Patrick.net

WHO WILL THEY VOTE FOR?

By Honest Abe   Follow   Thu, 9 Feb 2012, 11:55am   10,301 views   130 comments
Watch (0)   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (2)  

It is reported that 20% of Americans rely 100% (One Hundred Percent) on Government assistance. Who do you think they will vote for?

Who will union members vote for? Who will millions of other government dependents vote for? Who will the nearly 50% of Americans who pay no Federal Income tax vote for?

Who will the predatory lawyers vote for? Who will the tree huggers vote for? Who will the class warfare crowd vote for? Who will the Utopianists vote for? Who will all the government employees vote for?

Who will the libs vote for? Who will the socialists among us vote for? Who will the communists among us vote for? Who will the Marxists among us vote for? Who will the community organizers vote for? Who will the New Black Panthers vote for?

Its pretty obvious why our once great country is in serious trouble, isn't it?

« First     « Previous     Viewing Comments 11-50 of 130     Next »     Last »     See most liked comments

1. Kevin Follow Befriend 40 threads 2,652 comments

   11   1:29pm Sun 12 Feb 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)   Honest Abe says "Earth to Kevin" - Passing out freebees, perks, food stamps ,housing vouchers, prescription drugs and numerous other "benefits" is how politicians have pandered for votes for decades. If you rob Peter to pay Paul, Paul will always vote for you. Politicians know that, I guess you don't. Maybe you believe the dependent class actually votes based on the issues, not in their own self-interest, HAHAHAHAHAHA. P.S. why don't you have any friends? Just askin' Ron Paul is the only politician who has the political will to make tough choices and fix the mess that our "wise leaders" have created. Sound money, limited constitutional government, and no more empire building. So, yeah, you don't have any data. You have no idea what you're talking about.

2. Nomograph Follow Befriend (1) 104 threads 2,851 comments

   12   5:19am Mon 13 Feb 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (3)   Dislike (2)   Honest Abe says Kevin, your problem is that you have a disease known as "liberalism". Translation: they didn't tell me how to answer your question on AM talk radio. Why do all the welfare states vote Conservative? ANSWER THE QUESTION, ABE.

3. Honest Abe Follow Befriend (41) 91 threads 1,806 comments

   13   7:17am Mon 13 Feb 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (3)   Let me think, OK, I got it. The two states with the largest welfare rolls in America (and probably in the WORLD) are California and New York...both liberal, commie, utopia, dependent, welfare states. You think the solution to every problem is more government, more rules, more regulation, more oversight, and more red tape. Just in case you haven't noticed - its chocking the life out of businesses, jobs, the economy and peoples wellbeing. You busbbody liberal do gooders shoud simply get your nose out of other peoples business. Ron Paul 2012

4. uomo_senza_nome Follow Befriend (13) 787 threads 1,542 comments

   14   8:54am Mon 13 Feb 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike   Honest Abe says http://www.statemaster.com/graph/eco_wel_cas_tot_rec-economy-welfare-caseloads-total-recipients That's misleading. What you are showing is the total welfare alone. That's like just seeing one side of the coin. Honest Abe says The two states with the largest welfare rolls in America (and probably in the WORLD) are California and New York...both liberal, commie, utopia, dependent, welfare states. Please state how much do these two states bring in, in terms of federal revenue. Then we can talk about whether they are really sucking federal dollars or they're just getting back what they contributed. If you don't have any meaningful data that can be compared, your whole argument is worthless.

5. Honest Abe Follow Befriend (41) 91 threads 1,806 comments

   15   9:30am Mon 13 Feb 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike (4)   Unfortunately the ones "sucking federal dollars" are not the ones contributing the money. If that was the case everyone could live at the expense of everyone else...but for some reason that only works in the minds of liberal's.

6. tatupu70 Follow Befriend (3) 15 threads 5,606 comments

   16   10:15am Mon 13 Feb 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (2)   Dislike (1)   Honest Abe says Unfortunately the ones "sucking federal dollars" are not the ones contributing the money You are correct sir. All the conservatives in the red states are sucking my money.

