is the way you lump all people in a classification and assert that they all think or behave in some substandard way. The culture of the poor, the attitude of government workers, most of the teachers feel like they are doing the world a favor, etc. How do you come to your conclusions about 'all those people'. I really doubt that you have met enough of them to form a truly educated opinion, and I doubt that you have anything more than a gut feeling pushing you to believe that. You focus on how everyone is working really hard to screw up the system, when you don't have any evidence to push that forward.

I can't speak to your specific corporation, but on the whole, corporations are trying to make as much money as they can. It's why they exist. If they can get a savings from the government (or anywhere else) and not pass that on to the customers they will happily do that. If they have effective monopolies, it becomes easy to do that. Many corporations are sitting on fatloads of cash, not dropping their prices, not hiring, and not paying taxes. There is no incentive for them to do anything but absorb money. Targeted taxes and an altered foreign policy would give those businesses an incentive to invest in their business, creating jobs and reducing the need for your loathed 'welfare state'. It isn't about being Robin Hood (which is strange, because Robin Hood was supposed to be a bit of a hero when I was growing up), it is about creating a system where the nation gets invested in, either with private or public money.

el_ingeniero wrote:After controlling for socioeconomic status, not so much difference between public and private schools. Private schools have parents more likely to invest in their children's education, have students with better medical and dietary supports, etc. The sol difference seems to be the private schools seem to do a more to develop critical thinking abilities, that's all.

You can adjust raw statistics all you want to provide a controlled group to prove your point, but by doing so you're ignoring the fact that you can't force a culture change by running numbers. IMHO, an economist manipulating raw data to prove a point is akin to being a politician.

Even at private schools with the richest, most affluent parents... you can't force a kid to go to school and succeed when s/he doesn't want to. That's the part you're ignoring. In poorer neighborhoods, there is NOT the same emphasis on education, and success is not determined by going to a good college and getting a good job. Lawyers and doctors and business people are not respected in these neighborhoods. Drug dealers and gang leaders are. There has to be a total revolution at the extremely local level. That can't start in Washington. It needs to start in East Point, in Watts, in Englewood, in Sterling Heights. What works in affluent sections of Atlanta, LA, Chicago, and Detroit simply isn't going to work in the poorer districts.

The beginning of your second sentence is what makes the biggest difference. All of this is stuff that people control, not the government. Many people in this country do not put a priority on maintaining their bodies. That's not the government's fault, nor its responsibility. It's certainly not anyone else's.