Saturday, December 31, 2011
archlinux is best os? Linux myhost 3.1.6-1-ARCH #1 SMP PREEMPT Thu Dec 22 09:11:48 CET 2011 x86_64 AMD Phenom(tm) II X4 965 Processor AuthenticAMD GNU/Linux
[root@myhost ~]# uname -a Linux myhost 3.1.6-1-ARCH #1 SMP PREEMPT Thu Dec 22 09:11:48 CET 2011 x86_64 AMD Phenom(tm) II X4 965 Processor AuthenticAMD GNU/Linux
Obama gave company $500M federal loan for cars built in Finland? December 31, 2011 Finnish Car company With the approval of the Obama administration, an electric car company that received a $529 million federal government loan guarantee is assembling its first line of cars in Finland, saying it could not find a facility in the United States capable of doing the work. Vice President Joseph Biden heralded the Energy Department’s $529 million loan to the start-up electric car company called Fisker as a bright new path to thousands of American manufacturing jobs. But two years after the loan was announced, the company’s manufacturing jobs are still limited to the assembly of the flashy electric Fisker Karma sports car in Finland. “There was no contract manufacturer in the U.S. that could actually produce our vehicle,” the car company’s founder and namesake told ABC News. “They don’t exist here.” Henrik Fisker said the U.S. money has been spent on engineering and design work that stayed in the U.S., not on the 500 manufacturing jobs that went to a rural Finnish firm, Valmet Automotive.
Media Abet Obama's Aloofness on Tough Issues By Richard Benedetto - December 30, 2011 Share Email Print 670 Comments ShareShare Over the past five months, the Republican presidential candidates participated in 13 debates where they fielded dozens of penetrating questions on every major issue facing the nation, and some not so major. The nationally televised and/or Internet-streamed forums each drew an average of 5 million to 6 million viewers, along with breathless wall-to-wall coverage, commentary and criticism from the news media, radio and TV talk shows, Internet blogs and partisan websites. Indeed, the GOP hopefuls have been thoroughly queried on a laundry list of issues ranging from immigration problems to the faltering economy, Iran’s nuclear program to trade deficits with China, the intricacies of climate change to strategies to combat terrorism, exploding government regulations to skyrocketing public debt, plus some uncomfortable questions about their pasts and their personal lives. Yet, during all that time, the man they hope to defeat next November has rarely been asked by news reporters about many of these issues. Since August, President Obama has held only one formal White House news conference. That came on Oct. 6, nearly three months ago. It lasted 74 minutes, shorter than any single Republican debate, and the president was asked 17 questions, most of them softballs on the economy and his latest legislative proposals to create jobs. No questions on immigration, no questions on Iran or Iraq or Afghanistan or Israel or North Korea -- global trouble spots the GOP candidates have been queried about repeatedly. Moreover, he was not asked about what spending cuts he would make to reduce the deficit, nothing about Medicare and Social Security reform or his health care law, all familiar questions for the Republicans seeking his job. Obama’s ability to avoid tough questions, skate above the fray and look presidential while his potential successors appear to be futilely flailing is not by accident. It is by White House design, abetted by a press corps that seems content with being shut out by the president and being spoon-fed the message of the day, rather than clamoring for more chances to ask him questions during this critical time. Just over the last couple of weeks, several major world events cried out for presidential comment, but little was forthcoming other than a few statements, some of which were attributed not to the president but to administration officials, named and unnamed. Among these events were: - The Russian elections. It was left to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to publicly question whether they were fraudulent. And while she was clearly speaking for the president, it was Clinton, not Obama, who drew fire from Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, who accused her of encouraging protesters. So as it appears in the news media, Russia is Clinton’s problem, not Obama’s. - Iran’s recent threat to block oil shipments in the Strait of Hormuz if sanctions are imposed on its oil exports. No word, so far, from the vacationing president. However, an unnamed administration official did accuse Iran of “saber-rattling.” - The rash of bombings in Iraq, in the wake of the U.S. troop withdrawal there, has not produced a statement from Obama, nor have reporters been able to ask him if he now feels the full draw-down might have been a bit premature. No chance, either, to question the president on recent unrest in Syria. - The death of North Korean leader Kim Jong Il and what it might mean for U.S. relations with that troubled country has not drawn presidential comment. Clinton, speaking for the administration, said, “We reiterate our hope for improved relations with the people of North Korea.” And White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said the U.S. has “no new concerns” about North Korea’s nuclear arsenal. In sum, the news we get from the White House is the news that administration press handlers want to give us, much of which provides the president with comfortable distance from foreign policy hot spots. From Hawaii this week, we get nice reports about presidential golf and snorkeling, the release of green sea turtles by the First Family, a visit with U.S. Marines and a baby putting her fingers in the president’s mouth. No wonder the GOP candidates look so bad. It’s time for reporters to start smoking the president out and call for him, not his surrogates, to answer questions on a regular basis.
