Catching Wild Pigs

[Ron61]

When will American's learn the truth.... watch out who you vote for......

There was a chemistry professor in a large college that had some exchange students in the class.. One day while the class was in the lab the Prof noticed one young man (exchange student) who kept rubbing his back and stretching as if his back hurt.

The professor asked the young man what was the matter. The student told him he had a bullet lodged in his back. He had been shot while fighting communists in his native country who were trying to overthrow his country's government and install a new communist government.

In the midst of his story he looked at the professor and asked a strange question. He asked, ' Do you know how to catch wild pigs?'

The professor thought it was a joke and asked for the punch line. The young man said this was no joke. 'You catch wild pigs by finding a suitable place in the woods and putting corn on the ground. The pigs find it and begin to come everyday to eat the free corn. When they are used to coming every day, you put a fence down one side of the place where they are used to coming. When they get used to the fence, they begin to eat the corn again and you put up another side of the fence. They get used to that and start to eat again. You continue until you have all four sides of the fence up with a gate in The last side. The pigs, who are used to the free corn, start to come through the gate to eat, you slam the gate on them a n d catch the whole herd.

Suddenly the wild pigs have lost their freedom. They run around and around inside the fence, but they are caught. Soon they go back to eating the free corn. They are so used to it that they have forgotten how to forage in the woods for themselves, so they accept their captivity.

The young man then told the professor that is exactly what he sees happening to America . The government keeps pushing us toward socialism and keeps spreading the free corn out in the form of programs such as supplemental income, tax credit for unearned income, tobacco subsidies, dairy subsidies, payments not to plant crops (CRP), welfare, medicine, drugs, free medical, etc. while we continually lose our freedoms - just a little at a time.

One should always remember 'There is no such thing as a free lunch! Also, a politician will never provide a service for you cheaper than you can do it yourself.

Also, if you see that all of this wonderful government 'help' is a problem confronting the future of democracy in America , you might want to send this on to your friends. If you think the free ride is essential to your way of life then you will probably delete this email, but God help you when the gate slams shut!

'A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have.' ....... Thomas Jefferson

Ron

[J. T. Toad]

Don't forget that we will soon need a permit to get a permit to get a government approved permitted knife in order to 'harvest' the pig on the day in which we have a permit to harvest pigs.... now that I write this, I would imagine we would need to get a permit to have an inspector insure the harvesting was done correctly.

[J. T. Toad]

BTW, considering today's tax structure I, respectfully, would have to disagree with the unearned tax credit.

Go flat tax!

[trularin]

I just shoot them.

[427 S/O]

J.T., I sure wish the 'flat tax' would gain some momentum, I think?. There are a couple more out there but I don't know enought about them to make a decision?.

[meat]

Originally Posted by Ron61

'A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have.' ....... Thomas Jefferson

Bro. Gerald Ford said that when addressing Congress back in 1974.

Jefferson, Barry Goldwater and even Ronald Reagan have been mistakenly credited with that quote.

Doesn't take anything away from the story, though! Good one!

Your pal,
Meat.

[Ron61]

Meat,

I just posted what I received. I don't bother to look to see if the quote is correct as most of the story I felt was quite on the mark. Having know Jefferson and how he had a penchant to say things at times without thinking, I wouldn't have put it past him to say something like that. After all, back in those times most of the people were considered radicals if not downright traitors to England. Thank God for them and their nerve to stand up to the crap then. Wish our leaders had that kind of nerve today.

Ron

[meat]

Originally Posted by Ron61

Wish our leaders had that kind of nerve today.

TRUE leaders do have that kind of nerve. I believe that George W. Bush has that kind of nerve. Look at the work he's done and the continued way he runs the country. Reading the newspapers, I can see where the weak link is:

"Democrats Complain..." - New York Times
"Democrats Complain..." - Washinton Post
"Leading Senate Democrats today accused..." - New York Times
"three Democrats are charging..." - The Raw Story
"Spending bills move; Democrats complain..." - Nation
"Democratic lawmakers are complaining" - Topix
"Democrats complain..." - Radio Iowa
"Democrats Complain..." - Fox News
"Democrats Complain..." - CNN
"Democrats accused..." - Reuters
"The Democratic Party of New Mexico is accusing..." - Free New Mexican
"Democrats accuse Bush..." - New York Times
"Democrats accuse Bush..." - Science Magazine
"Democrats accuse... - San Francisco Chronicle

For a party that had a "First 100 Days" plan and promised that we'd be out of Iraq within 6 weeks after taking control of Congress a year ago, and that they'd "stop Bush" ... well, let's just say that - in reviewing the Congressional Record - the only thing they've done (besides name Post Offices and bridges) is complain and accuse. Lots of posturing, virtually no substance. It's pretty easy to see where the problems in Washington stem from.