7. bob2356 Follow Befriend 2 threads 2,495 comments

   17   10:31am Mon 13 Feb 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike (1)   Nomograph says ANSWER THE QUESTION, ABE. Abe hasn't ever answered questions before in the entire history of patrick.net, why do you expect it to happen now?

8. uomo_senza_nome Follow Befriend (13) 787 threads 1,542 comments

   18   10:57am Mon 13 Feb 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (2)   Dislike   Honest Abe says Unfortunately the ones "sucking federal dollars" are not the ones contributing the money Honest Abe seems to be honestly evading questions.

9. Honest Abe Follow Befriend (41) 91 threads 1,806 comments

   19   3:02pm Mon 13 Feb 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike (2)   Our country will never have budget sanity until outlays are equal to, or less than, tax revenue and those who are the advocates for largess of the public treasury feel the pain of their advocacy. http://www.amazon.com/Surviving-Civil-War-Preparing-ebook/dp/B005FMBENU

10. Patrick Follow Befriend (54) 5,182 threads 6,155 comments 46 male Menlo Park, CA Premium

    20   4:14pm Mon 13 Feb 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (3)   Dislike   Protected   It's definitely true that Republican states are way bigger consumers of the social welfare programs that they so bitterly complain about. Pretty ironic! Lately I think the solution to the whole tax issue is simply to tax unearned income (capital gains, dividends, interest, land rents) highly, and make all earned income (income from your own work) completely untaxed. No conservative would have any right to complain about social welfare programs, since they would not take a dime from income anyone actually worked for. BTW, thanks for keeping this dicussion relatively civil.

11. Kevin Follow Befriend 40 threads 2,652 comments

    21   9:10pm Mon 13 Feb 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (2)   Dislike   Honest Abe says Kevin, your problem is that you have a disease known as "liberalism". Its a debilitating though non-contageous disease. One glaring symptom is that common sense is completly compromised and entirely eliminated. So sorry for your loss. http://www.statemaster.com/graph/eco_wel_cas_tot_rec-economy-welfare-caseloads-total-recipients Ron Paul or bust. When are you going to present some data showing that people who are dependent on government assistance are going to vote for Obama?

12. uomo_senza_nome Follow Befriend (13) 787 threads 1,542 comments

    22   9:51pm Mon 13 Feb 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike (1)   Kevin says When are you going to present some data showing that people who are dependent on government assistance are going to vote for Obama? Kevin's question is very relevant. uomo_senza_nome says Please state how much do these two states bring in, in terms of federal revenue. Then we can talk about whether they are really sucking federal dollars or they're just getting back what they contributed. If you don't have any meaningful data that can be compared, your whole argument is worthless. My concern is also relevant. Honest Abe says http://www.amazon.com/Surviving-Civil-War-Preparing-ebook/dp/B005FMBENU This answer is seriously irrelevant and tangential to the original concerns which you raised. are you going to follow through your own thoughts or just shoot random stuff in the air?

13. Nomograph Follow Befriend (1) 104 threads 2,851 comments

    23   7:03am Tue 14 Feb 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (4)   Dislike (1)   Honest Abe says More damage has been done to this country in the last three years than the Nazi's and Japanese did in all of WW2. 1.1 Million Americans were killed or wounded in WWII, and over 60 million were killed worldwide. Please don't be such a complete ass as to trivialize this type of mass casualty by comparing it to some minor economic policy with which you disagree.

14. Nomograph Follow Befriend (1) 104 threads 2,851 comments

    24   7:13am Tue 14 Feb 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (2)   Dislike   Honest Abe says Honest Abe Lincoln said this country would never be defeated by a foreign enemy, but by the enemy within. And there you have it, kiddies, or should I say "comrades". Lincoln never said that, but the American traitor Joseph McCarthy did. He died a angry, disgraced, and discredited alcoholic; Honest Abe is heading down the exact same road. http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/6456