Friday, December 30, 2011
Presidential Candidate Gary Johnson On The Economy And Taxes By Karl Dickey, West Palm Beach Libertarian Examiner Libertarian Party Presidential Candidate Gary Johnson has put forth a three-point plan to get the economy back and taxes simplified. First on his list would be to cut federal spending - dramatically. He has mapped out the following: · Revise the terms of entitlement programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, which threaten to bankrupt the nation's future. · Eliminate the costly and ineffective military interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan; limit defense spending to actions that truly protect the United States. · Stop spending on the fiscal stimulus, transportation, energy, housing, and all other special interests. The U.S. must restrain spending across the board. Second he would cut taxes and work to get the Fair Tax implemented. · Eliminate punitive taxation of savings and investment. · Simplify the tax code; stop using it to reward special interests and control behavior. · Eliminate the corporate income tax so that America will once again be a great place to start a business. Third, he would reduce federal involvement in the economy to end the counterproductive meddling that stifles competition, innovation and growth. · Reject auto and banking bailouts, state bailouts, corporate welfare, cap-and-trade, card check, and the mountain of regulation that protects special interests rather than benefiting consumers or the economy. · Restrict Federal Reserve policy to maintaining price stability, not bailing out financial firms or propping up the housing sector. · Eliminate government support of Fannie and Freddie. · Reduce or eliminate federal involvement in education; let states expand successful reforms such as vouchers and charter schools. · Legalize, tax, and regulate marijuana, rather than wasting money on an expensive and futile prohibition. · Eliminate needless barriers to free trade and make it easier for would-be legal immigrants to apply for work visas. Please donate generously. Gary Johnson needs our financial help to make this happen! Please visit our website at www.GaryJohnson2012.com Paid for by Gary Johnson 2012 Contributions or gifts to Gary Johnson 2012 are not deductible as charitable contributions for Federal income tax purposes. Join us on Facebook Follow us on Twitter Make A Contribution
left wing communist/fascist/socialist/overspending government goon defamation of ragan and maggie thatcher continue --- ignore it
Best economic grwoth without war for 8 years in 176 years = ron reagan. Clinton = the internet and he overspent that into a shitsquirt, leading fannie n freddy to setup 2008, not to mention fed running wild, and security laxity leading to 2001.