Bush, on the other hand, has continued to get everything he planned on. No complaining. No accusing. He let the Democrats build their own fences and lock their own doors...

Your pal,
Meat.

[AMF]

Originally Posted by 427 S/O

J.T., I sure wish the 'flat tax' would gain some momentum, I think?. There are a couple more out there but I don't know enought about them to make a decision?.

The problem with any sort of tax revision in our country is that the politicians are not disciplined enough to execute it.

There are several ideas out there on how to improve our tax system, the biggest (and most pragmatic) opponents to all of them have to do with implimentation.

Social Security was never meant to be permanent. Income tax was never meant to be permanent. You see it all the time with local and state taxes as well. Something that's meant to be a temporary tax and a finite vehicle for generating money for a public function gets renewed well after it's initial intended use.

Once a road goes to a toll road, it'll never go back to an open and free road. That's the nature of the beast.

THE best tax system we could have would to have a national sales tax. A consumption based system. There are SOOOOO many advantages to it. It encourages people to save, rather than spend. (the more you save, the less taxes you pay). It taxes people across all income levels fairly. (while still progressively taxing the largest wage earners...who tend to be the largest consumers). It would greatly simplify the IRS.

The only problem is....again. Flat tax. National Sales tax. You'd never be able to fully get rid of our current system while transitioning to the next system. And then what we'd have is BOTH systems and we'd be royally F'ed. We have a new system in place with the old legacy system still being renewed.

[J. T. Toad]

encourage saving? well that isn't the government way!

[AMF]

Originally Posted by J. T. Toad

encourage saving? well that isn't the government way!

Unfortunately it's not the American way. The majority of our country is in credit debt (including our own government).

We wouldn't need a social security network if people would save 10% of the money they make instead of spending 10% more than they make and putting it on credit cards.

Only in America are "poverty" and obesity in the same thought (how can you be starving if you're fat?).

The problem is that our consumeristic society demands that we spend more and more. People won't buy a plane jane washing machine. They have to have the machine with 14 settings and bells and whistles. Same with cars, appliances, clothes.

If we had a consumption based system, the more money that you save, the less money you pay to uncle Sam. The more money you invest, the more money you save. Companies would benefit because it would encourage investment.

It would also help alleviate the growing employment crisis in America. Temp staffing is quickly becoming one of the largest industries in our country. It's already a $150BN/year industry. Employers can't afford to hire full time employees anymore, because our socialist programs cost way too damn much. Between social security, workman's comp, etc, it costs so much to hire full time employees, comapnies are opting to "temp" more and more.

The unfortunate side effects are that we're growing a generation of amateurs. How do you become a lifelong professional if you're a temp? The answer is....you don't.

But again, the scary thing is....whatever we would "switch" to...would require some sort of transitional period and that's where we'd get screwed. The new system would have to go into place to phase out the old system and our illustrious politicians would simply keep voting to renew the old system. We'd get double F'ed.

[J. T. Toad]

AMF for president!

correction? like our current housing "crisis" (more accurately a situation because of what consumers have reaped, ok and lenders also)

BRING IT!

[J. T. Toad]

Originally Posted by meat

Bush, on the other hand, has continued to get everything he planned on. No complaining. No accusing. He let the Democrats build their own fences and lock their own doors...

Your pal,
Meat.

Do you mean Big Government? Yes, he has performed that quite well.

Calling a spade a spade. If Bush is/WAS such a great leader, why is it that the primary has resulted in most of the voting public unsure of the outcome of the next election? I don't see real confident posturing by the McCain camp.

[meat]

Originally Posted by J. T. Toad

Do you mean Big Government?

I wrote exactly what I mean. If simple English continues to baffle you, I recommend a remedial reading and comprehension course.

Your pal,
Meat.

[AMF]

Bush is responsible for the single largest increase in the Federal government EVER.

I voted for him twice. He's a terrible president, but he was the lesser of evils.

