Goodbye, middle class

[chrisdfw]

Wow this is pretty melodramatic stuff. I have heard liberals called a lot of things, but never dangerous. ......
So are you calling the middle class the "collective" MSBklawyer? As a bk lawyer who sees suffering every day due to the greedy policies of the Bush era, I would have thought you would be on the front lines of noticing that the middle class is shrinking.

Dangerous is a relative term, but playing to a class of people who want to take from others so they can have
"a minimum standard of living"
"a safety net"
"fair pay"
"reasonable medical care"

I am not against anyone having anything, but they should pay for it, not ME, not the rich, nobody else.

I believe in Freedom, part of freedom is the freedom to fail, we should not punish people when they fail, but neither should
we take the income from others to mitigate their failure.

Here is one thing we agree on... the policies of the Bush era were a failure. Bush was too much like Obama in almost every respect
other than security and tax cuts. He expanded the department of education, expanded medicare, and generally started the ball rolling down the slope of destruction that the progressives in congress want to see continued. Bush was a progressive as far as I am concerned, and a republican theif is no better than a democrat thief.

The only question that matters to me is this: "Is one person entitled to have money taken from another to pay thier expenses?"

I say no, I think others say yes, you have a claim on the money of others because of need. I believe in ownership, including the right to the fruits of one's labor. Others believe that is someone needs something more, they have a superior claim to the person who sacrificed to get it.

Now, I do have a problem with the gap between the haves and have nots. I think that is being created by government though, not by the free market. In a truly free market where the government did not prop up large companies, the profits of companies would go to shareholders not the managers running the companies. Shareholders are getting screwed, taxpayers are getting screwed, and the government is helping to reinforce this by giving money to big business to bail them out, while small businesses are suffering under the burdens of the government.

Does walmart suffer when Obamacare forces them to produce 1099s for everything they buy? No, they can afford an army of accountants, it is the small businessman that suffers. Does exxon suffer when the government puts out new environmental regulations? No, it helps exxon because it is too burdensome for new competition to come in and compete. Everything the Bush administration and Obama administration is doing is favoring big business and the wealthy over the poor. I know that seems contradictory, but look at the economies of Europe and the socialist places, big businesses prosper, they can afford to provide health care while startups cannot afford it and the other regulatory burdens of a socialist welfare state. The middle class would be best served by smaller government, more local government, and lower taxes and less welfare state, not by more.

We continually increase regulation in this country, which favors large business and the wealthy that can afford it, to the detriment of small businesses and those who might compete if given a chance. We are getting screwed over by big government, republican and democrat because we refuse to stand up for freedom. Instead too many want the government to steal for them. In the process of stealing for them, they are taking their cut. You can't trust a thief, whether they are wanting to steal from the rich to give to the poor (Obama adminstration) or steal from us all to give to big business (Bush administration and Obama too). We need to restore property rights (including the right of shareholders to stop unreasonable compensation to managers) and the right of people to keep what they earn and not have to support others like leaches on the backs of the productive. Until we can stand up and accept that we lived above our means for so long (since 1980 or longer) we will have many among us wanting the governement to steal for them to keep their bloated standard of living up. Morality is gone among many, who favor comfort and the stolen goods of others above freedom.

[WhatMoney]

Wow this is pretty melodramatic stuff. I have heard liberals called a lot of things, but never dangerous. Liberalism=Marxism is the talk of Fox News and Rush Limbaugh and the like, and should be dismissed as self-serving tripe. Marxism is a political philosophy that says that history will create such disparity between workers and management, or between the haves and the have nots, that the have nots will rise up and revolt. The have nots will be led by "historically chosen" leaders who will decide what is best for all, and will create an economy where production for use and pay based on need replace other means of economic distribution. What does this outdated philosophy have to do with wanting to make sure Social Security is not disbanded, or making sure that kids have food to eat and proper medical care? I see absolutely no link between Marxism and paying taxes to fuel Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Welfare, and all the programs that provide our social safety net.

Every country in Western Europe provides such aid and has since post WWII and all have elected leaders, private bank accounts, stock markets, pension plans, extreme wealth, and in some cases, even royalty. All those countries also have a thriving and stable middle class, something that we are losing in this country and that was the topic of this thread before "anti-Marxist" rants took over.

So are you calling the middle class the "collective" MSBklawyer? As a bk lawyer who sees suffering every day due to the greedy policies of the Bush era, I would have thought you would be on the front lines of noticing that the middle class is shrinking.