bank reform should avoid entangling alliances, no lending outside usa if no collateral, no counterparty risk allowed
http://www.moneynews.com/StreetTalk/Forbes-European-Banks-US/2011/12/30/id/422564 Forbes: European Banks Have $10 Trillion in Claims Against US Rivals Friday, 30 Dec 2011 08:50 AM By Forrest Jones Share: More . . . A A | Email Us | Print | Forward Article inShare European banks hold as much as $10 trillion in claims against their U.S. counterparts, which reflects how vulnerable the North American financial system is to Europe's debt crisis, Forbes reports, citing Princeton University research. For two years now, the European Union has managed to prevent countries like Greece and Italy from defaulting, which could send financial shockwaves to the U.S. The crisis, however, rages on and continues to threaten financial stability worldwide. European banks have made direct loans to U.S. businesses but also hold U.S. money-market deposits and U.S. mortgage securities. So while U.S. banks might not hold too much sovereign debt issued by troubled European governments, should a default in Europe take place and banks there go under, they could take U.S. financial institutions with them due to counterparty exposure. "Permissive financial conditions are easily transported from continent to continent when trouble arises as they do today, with vastly under-capitalized European banks owing American banks trillions — at the very moment they need an injection of trillions in Europe so as not to cause a run to default by sovereign nations or the giant banks themselves," Forbes National Editor and former investment banker Robert Lenzner writes. "In other words, we are bloody well in this together; our crummy banks holding tons of lousy mortgage loans — and Europe’s banks holding tons of lousy loans to Italy, Greece, Portugal, France and Ireland. Hands across the sea! Trillions of dollars across the sea!. Massive obstacles to the smooth running of global financial markets across the sea." Other experts agree that counterparty risk merits watching. "You may not be holding any problem debt yourself, but your counterparty could be experiencing distress, and the relationship is no longer on firm footing," says John Jay, senior analyst at Aite Group, a financial research firm, according to the Huffington Post. "If you're an American bank, and global in nature, undoubtedly you are dealing with someone who holds that sovereign risk." © Moneynews. All rights reserved. Read more: Forbes: European Banks Have $10 Trillion in Claims Against US Rivals Important: Can you afford to Retire? Shocking Poll Results
Thursday, December 29, 2011
e demolished the building and built in its place a 123-room, $47 million home known as The Manor, which remains the largest single-family home in Hollywood
Aaron Spelling Net Worth How much does Aaron Spelling make? Celebrity Profile Randomizer Aaron Spelling (April 22, 1923 – June 23, 2006) was an American television and film producer with a net worth of $300 million and the longest list of credits in Hollywood history—a total of 218 Producer and Executive Producer credits. Spelling was born and raised in Castle Hills, Texas, and served in the Air Force before moving to Los Angeles in 1953. He sold his first script to Jane Wyman Theater in 1954 and went on to write episodes for a variety of shows. In 1966, he and Danny Thomas formed Thomas-Spelling Productions, and The Mod Squad debuted in 1968. In 1972, Spelling formed Spelling Television (then called Aaron Spelling Productions), which went on to produce Sunset Beach, Dynasty, Charmed, Beverly Hills 90210, Melrose Place, and 7th Heaven. He took the company public in 1986 (as Spelling Entertainment), having raised $80 million, and continued to produce and give notes on productions into the 2000s. Spelling Entertainment remains an asset of CBS today. Spelling was married twice and had two children, actors Randy Spelling and Tori Spelling. Additionally, in the 1980s, Spelling purchased the home and six-acre property formerly owned by Bing Crosby; he demolished the building and built in its place a 123-room, $47 million home known as The Manor, which remains the largest single-family home in Hollywood.
Wednesday, December 28, 2011
Newt Gingrich Would Ask Ben Bernanke to Resign Wednesday, 28 Dec 2011 05:19 PM By Jim Meyers Share: More . . . A A | Email Us | Print | Forward Article inShare1 Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich tells Newsmax that Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke is “dangerous” and should be ousted from his post. In a wide-ranging exclusive interview taped for a Newsmax 2012 Campaign Special, the former House speaker was asked if he is satisfied with the role the Federal Reserve has played during the economic crisis. “No. I think it is a disaster and I think it’s a real affront to democracy,” Gingrich says. “Chairman Ben Bernanke has had far too much power. He has spent trillions of dollars with no supervision and no check and no responsibility. Editor's Note: Watch the Newsmax 2012 Campaign Special with Michael Reagan — Go Here Now. “I want us to audit the Fed. I want us to propose that every decision document since 2008 be released so that people can see who got money, who didn’t, when was the decision made, why was it made. “I would ask Chairman Bernanke to resign, and if he refused I would ask the Congress to pass a law to end his term early and have an interim chairman. I think he’s a very bad chairman and I think economically he’s a very dangerous chairman.”