McCain is in the same boat. He's not a lot of people's first choice, but he's a far cry better than Hillary or Obama.

[meat]

Originally Posted by AMF

Bush is responsible for the single largest increase in the Federal government EVER.

That's a completely incorrect and incompetent statement; no foundation has been laid, no facts have been presented, and there's absolutely no basis for it.

Sheesh. Some people.

Your pal,
Meat.

[Mark IV]

Meat,

You stand on the sidelines for the "Lewis" thread, but you come out for this? I thought you LIVED for the thrill of the "on the edge" discussion?

And where is my "M40" replica?

[meat]

Originally Posted by Mark IV

You stand on the sidelines for the "Lewis" thread, but you come out for this? I thought you LIVED for the thrill of the "on the edge" discussion?

Lewis who?

Originally Posted by Mark IV

And where is my "M40" replica?

They stopped making my donor car, so ... no M40. I do have a whole set of body parts for a GT40, though.

For a movie I'm planning, I do have a whole set of new Ford GT panels...

Your pal,
Meat.

[AMF]

Originally Posted by meat

That's a completely incorrect and incompetent statement; no foundation has been laid, no facts have been presented, and there's absolutely no basis for it.

Sheesh. Some people.

Your pal,
Meat.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa543.pdf

Have you been under a rock? Bush is the largest spending president since LBJ. Not only has he had the largest increase in government EVER (in terms of total dollars) (largest percentage since LBJ), He's still the champion among spenders when you remove non-defense dollars (I'm sure all of you who swing from the Village Idiots nuts would argue it's all the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and Homeland Defense...........it's not....he's let the place go bonkers there too).

I'm a died in the wool Libertarian. A conservative libertarian. Unfortunately, Bush violated one of the largest parts of his party mantra, the Government has become ginormous under his tenure.

I've always been an advocate that the President is only one man, he cannot steer the country to war all by himself, and he cannot prevent your home from depreciating, he cannot control interest rates or whether or not you have a job.....

But what he can do is publish guidance to congress about the budget and veto bills that do not fit that guidance. For the most part, Bush has allowed Congress to run amok when it comes to spending. He's increased the Federal Debt AND the deficit.

He's COMPLETELY mismanaged the war in Iraq.....all the way from NOT firing Rumsfeld sooner, to alienating his most prolific cabinet member (Colin Powell) to the point that he quit.

Beyond the fact that he has a degree from Yale and uses terms like "evil-doer" (explain how an Ivy league graduate has the vocabulary of a 4th grader)

I used to stand behind him because I thought his integrity was paramount and though he was flawed, he was predictable and honest and "what you see is what you get."

But the nonsense has gone too far. He's destroyed the conservative mandate in our country.

He's squandered American tax payer money and worse even, he's wasted American service member's lives.

After saying ALL that, I think he did a far better job than Gore or Kerry would have done. (God help us if Kerry would have been elected) but damn it people.....

If George W. Bush is the best that we have to offer, we're in serious trouble.

[meat]

Originally Posted by AMF

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa543.pdf

Aww, how cute! ... a biased three (3) year old "report" used as a source. It would be laughable to consider this a "source" if it weren't so freakin' sad. That you would use it - again - says quite a bit about you.

Originally Posted by AMF

Have you been under a rock?

Nope.

Originally Posted by AMF

Bush is the largest spending president since LBJ.

George W. Bush is 5'11" tall. He appears to be reasonably fit and weighs in at 180lbs. Describing him as the largest President is incorrect.

Originally Posted by AMF

Not only has he had the largest increase in government EVER (in terms of total dollars) (largest percentage since LBJ), He's still the champion among spenders when you remove non-defense dollars (I'm sure all of you who swing from the Village Idiots nuts would argue it's all the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and Homeland Defense...........it's not....he's let the place go bonkers there too).

That's just silly. Probably retarded, too, if anyone actually believes the Chicken Littles who make these claims. Know who was the biggest spender before George W. Bush? Clinton. Know who was they biggest spender before Clinton? George H.W. Bush. Know who was the biggest spender before that Bush? Reagan. Know who was the biggest spender before Reagan? Carter. Know who was the biggest spender before Carter? Nixon/Ford. Know who was the biggest spender before Nixon/Ford? Johnson. Know who was the biggest spender before Johnson? Kennedy. Know who was the biggest spender before Kennedy? Eisenhower. And so on.