15. freak80 Follow Befriend (4) 52 threads 4,416 comments Corning, NY Premium

    25   7:19am Tue 14 Feb 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike   Protected   Patrick says Lately I think the solution to the whole tax issue is simply to tax unearned income (capital gains, dividends, interest, land rents) highly, and make all earned income (income from your own work) completely untaxed. No conservative would have any right to complain about social welfare programs, since they would not take a dime from income anyone actually worked for. Sounds like a good idea. Would it work? Would there be enough taxes collected? How high would taxes on unearned income have to be? +1

16. freak80 Follow Befriend (4) 52 threads 4,416 comments Corning, NY Premium

    26   7:22am Tue 14 Feb 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike (1)   Protected   Honest Abe says More damage has been done to this country in the last three years than the Nazi's and Japanese did in all of WW2. That's a pretty ridiculous assertion. Look, I can understand if people disagree with Obama. Fine. But saying he's doing damage to the US on the scale of WW2 is just absurd.

17. Patrick Follow Befriend (54) 5,182 threads 6,155 comments 46 male Menlo Park, CA Premium

    27   8:56am Tue 14 Feb 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (2)   Dislike   Protected   Nomograph says Please don't be such a complete ass Please don't insult the other users! Point out the problems in the argument instead. I have a jail and I plan to use it.

18. Patrick Follow Befriend (54) 5,182 threads 6,155 comments 46 male Menlo Park, CA Premium

    28   9:05am Tue 14 Feb 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)   Protected   wthrfrk80 says Sounds like a good idea. Would it work? Would there be enough taxes collected? How high would taxes on unearned income have to be? I'm pretty sure there could be enough taxes collected to do everything we need to do as a country. Just think of all the land rents, interest, dividends, and capital gains. Georgism is the idea that we can fund everything we need from land rents alone. I calculated in another thread than we could eliminate all other taxes by a flat 2% tax on all assets per year. But that taxes savings from your own work, which we're trying to avoid here. Anyone know the breakdown between earned and unearned income? Whether it would work politically is another matter. The idle rich would violently oppose it. And the goal of most Americans is not actually to live from their own income and savings, but instead to live from the work of other people. Though they generally won't admit that, maybe not even to themselves.

19. freak80 Follow Befriend (4) 52 threads 4,416 comments Corning, NY Premium

    29   9:16am Tue 14 Feb 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (2)   Dislike   Protected   I like the idea of Georgism, in theory. Would it be possible to objectively differentiate between earned and unearned income? After all, when I invest, I get "unearned" income as a return on that investment. It's the reward for putting off instant gratification. Isn't the value of all investments from earned income? Maybe there could be a progressive tax on unearned investment income?

20. freak80 Follow Befriend (4) 52 threads 4,416 comments Corning, NY Premium

    30   9:17am Tue 14 Feb 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (2)   Dislike   Protected   Patrick says The idle rich would violently oppose it. And the goal of most Americans is not actually to live from their own income and savings, but instead to live from the work of other people. Though they generally won't admit that, maybe not even to themselves. Definitely true...not just in America.

21. uomo_senza_nome Follow Befriend (13) 787 threads 1,542 comments

    31   10:19am Tue 14 Feb 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (2)   Dislike   Honest Abe says Obama played the fiddle while America burned. More damage has been done to this country in the last three years than the Nazi's and Japanese did in all of WW2. Still evading and an outright blind assertion. I'm not sure if you're even interested in hearing other points of view. "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle.

22. Patrick Follow Befriend (54) 5,182 threads 6,155 comments 46 male Menlo Park, CA Premium

    32   10:50am Tue 14 Feb 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (2)   Dislike   Protected   wthrfrk80 says I like the idea of Georgism, in theory. Would it be possible to objectively differentiate between earned and unearned income? After all, when I invest, I get "unearned" income as a return on that investment. It's the reward for putting off instant gratification. Isn't the value of all investments from earned income? Maybe there could be a progressive tax on unearned investment income? Income that accrues to you from mere ownership is unearned income. But I admit that there are border cases that are confusing. If you invest your savings, you actually do do some useful work in evaluating risk. So I'd say the tax rate on unearned income should be high, maybe 50%, but not 100% It definitely should not be 15% like we have now with capital gains. That's simply the most influential in DC getting the most reward (and taking it from everyone else!), rather than the most productive people. Another thing we'd need is very sold non-fiat currency, so that you are not forced to invest in risky things just merely to preserve your savings. I like silver more than gold. What if we all just started pricing things in ounces of silver and said screw the Fed?