Tuesday, December 27, 2011
Obama to Ask for $1.2 Trillion Hike in Debt Limit Tuesday, 27 Dec 2011 05:31 PM Share: More . . . A A | Email Us | Print | Forward Article inShare The Obama administration will ask Congress to increase federal borrowing authority by $1.2 trillion as the nation approaches the debt limit set by law, according to a Treasury Department official. The White House will send the request to Congress on Dec. 30, the day the debt is projected to rise to within $100 billion of the $15.194 trillion limit, the Treasury official told reporters today on condition of anonymity. Congress will be notified under the terms of a deal to raise the limit worked out on Aug. 2 after a more than two-month standoff between the administration and Republican lawmakers that was followed by a cut in the U.S. debt rating by Standard & Poor’s. The Budget Control Act of 2011 gives Congress 15 days to pass a joint resolution disapproving the increase in the limit. The president can veto such a measure. _________________________________________________________ Editor's Note: Exposed: You Owe It to Yourself to Learn What Obama and Bernanke Are Hiding From Americans This gripping Newsmax investigative report reveals the truth about America's economic future and the disastrous path that Obama’s and Bernanke’s reckless policies are taking us down. Watch, learn, and receive a free Survival Guide ($49 value) for your personal financial future. Click Here Now. _________________________________________________________ “This process was intended to avoid any further political wrangling” and “make it virtually impossible to derail the final $1.2 trillion,” said Lou Crandall, chief economist at Wrightson ICAP LLC in Jersey City, New Jersey. The limit has already been raised twice since the act was approved, by a total of $900 billion. It would rise to $16.394 trillion after the latest increase. November Election The Treasury official said U.S. government debt won’t hit the limit again until late next year. Even if it is reached before the November election, the Treasury would be able to use extraordinary measures, such as suspending the issuance of some securities used to finance state and local government infrastructure projects, to extend borrowing authority. Under the Budget Control law, the debt limit will be increased on Jan. 14, 2012, unless Congress acts. The Treasury will need to deploy some extraordinary measures to keep the debt within the limit before then, the official said. In a note to clients last week, Crandall said there’s “no chance” Congress would vote to override a presidential veto of a resolution to reject an increase in the debt limit. He also said it’s unlikely Congress would have to vote on another increase in the debt limit before November. Borrowing increases toward the end of the year because the government must make $82 billion in semiannual interest payments, such as on the Social Security trust fund, the Treasury official said. Obama may have little difficulty financing a fourth consecutive year of $1 trillion budget deficits after the U.S. government received record demand for its bonds in 2011, pushing longer-maturity Treasuries to their best performance since 1995. Interest Payments The Treasury attracted $3.04 for each dollar of the $2.135 trillion in notes and bonds sold, the most since the government began releasing the data in 1992 during the George H. W. Bush administration. Demand for Treasurys surged after S&P cut the nation’s AAA rating by one step on Aug. 5 as investors sought the safety of U.S. assets amid the European crisis and slowing global growth. © Copyright 2011 Bloomberg News. All rights reserved. Read more on Newsmax.com: Obama to Ask for $1.2 Trillion Hike in Debt Limit Important: Do You Support Pres. Obama's Re-Election? Vote Here Now!