Keep in mind bts, that these people here are just spouting off the usual Libertarian doctrine of no taxes, no government, no laws, and everyone for themselves.
Technically they are called capitalistic libertarians, or right-libertarians, or free-market libertarians. Many are just PO'ed Republicans that can't admit they voted for George Bush. They think they are a brilliant majority, when in reality their ideas are rejected by just about everyone. The term nut-job libertarians was not invented by me.

Here's how influential the Libertarian Party has been in US politics. Why have 99.6% of the voters felt they were not worth voting for?

Results in US presidential elections

Year. Candidate...........Popular Votes...Percentage...Electoral Votes

1972 John Hospers.............. 3,674...... <0.1%............ 1
1976 Roger MacBride........ 172,553....... 0.21%............ 0
1980 Ed Clark.................. 921,128....... 1.1%............. 0
1984 David Bergland......... 228,111....... 0.3%............. 0
1988 Ron Paul................. 431,750....... 0.5%............. 0
1992 Andre Marrou........... 290,087....... 0.3%............. 0
1996 Harry Browne........... 485,759....... 0.5%............. 0
2000 Harry Browne........... 384,431....... 0.4%............. 0
2004 Michael Badnarik....... 397,265....... 0.32%........... 0
2008 Bob Barr.................. 523,686....... 0.4%............. 0

The Internet is the traditional breeding ground for these "no taxes and no government = my freedom" arguments. I have a lot to say about the right-wing libertarians, but I have to get off to the Saturday Farmers' Socialist-Marxist Market, where they are providing a free display area on Government-Owned Property. (The library parking lot.) There should be a law against those free-loading farmers getting free display area from the government. My taxes shouldn't be supporting these freeloaders!!

[Meatstick]

This has been pretty darn fun stuff to read. Everything posted by Marxist/Socialist/Dems is taken as fact and everything else is all LIES !!!!! That's the ""Hope and Change"" some of you voted for.

[backtoschool]

Keep in mind bts, that these people here are just spouting off the usual Libertarian doctrine of no taxes, no government, no laws, and everyone for themselves.
Technically they are called capitalistic libertarians, or right-libertarians, or free-market libertarians. Many are just PO'ed Republicans that can't admit they voted for George Bush. They think they are a brilliant majority, when in reality their ideas are rejected by just about everyone. The term nut-job libertarians was not invented by me.

Here's how influential the Libertarian Party has been in US politics. Why have 99.6% of the voters felt they were not worth voting for?

Results in US presidential elections

Year. Candidate...........Popular Votes...Percentage...Electoral Votes

1972 John Hospers.............. 3,674...... <0.1%............ 1
1976 Roger MacBride........ 172,553....... 0.21%............ 0
1980 Ed Clark.................. 921,128....... 1.1%............. 0
1984 David Bergland......... 228,111....... 0.3%............. 0
1988 Ron Paul................. 431,750....... 0.5%............. 0
1992 Andre Marrou........... 290,087....... 0.3%............. 0
1996 Harry Browne........... 485,759....... 0.5%............. 0
2000 Harry Browne........... 384,431....... 0.4%............. 0
2004 Michael Badnarik....... 397,265....... 0.32%........... 0
2008 Bob Barr.................. 523,686....... 0.4%............. 0

The Internet is the traditional breeding ground for these "no taxes and no government = my freedom" arguments. I have a lot to say about the right-wing libertarians, but I have to get off to the Saturday Farmers' Socialist-Marxist Market, where they are providing a free display area on Government-Owned Property. (The library parking lot.) There should be a law against those free-loading farmers getting free display area from the government. My taxes shouldn't be supporting these freeloaders!!

I just got back from the "marxist farmer's market" in our local library parking lot too. I don't know WhatMoney, that makes two of us that did the same thing at approximately the same time, sounds like a Marxist revolt of the "collective" to me.

Libertarians want "freedom" and "individuality" right up to the point that they need government handout or bailout like the rest of us. Then suddenly, they justify their handouts and bailouts as "constitutionally" granted (unlike "Marxist" unemployment insurance for example").

Many libertarians would say that the bankruptcy laws are a form of redistribution of wealth. Bankruptcy takes money away from businesses and gives it to the "collective". Why is filing for bankruptcy not "Marxism" but providing healthcare to children is? Just curious.......