23. Patrick Follow Befriend (54) 5,182 threads 6,155 comments 46 male Menlo Park, CA Premium

    33   10:53am Tue 14 Feb 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (2)   Dislike (1)   Protected   uomo_senza_nome says I'm not sure if you're even interested in hearing other points of view. I'm pretty sure he's not interested in hearing other points of view. If your conclusions are unacceptable, no amount of reasoning will work. So you have to start out with conclusions that he will like. Then he'll listen to your reasoning. To be fair, that's just how people normally are. It's very hard to work from facts and reason, and to ignore your own biases.

24. uomo_senza_nome Follow Befriend (13) 787 threads 1,542 comments

    34   12:01pm Tue 14 Feb 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (2)   Dislike (1)   Patrick says I'm pretty sure he's not interested in hearing other points of view. LOL, you're right. Patrick says To be fair, that's just how people normally are. It's very hard to work from facts and reason, and to ignore your own biases. :) That's the whole point of forum participation though. Hearing opposing views and checking them with facts/reason is a great way to improve upon knowledge...it's easy to spot BS that way too.:)

25. freak80 Follow Befriend (4) 52 threads 4,416 comments Corning, NY Premium

    35   12:07pm Tue 14 Feb 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (2)   Dislike   Protected   Patrick says Another thing we'd need is very sold non-fiat currency, so that you are not forced to invest in risky things just merely to preserve your savings. Tell me about it. The thing is, gold and silver have been "financialized" like everything else. During the crash of 2008, gold and silver crashed with everything else. I certainly don't consider gold and silver to be "safe." Seems like cash is the worst asset class right now, except for all the others...

26. freak80 Follow Befriend (4) 52 threads 4,416 comments Corning, NY Premium

    36   12:10pm Tue 14 Feb 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike   Protected   uomo_senza_nome says That's the whole point of forum participation though. Hearing opposing views and checking them with facts/reason is a great way to improve upon knowledge...it's easy to spot BS that way too I've learned a tremendous amount from forums like these. Sometimes the learning is very painful. Like when I learn that so much of what I've been taught is bullshit.

27. freak80 Follow Befriend (4) 52 threads 4,416 comments Corning, NY Premium

    37   12:16pm Tue 14 Feb 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (3)   Dislike   Protected   I've also learned that much of the book publishing industry is a racket. Publishers hawk so many books that tell only one "side" of an issue...telling their target audience what they want to hear. "What gunpowder did for war, the printing press has done for the mind." I'd say the same is true for the internet.

28. TMAC54 Follow Befriend (9) 70 threads 930 comments San Leandro, CA

    38   7:12am Wed 15 Feb 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike   Nomograph says comparing it to some minor economic policy Is this just Denial or do you see future benefit in devaluation ? Patrick might have Jail but I have charts.

29. Honest Abe Follow Befriend (41) 91 threads 1,806 comments

    39   4:27pm Wed 15 Feb 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (2)   Dislike (1)   Patrick said: "What we need is a solid, non-fiat currency". Bravo!! I remember arguing with you several years ago about that very issue. In 2009 you had the opposite view, if I remember correctly. I congratulate you on your growth!! Honest Abe.

30. Patrick Follow Befriend (54) 5,182 threads 6,155 comments 46 male Menlo Park, CA Premium

    40   5:42pm Wed 15 Feb 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (4)   Dislike   Protected   I don't think I changed. I did say that the government likes fiat currency for several reasons: 1. can threaten devaluation to foreigners who hold US Treasuries 2. can confiscate money from citizens by printing more instead of raising taxes 3. can punish savers and force them to spend or lose to "stimulate" the economy I never liked any of those. I am convinced that the primary purpose of all central banks is to protect big bankers from responsibility for their own decisions. The central bank can always bail them out by issuing them credit. So they are guaranteed to never lose, no matter what they do. But note that a hard currency based on gold or silver does not actually stop people from promising to pay each other. So we could still have massive credit bubbles even with gold or silver.