nba sucks now controlling game with calls to giv enigger nerds fake heros liek le bron and dewane wade fags cant shoot jsut travel liek mad and rely on refs not to foult hem out when they foul 12 times a game and should foul out in first half each game offensive fouls by le bron and wade sickening constant warding off also some bizarre open court foul called
Monday, December 26, 2011
Home | Newsfront Tags: gibson | wife | divorce Mel Gibson Divorce Done: Wife Gets over $400 Million Monday, 26 Dec 2011 12:15 AM Share: More . . . A A | Email Us | Print | Forward Article inShare2 LOS ANGELES - A judge on Friday approved a divorce settlement between actor Mel Gibson and his estranged wife Robyn, ending their 31 years of marriage. Robyn, his ex-wife of nearly 30 years and the mother of their seven children, is walking away with half his fortune, once estimated to be as high as $850 million (according to the Los Angeles Business Journal in 2006) in what is considered the biggest divorce payout in Hollywood history. Because the couple didn't have a prenuptial agreement, Robyn, 55, was legally entitled to half of everything he earned during their marriage, People magazine reported. Among Gibson's estimated assets: more than $600 million grossed by the film The Passion of the Christ alone; $100-plus million in real estate investments worldwide (he bought an island in Fiji for $15 million in 2005); and $75 million for film and TV projects for which Gibson, 55, executive produced. Robyn Gibson will return to using her maiden name, Robyn Denise Moore, but other details of the divorce were kept confidential. The settlement becomes effective on January 9. Gibson, 55, and his wife married in Australia in 1980 and have seven children together. The couple separated in 2006 after Gibson was arrested for drunk driving in Malibu, California, and made anti-Semitic remarks that generated headlines around the world. The actor's wife sued for divorce in April 2009, citing irreconcilable differences following Gibson's relationship with Oksana Grigorieva, with whom he has a 2-year-old daughter. The "Lethal Weapon" star pleaded no contest to misdemeanor battery following an altercation with Grigorieva in 2010, and was sentenced to three years' probation. He recently settled a custody battle with his former girlfriend, agreeing to pay Grigorieva $750,000 and share custody of their daughter. The Oscar winner's turbulent five years since his arrest and the anti-Semitic rant have tarnished his reputation and set back a remarkable career that had made him one of Hollywood's highest paid actors, directors and producers.
Mel Gibson Divorce Done: Wife Gets over $400 Million WHY? and don't tell me the government taxes divorce payments, since the funds it draws from are post income and payroll etc tax already!!
solyandra and 10 of same ilk are unanswerable fails by obama, debate fast food for repub to hammer obamafail
Sunday, December 25, 2011
Friday, December 23, 2011
fact: fed is illegal fact: income tax is unconstitutional fact: debt of 10T from t total 16T and counting under obama is just raisign taxes fact: global warming disproved fact: welfare it 755 of gdp, while defense is 20% and invents everything fact: all welfare programs have result opposite of intent fact: overspending and bailout simply are given to obamas friends fact: 2008 caused by government banking fed fannie freddy al same gov banking thanks demrats dodd frank and friends! fact: austrain economics and was is smeared as spply side IS economics, while kenesian economics has been debnked and is simply politcs for debt spending, sending more than it takes in by government and hiding it by delaying payment and possibly default with a deficit fact: fed has loaned to other countries, which is treason fact: 4 dollar gas from 1.50 under bush is the smallest part of the obama inflation, where the real snake lies is backfilling all the exorbitant housing prices to be normal, since the state taxes based on price, letting housing slide down to 1992 prices as it should would reduce gov incoem hugely, and put more pressure than ever to stop democrats overspending fact: public school is not constitutional fact: FDR made great depression great fact: fed failed in 19020s 1998 and 2008 with 1000s of phd in keyensian economics from princeton and ivy league etc fact: unregualted computer industry is one of main economics miracle of usa, hmm unreguled=success, while car corps with unions and tons fo governmetn protections n tons of lawyer fee can't make a sellable competitive car and need bailouts
Thursday, December 22, 2011
Guys this is not good. The government is wasteful and the fed part and the president and dems bailed out and spent 10Trillion in 2 years. It has not helped anyone xcept those who got the oney and got rich from politics of knowing obama. Most are still unemplyed. More crushing regulations than ever. When will idiots who watced jon stewar rant about bush and lie about him nonstop and got hyped up on imaginary crusade admit they are wrong? 20T debt? remember deficit spending is simply raising taxes.