As a liberal, I don't try to call the handouts and bailouts that I have taken advantage of by other names. I gladly take all help given to me by the "Marxist" government, "the collective", or anyone else who wants to lend me a helping hand.

[MSbklawyer]

Wow this is pretty melodramatic stuff. I have heard liberals called a lot of things, but never dangerous. Liberalism=Marxism is the talk of Fox News and Rush Limbaugh and the like, and should be dismissed as self-serving tripe. Marxism is a political philosophy that says that history will create such disparity between workers and management, or between the haves and the have nots, that the have nots will rise up and revolt. The have nots will be led by "historically chosen" leaders who will decide what is best for all, and will create an economy where production for use and pay based on need replace other means of economic distribution. What does this outdated philosophy have to do with wanting to make sure Social Security is not disbanded, or making sure that kids have food to eat and proper medical care? I see absolutely no link between Marxism and paying taxes to fuel Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Welfare, and all the programs that provide our social safety net.

Every country in Western Europe provides such aid and has since post WWII and all have elected leaders, private bank accounts, stock markets, pension plans, extreme wealth, and in some cases, even royalty. All those countries also have a thriving and stable middle class, something that we are losing in this country and that was the topic of this thread before "anti-Marxist" rants took over.

So are you calling the middle class the "collective" MSBklawyer? As a bk lawyer who sees suffering every day due to the greedy policies of the Bush era, I would have thought you would be on the front lines of noticing that the middle class is shrinking.

That's why I didn't use the term "liberal". Nowhere in that post did I use that term. Nor did I equate liberalism with Marxism. Labels like that are confusing because they mean too many different things to different people. I used the term "collectivist" because that has a more precise meaning. "Marxism", in a sense, also means forced collectivism. A Marxist is a collectivist intent on forcing his collectivism on those people who don't want to be part of it. That's what I was the sense I was using it in.

I don't think I could say it any better than chrisdfw did:

The only question that matters to me is this: "Is one person entitled to have money taken from another to pay thier expenses?"

I say no, I think others say yes, you have a claim on the money of others because of need. I believe in ownership, including the right to the fruits of one's labor. Others believe that is someone needs something more, they have a superior claim to the person who sacrificed to get it.

Collectivists, on the other hand, argue that through government, we should level things out; give to those that are deemed not to have enough by taking from those that are deemed to have too much. You can't make a solid, lasting middle class that way . . . by making them all a bunch of generously paid welfare recipients. Middle class prosperity, if we are to have it, must come from middle class productivity. Taking money from person "A" and giving it to person "B" creates nothing . . . nothing but a disincentive for "B" to be productive and self sufficient and prosperous in his own right.

The library thing is a straw man argument. There's nothing wrong with government providing things like libraries or parks. And there's nothing wrong with farmers using it. It's direct transfers of wealth that I'm arguing against. A big group of people who are living a pretty good living only because their government is subsidizing their spending by taking the wealth from a different group of people, is not a real middle class.

Sure, my work brings me in contact with a lot of middle class people who have or who are on the brink of losing that status. But is just giving them a government check to restore their income level going to change that in any real and lasting way?

[backtoschool]

That's why I didn't use the term "liberal". Nowhere in that post did I use that term. Nor did I equate liberalism with Marxism. Labels like that are confusing because they mean too many different things to different people. I used the term "collectivist" because that has a more precise meaning. "Marxism", in a sense, also means forced collectivism. A Marxist is a collectivist intent on forcing his collectivism on those people who don't want to be part of it. That's what I was the sense I was using it in.

I don't think I could say it any better than chrisdfw did:

Collectivists, on the other hand, argue that through government, we should level things out; give to those that are deemed not to have enough by taking from those that are deemed to have too much. You can't make a solid, lasting middle class by making them all a bunch of glorified welfare recipients. Middle class prosperity, if we are to have it, must come from middle class productivity. Taking money from person "A" and giving it to person "B" creates nothing . . . nothing but a disincentive for "B" to be productive and self sufficient and prosperous in his own right.

The library thing is a straw man argument. There's nothing wrong with government providing things like libraries or parks. And there's nothing wrong with farmers using it. It's direct transfers of wealth that I'm arguing against. A big group of people who are living a pretty good living because their government is subsidizing their spending by taking the wealth from a different group of people, is not a real middle class.

Sure, my work brings me in contact with a lot of middle class people who have or who are on the brink of losing that status. But is just giving them a government check to restore their income level going to change that in any real and lasting way?