31. Honest Abe Follow Befriend (41) 91 threads 1,806 comments

    41   8:41pm Wed 15 Feb 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike (2)   Patrick, you have a great memory! Fiat currency also allows for military aggression, empire building and war. THATS the part I dislike the most. It also threatens the financial stability of other's by exporting our inflation to all other countries around the world. The money supply can be created out of thin air...but you can't create gold or silver out of thin air. Sound money is part of the checks and balances of a sound economy. Fiat money is also dishonest in that it can't be defined. I have learned that there is no provision in the law, no government regulation, no statute, nothing that defines what a dollar even is. Some on this site have responded with a lame response " A dollar is ten dimes". Imagine if each gas station had a different definition, or idea of how much a gallon was. Imagine what would happen if a sky scraper was built but all the different tradesmen had their own definition of what a "foot" was. Obviously chaos and catastrophy would result...which is what IS happening to our financial situation. Even a gold or silver standard won't prevent bubbles as long as government meddling of interest rates through The Fed continues. BTW, the promise to pay with a hard currency is actually backed by something. The promise to pay with Fiat currency is actually backed by nothing. Its not the PROMISE that's the problem. It's the VALUE of the currency that's the issue. Respectfully submitted by, Honest Abe

32. Kevin Follow Befriend 40 threads 2,652 comments

    42   1:08am Thu 16 Feb 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (2)   Dislike   Honest Abe says Fiat currency also allows for military aggression, empire building and war. What? At the risk of being redundant, do you have any evidence that fiat currency increases the amount of military aggression, empire building, or war? Over the last 2000 years of reasonably well-recorded history, it's been a trend towards less war, less aggression, and certainly less empire -- but also a trend towards fiat currencies. Personally I suspect this correlation is simply the result of technical progress and economic integration, but given that you're claiming exactly the opposite of reality I'd like to know why. Honest Abe says Fiat money is also dishonest in that it can't be defined. I have learned that there is no provision in the law, no government regulation, no statute, nothing that defines what a dollar even is. Some on this site have responded with a lame response " A dollar is ten dimes". Woah selective memory! We've been around this before, either with you or another poster, well over a year ago, and a few times since. A dollar is quite clearly defined in the US legal code. It's a lie to say that there is "noo provision in the law, no government regulation, no statute, nothing that defines what a dollar even is" You simply don't like how it's defined. Honest Abe says Imagine if each gas station had a different definition, or idea of how much a gallon was. Imagine what would happen if a sky scraper was built but all the different tradesmen had their own definition of what a "foot" was. Obviously chaos and catastrophy would result...which is what IS happening to our financial situation. Even a gold or silver standard won't prevent bubbles as long as government meddling of interest rates through The Fed continues. Our current financial situation has exactly nothing to do with people having "different definitions" of what a dollar is. Things are crappy for several well-known reasons, none of which are trivial to fix, all of which would still be true even if we had hard currency, and all of which have occurred in the past. Acting like current indebtedness and recession is historical is fun and all, but history just doesn't bear it out. We've had much worse recessions, much worse public debts, higher unemployment, lower productivity, you name it.

33. freak80 Follow Befriend (4) 52 threads 4,416 comments Corning, NY Premium

    43   6:52am Thu 16 Feb 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (3)   Dislike   Protected   Patrick says the government likes fiat currency for several reasons: 1. can threaten devaluation to foreigners who hold US Treasuries 2. can confiscate money from citizens by printing more instead of raising taxes 3. can punish savers and force them to spend or lose to "stimulate" the economy I never liked any of those. Amen to that. Nothing like the need to go "yield chasing" with risky assets just to preserve your wealth.