Gee, it's almost as if the Federal Budget gets higher every year. And every year, it's the President who gets blamed for spending more money than his predecessor. Like I said, it's a silly - and baseless - argument. Duh.

Originally Posted by AMF

I'm a died in the wool Libertarian. A conservative libertarian.

That sounds like a personal problem. You might want to get that checked.

Again, pointing to your lack of grip on English, I'm going to point out that it's "dyed in the wool" not -as you put it - "died." Generally, the only things that "die in the wool" are carpet beetles. Carpet beetles are scavengers. Scavengers exist on the decaying wastes of others. That sounds like as good a definition of Libertarianism as any other I've ever heard.

Originally Posted by AMF

Unfortunately, Bush violated one of the largest parts of his party mantra, the Government has become ginormous under his tenure.

That's untrue. And, while it's also vague and argumentative, it just goes to show how tenuous the whole belief that the government has "grown."

The government - much like the budget - will always grow. That doesn't mean that the government is any larger, it simply means that someone who doesn't understand the differences between words like "died" and "dyed" will naturally assume that increases in government spending means larger government. In actuality, the value of the dollar, purchases, money transfers, population and other nebulous factors all determine the amount of money that is spent by the government ... which leads the uninitiated to jump to the wrong conclusion that the government is "ginormous." In fact the number of civilian federal employees continues to decrease under George W. Bush. The federal government can't be getting larger if the number of employees is getting smaller. Duh.

Originally Posted by AMF

I've always been an advocate that the President is only one man, he cannot steer the country to war all by himself, and he cannot prevent your home from depreciating, he cannot control interest rates or whether or not you have a job.....

Well, that's just plain wrong. Not just your use of 'advocate,' but the whole mistaken belief that a Presidency consists of "only one man." Perhaps - as one of the misguided libertarians - you're unfamiliar with the U.S. Constitution ... which would be unusual, since your poorly camouflaged libertarian candidate Ron Paul was a Constitutionalist. In any case, Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution allows the President to establish a Cabinet. The Presidential Cabinet advises the President. Duh.

Originally Posted by AMF

But what he can do is publish guidance to congress about the budget and veto bills that do not fit that guidance. For the most part, Bush has allowed Congress to run amok when it comes to spending. He's increased the Federal Debt AND the deficit.

No, he has not.

Originally Posted by AMF

He's COMPLETELY mismanaged the war in Iraq.....all the way from NOT firing Rumsfeld sooner, to alienating his most prolific cabinet member (Colin Powell) to the point that he quit.

What? "Prolific?" Dude, step away from the thesaurus before you hurt yourself.

Iraq is going fine. It's a war. Wars don't fit timelines and people tend to die in them. If they didn't, it'd be called recess. duh.

Originally Posted by AMF

Beyond the fact that he has a degree from Yale and uses terms like "evil-doer" (explain how an Ivy league graduate has the vocabulary of a 4th grader)

You, of all people, don't need to be discussing the vocabulary of others, "died in the wool" boy.

Originally Posted by AMF

I used to stand behind him because I thought his integrity was paramount and though he was flawed, he was predictable and honest and "what you see is what you get."

But the nonsense has gone too far. He's destroyed the conservative mandate in our country.

Bush was never a conservative. Duh.

Knew that before I voted for him.

Originally Posted by AMF

He's squandered American tax payer money and worse even, he's wasted American service member's lives.

Nope ... and nope. He's neither squandered money nor wasted any lives. The cause of freedom is never free.

Originally Posted by AMF

After saying ALL that, I think he did a far better job than Gore or Kerry would have done. (God help us if Kerry would have been elected) but damn it people.....

If George W. Bush is the best that we have to offer, we're in serious trouble.

Naah. Well, technically, "we" aren't offering anything. George W. Bush was willing to step up and do a job. A thankless job. A job that not many people are willing to do ... but those same people are willing to criticize him for imagined issues.

If you can do a better job, then you should have stepped up to the plate. Because you didn't, you failed America and the American people. You're a traitor to your country.

Of course, if all you could do it b!tch about it ... well, that just makes you another "gosh, can't decide if I'm a Republican or a democrat so I'll just pick a loser third party and pretend that nothing's my fault" wishy-washy nothing who doesn't have the backbone to chose a team to play on.

Your pal,
Meat.