I can't imagine a vaguer word than "collectivist". I still don't know what you mean by that word, and it is so vague, that it seems to house nastier more pointed words within its sloppy meaning.

You rage against your money being "taken away" MSbklawyer, but you, like all of your conservative brothers, do not provide any alternative solutions. Whining about high taxes is not a solution. How are we going to provide for those whose jobs are gone due to corporate greed and globalization? Are we going to let people starve? I say no. Why is it ok to give a handout to a defense contractor or to a bank ceo, but not give a handout to a laid off auto worker? There is not a person on this board who has not been given some sort of government handout, whether it be bankruptcy protection, unemployment insurance, special tax credit for small businesses, special tax credits for home buyers, special tax credits for people who have children, mortgage relief, special tax credits for people who put in new windows on their houses, the list is endless.....

There can be no "middle class productivity" without manufacturing jobs. Providing interim relief for the suffering is a stop gap measure, its true, but its better than the alternative of letting people suffer. The middle class is shrinking away. Jobs are disappearing for good. We have lost our manufacturing base, which is the foundation of the middle class. That was the original theme of this thread until anti-Marxist rants took it over. I don't see anyone reaching into your pockets, at least not any more than you are reaching into someone else's pockets.... We are all "guilty" of taking handouts.....

But without these handouts, we would have a much much worse standard of living than our already declining one.

Just my opinion....

[chrisdfw]

Why is it ok to give a handout to a defense contractor or to a bank ceo, but not give a handout to a laid off auto worker? ....
Providing interim relief for the suffering is a stop gap measure, its true, but its better than the alternative of letting people suffer. ...
Just my opinion....

It is not ok, if the defense contractoris not providing value for the dollars spent on it, it is not ok. I am certainly against giving handouts to defense contractors, big banks, GM, etc etc. No different than giving it to welfare cows in my opinion, worse in some ways.

I don't think it is a better alternative, letting people suffer and adjust is the more humane alternative and the more moral one. We have charities to handle charity, and it is a volunatry system which makes it moral and just. Forcing someone to give is immorral.

If we let people suffer a little we would change our ways, but providing handouts unfortunately takes away the powerful incentive of suffering. If I do something stupid and I suffer, I learn not to do it again. Even if it isn't through my own actions that I suffer, I still learn not to get into that position again. If I get handouts, why not do it again, it wasn't that bad after all?

As to manufacturing, I could hardly agree more, but my solution would be to unshackle business, remove the regulations, and abolish corporate taxes so companies can compete fairly. our corporate tax rate is among the highest in the world, and it causes our products to cost more, what is worse is that the tax is paid for by the customers, so it is hidden tax that we all pay for in the form of higher product costs and lost jobs. If we got rid of so much government regulation then we wouldn't have lost so much manufacturing.

So on one point we might agree on the problem, I doubt we agree on the solution

As to the standard of living, if we can't support it we need to let it decline, and not have some people subsidize the standard of living of others.

By the way, I don't blame the people who take the handout, they are responding rationally to the incentive structure we create, I blame america in general for electing people that created the welfare state (corporate and individual), and those politicians who swore an oath to protect and defend the constitution and then committed treason and broke their oaths.

[MSbklawyer]

You rage against your money being "taken away" MSbklawyer, but you, like all of your conservative brothers, do not provide any alternative solutions. Whining about high taxes is not a solution. How are we going to provide for those whose jobs are gone due to corporate greed and globalization? Are we going to let people starve? I say no.

Now see? Why does this become a personal attack? I've never advocated letting anybody starve or "raged" against paying taxes. I don't have any problem with people who are temporarily in need receiving government assistance. But it can't become a lifestyle for the whole demographic -- not if we're to call them 'middle class' with a straight face.

But to answer your questions, we're not going to provide for those whose jobs have gone. Not for very long anyway -- at least not to the point of sustaining their middle class lifestyle by forcing the well-to-do to subsidize them. Any long-term solution to the shrinking middle class will have to have as its foundation a competitive labor force. Almost nothing that can be made somewhere else is made here. It's not a matter of corporate greed, it's a matter of corporate necessity. If your foreign-based competitor has half the labor cost that you do; doesn't have to worry about providing workers' compensation benefits; doesn't have to buy insurance against ruinous litigation cost because an employee made a sexist or racist remark, then you have to offshore your business or go under.