34. Honest Abe Follow Befriend (41) 91 threads 1,806 comments

    44   6:55am Thu 16 Feb 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike (1)   THROW DOWN CHALLANGE - to Kevin, or anyone else out there. PLEASE post the CURRENT definition of "a dollar" (unrelated to the historical definition - so many grains of gold or silver, etc). If you can, you'll shut me up forever and I will go away with my "tail between my legs", never to return. GAME ON !!!

35. freak80 Follow Befriend (4) 52 threads 4,416 comments Corning, NY Premium

    45   7:22am Thu 16 Feb 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (2)   Dislike   Protected   Honest Abe says PLEASE post the CURRENT definition of "a dollar" Here you go: http://www.x-rates.com/

36. marcus Follow Befriend (5) 166 threads 5,054 comments

    46   7:27am Thu 16 Feb 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (2)   Dislike (1)   Honest Abe says If you can, you'll shut me up forever and I will go away with my "tail between my legs", never to return. I don't think you listen very well Abe. This has been answered for you before. The dollar is used as a vehicle for transactions. A temporary store of value. We all know the definition of a dollar. It is a single unit of our currency and the worlds "reserve currency." I don't think you really mean define the dollar. What you mean is what is it worth ? Answer: It is worth what it will buy now. If you have a problem with the stability of that value, then don't keep your savings in dollars. Keep it in gold or stocks or RE or whatever. Too much freedom ?

37. Honest Abe Follow Befriend (41) 91 threads 1,806 comments

    47   10:19am Thu 16 Feb 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)   wthrfrk80, the chart defines nothing, it simply shows exchange rates. If I missed THE DEFINITION, please point it out, because I don't see it. Respectfully, Abe.

38. freak80 Follow Befriend (4) 52 threads 4,416 comments Corning, NY Premium

    48   10:34am Thu 16 Feb 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)   Protected   Honest Abe says wthrfrk80, the chart defines nothing, it simply shows exchange rates. If I missed THE DEFINITION, please point it out, because I don't see it. Respectfully, Abe. The current definition(s) of a dollar*: 1.567 british pounds 0.997 canadian dollars 1.298 euros 1.067 australian dollars 1.00 mcdonald's "mcdouble" with cheese 1.00 mcdonald's ice cream sundae 0.030 ounces of silver 0.010 barrels of oil and so on... *subject to change with time depending on the relative scarcity of dollars to the things it can buy

39. Honest Abe Follow Befriend (41) 91 threads 1,806 comments

    49   10:40am Thu 16 Feb 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (2)   Kevin, I look forward to you shutting me up by providing the definition of a dollar. In the meantime, let me explain the direct connection between military aggression, empire building and war with fiat currency. Having a fiat currency system allows the government to create money out of thin air. Empire building, maintaining bases around the world, military aggression and war is horribly expensive. Taxpayers wouldn't put up with the expense if it was funded purely by taxes. So the sneeky critters in power do an end run and create the money out of thin air to conceal the real expense to the tax payer...something they COULD NOT DO WITH A SOUND MONEY SYSTEM (that because you can't create gold or silver out of thin air). Thats part if the financial restraint placed on public officials with a sound, non-fiat, monetary system. I'm really surprised that you haven't learned that on your own, as smart as you appear to be. Best regards, Honest Abe.

40. Honest Abe Follow Befriend (41) 91 threads 1,806 comments

    50   10:51am Thu 16 Feb 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)   whrthrfk80, that's not a definition either, now you're simply being silly. BUT YOU GOT IT RIGHT AT THE VERY BOTTOM: "SUBJECT TO CHANGE". May I ask you, is a gallon subject to change? Is a foot subject to change? Is a meter subject to change? Is a pound subject to change? Is an hour subject to change? All of these examples, and millions of others, measure or quantify something. That provides stability and honesty, rather than confusion, chaos or catastrophy. Since the dollar has no definition, its unstable (subject to change), dishonest (I'm selling you a pound of butter but only provide 12 ounces) which leads to confusion, chaos or in the case of building a sky scraper...or a jumbo jet, it would lead to catastrophy, wouldn't it? Check Mate?

« First     « Previous comments     Next comments »     Last »