An American worker operating an injection molding machine making to make Nike sneakers is not any more productive than a Vietnamese worker doing the same thing but costs 5 times as much even at the minimum wage. Nike can put its operations anywhere it pleases. We can't pass any effective law against it doing that. We can't impose a global minimum wage. But if Nike makes its sneakers here, it can't be price competitive with, say, Adidas. But I'm not telling you anything you don't know . . . far more about already than I do.

The hard, cold fact is that people sell their labors and their skills to make a living. Americans do it. Vietnamese do it. An American worker whose only skill is operating an injection molding machine to make sneakers is not going to be able to demand exponentially more for his labor and skills than his Vietnamese counterpart. Nike won't pay it and we can't make them pay it. And it's not just manual labor jobs either. The same principle applies to accounting and any number of other professions. There's tons of up-and-coming Indian accountants who are sharp as tacks. And speak pretty good English too. But again, you already know.

But that's why I'm not optimistic about middle class prosperity. Americans have a sense of entitlement . . . I'm an American, dammit! I do NOT have to work for less than $20 an hour! . . . that global economic realities are not going to let them hold on to. And we only exacerbate these unfortunate realities when we force the few industries and industrialists we have left to seek shelter from excessive taxation by going overseas.

[banca rotta]

It kills me to say that I still agree with Whatmoney that all of our social security, medicare and medicade will be around for a long time. They will for certain.

The fed will make good on all the bonds (hence they are proving it now with QE2) that the ss surplus bought. Basically once the fed pays ss back for all the treasury bonds this will provide enough liquidity to pay the recipients the first and 15th of the month.

They will also have enough for medicare to pay all the claims.

The bad news however will be the senior citizens will live in shanty towns since their ss checks won't be enough to do the job and they will have third world quality healthcare.

This isn't wishful thinking nor am I guessing that this is what's to come . It's what they are doing right now. All central banks are flooding their nations with currency by buying up more debt. What do you think will happen if this keeps up?

[backtoschool]

Now see? Why does this become a personal attack? .

No one is attacking you personally MSbklawyer. As a lawyer, I would have thought that you would have a thicker skin in regards to debates. I simply do not think that constantly saying "no taxes" is much of a solution to our shrinking middle class.

Globalization is a reality, but it does not explain why banks are taking money from the fed at 0% and lending it back to the government at 3% instead of lending to small and mid sized businesses to spur growth, or why companies are rewarded with tax credits and other incentives to move jobs overseas. We need to figure out products to manufacture in this country at a competitive wage, and we need to do so quickly. It need not be sneakers, or even steel, but it needs to be something that can accommodate retrained auto workers, and it needs to be products that there is a growing market for.

I agree with banca rotta that we as a country will pay the ss trust fund back what was borrowed, so that ss will be around for the baby boomers. I also agree that the ss checks will not pay for a decent standard of living because at some point hyper inflation will kick in, and rising costs will outpace the checks.

[chrisdfw]

No one is attacking you personally MSbklawyer. As a lawyer, I would have thought that you would have a thicker skin in regards to debates.

I actually think this forum is very reasonable in regards to debates, I've seen nasty personal attacks elsewhere, it seems that everyone here is pretty reasonable, attacking ideas is fair game.

I will never agree that taking money from one group to support another is ok. That is the place for VOLUNTARY charity, not theft using the coercive power of government. If someone doesn't agree with that idea, then it is fair to disagree and attack the idea.

I've never felt personally attacked and never observed it towards others.

[backtoschool]

I actually think this forum is very reasonable in regards to debates, I've seen nasty personal attacks elsewhere, it seems that everyone here is pretty reasonable, attacking ideas is fair game.

I will never agree that taking money from one group to support another is ok. That is the place for VOLUNTARY charity, not theft using the coercive power of government. If someone doesn't agree with that idea, then it is fair to disagree and attack the idea.

I've never felt personally attacked and never observed it towards others.

I get your point chrisdfw, that our safety net should be voluntary, but that does not seem to work in reality. I do not want a dependent nation of non-workers any more than anyone else, but I do not think that temporary help for auto workers in transition, or food aid to those who have used up their unemployment benefits, is theft. If we are willing to pay taxes to maintain the peace, we ought to be able to kick in in times of turmoil and help our citizens out.

I also agree with you that in the boom years, the middle class lived beyond its collective means, and that scaling back is necessary. I just don't agree with you that we should forgo the technological advances, and conveniences that have become the norm. Having a smaller house and car, using less fuel, buying clothing and accessories that are reasonable and value oriented, cutting back on excess, is a good thing in my opinion. Also, I agree with you that it is necessary. I do not agree to the depth and breadth of the cuts in our standard of living however.

[chrisdfw]

There is no depth or breadth to agree to, we just have to let people live the way they can afford to live, instead of subsidizing an unsustainable level. It is not for you or I to decide on the standard of living, but we need to stop the subsidies and let it work itself out. I believe that the energy consumption in our nation has outpaced the ability of the planet to provide. I am not a global warming believer, but we will need to cut back, it will be an economic necessity when it happens and we make it worse by not allowing it to happen voluntarily, instead subsidzing energy use for low income people instead of letting them decrease their usage. We could all afford more food if we didn't instist on having things we can't afford. (not that most americans need more food, we're already overweight as a country... guilty here).

We are making things worse with the subsidies not better. Where our ultimate standard of living should be is not for me to say, I only object to subsidizing it. Ultimately, I hope I am wrong about where I believe it has to go. But if we don't let it adjust it will happen all at once, and with a great crisis that will hurt us all. We can't afford to keep up the deficit spending to pay out social benefits, at least not to the extent we do.

I believe charity does work, unfortunately it doesn't get someone a middle class lifestyle like government benefits seem to. People give to those truly in need, not to people sitting on their ass watching cable TV, in air conditioning, with internet service and cell phones. If you think those things are necessary for the poor then charity won't work because most people would not be willing to give to people that had those luxuries. I would not be willing to pay to help someone keep their 3000 square foot 4 bedroom house. I might give to help someone get a 1 bedroom apartment. Thats my point.

[frnkjfrsn]

I am impress with your knowledge about 83 percent of U.S. stocks are in the hands of 1 percent of the people, 61 percent of Americans "always or usually" live paycheck to paycheck, up from 43 percent in 2007. It is really unknown all that point for me.

[gman]

Here's a chilling statistic:

* For every dollar the Federal Government collect in taxes (of all forms, not just income and corporate taxes, but everything they collect), not only do they immediately spend that dollar, but THEY BORROW 43 MORE CENTS FOR EACH DOLLAR COLLECTED AND SPEND THAT AS WELL.

Actually, they don't even borrow all of that money, now they print/create it out of thin air.

We on this board know what happens when we spend more than we take in.

The hard reality we are facing is the end of an Empire. Most Empires start out as free countries and amass wealth through increased productivity. Think of the Romans and the British Empires.

Over time, their governments start entitlement programs and foreign policy (wars) of influence and plunder. (Do we really need US military bases in 135 countries?)

When the governments can no longer pay the bills out of current taxes, they borrow. (The French Empire did this....one should read about it. The French are now a mere shell of their former selves.)

When they can no longer borrow, they "cheat" by having the equivalent of their Federal Reserve (Central Bank) print the extra money. Check your history...you will see that Germany did this in the 1920s. It led to the people losing everything and actually ELECTING Hitler to power because he gave them hope.

Anyway, what we are experiencing is a normal cycle here on planet Earth. Some may ignore it (at their own peril.) My hope is that we see it for what it is and actually embrace it. A lot of good can come from having the current system erode and a new, better and freer one take its place.

When Rome collapsed, I'm sure their citizens had similar feelings. The loved their country (as do I.) But they were likely getting tired of their government taxing them like crazy, devaluing their currency which led to rising prices on everything and getting way too involved in their everyday lives.

At the end of the Roman Empire, a week of work got you a loaf of bread. Some people "escaped" by watching the spectacles of the gladiators and other nonsense - just like we escape via iPads and reality TV. However, some ignored these circuses and prepared by cutting back on non-essentials and "opting out" of the Roman currency by hoarding gold and silver whenever they got their hands on it. Finally, many Romans simply moved to greener pastures where the taxes and onerous laws no longer were enforced.

We need to think about our American Empire much like a Roman citizen would have in its latter years. Unlike the Romans, we have the advantage of knowing how the movie ends. I encourage everyone on here to think long and hard about what to do for yourselves, your family and your neighbors.

I've only come to these conclusions after studying a lot of detail on past Empires as well as monetary policy in the last few years. For those who have not done so (or perhaps for those who disagree with me) I simply encourage you to dig deeper and do the research yourself.

Best of luck to all - and Merry Christmas!