Wednesday, December 21, 2011
(11:12:41 AM) sharkiack: the power of the site is just to find the contacts (11:12:45 AM) sharkiack: not to give gory detail
(11:09:48 AM) sharkiack: I mean in awk I could write a wiki. (11:09:52 AM) sharkiack: with cgi (11:09:57 AM) dirty_pete: is mediawiki bad? (11:10:00 AM) dirty_pete: it seems ok to me? (11:10:01 AM) sharkiack: and something like craigslsit (11:10:02 AM) sharkiack: jeesh (11:10:05 AM) sharkiack: what id do (11:10:10 AM) sharkiack: is codify all the offers (11:10:22 AM) sharkiack: just ask them to set a price or fill in stats (11:10:24 AM) sharkiack: like in personal (11:10:30 AM) sharkiack: offer: bj handjob or fuck (11:10:36 AM) sharkiack: look for men or women (11:10:41 AM) sharkiack: so not processing string (11:10:47 AM) sharkiack: just booleans or numbers (11:10:51 AM) sharkiack: to make site smaller n faster (11:10:56 AM) sharkiack: yet still transmit most dataq (11:11:01 AM) sharkiack: not evne reeally need pics (11:11:07 AM) sharkiack: just site requiring no registration (11:11:15 AM) dirty_pete: just a fuckbook (11:11:17 AM) sharkiack: you can find bj n hookups (11:11:26 AM) sharkiack: or just give ocntac tinfo and someone can email for mroe info (11:11:31 AM) sharkiack: well good for used shit (11:11:37 AM) sharkiack: but just put description n contact (11:11:40 AM) sharkiack: not load down site (11:11:44 AM) sharkiack: site only a bridge (11:11:47 AM) dirty_pete: hmm (11:11:47 AM) sharkiack: a searhc bridge (11:11:53 AM) sharkiack: all details hash otu over email (11:11:58 AM) sharkiack: once someone find u (11:12:03 AM) sharkiack: liek say im looing for bj (11:12:11 AM) sharkiack: just have option wih chekc box (11:12:16 AM) sharkiack: for me to choose say 20 of 90 people (11:12:19 AM) sharkiack: bam (11:12:24 AM) sharkiack: they get list of emals (11:12:28 AM) sharkiack: of people wanting that (11:12:32 AM) sharkiack: and thye sort it out (11:12:41 AM) sharkiack: the power of the site is just to find the contacts (11:12:45 AM) sharkiack: not to give gory detail
Tuesday, December 20, 2011
the failed experiment of having brown preisdent failed megafail (12:22:12 AM) boo: debt 16T (12:22:22 AM) boo: thats 10Trillion new taxes in 2.5 years (12:22:26 AM) boo: stolen form taxpayer
the failed experiment of having brown preisdent failed megafail (12:22:12 AM) boo: debt 16T (12:22:22 AM) boo: thats 10Trillion new taxes in 2.5 years (12:22:26 AM) boo: stolen form taxpayer
Eric Holder Answers Fast and Furious Charges by Calling Accusers Racists by AWR Hawkins In an interview published over the weekend by the New York Times, Attorney General Eric Holder reminded us he will go to any length to conceal his culpability in Fast and Furious. His latest ploy is to declare as “racist” everyone who’s hounding him about the illegal guns sales, the gun smuggling, and the death, cover-ups, and other examples of lawlessness connected with the operation. In the Times piece, Holder intimated that President Obama is disliked because of his race, and that people are piling on the bandwagon against Holder as a means to get Obama. Holder’s exact words: “This is a way to get at the president because of the way I can be identified with him…both due to the nature of our relationship and, you know, the fact that we’re both African-American.” And who are the people going after Holder and Obama because of their race? Those rascally “conservative commentators and bloggers” of course. They are those who are part of what Holder describes as a “more extreme segment” of news reporting. (I suppose it’s extreme because it’s not news that’s run through a White House sensor or an MSNBC producer before being disseminated to the public.) Besides informing us that we’re racists for making a big deal out of hundreds of deaths among Mexican citizens, thousands of weapons sold illegally (and over 1,000 still on the street), as well as the death of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry, Holder also took a little time out to pat himself on the back during the Times interview. Said Holder: “I think that what I’m doing is right” and “I think the stands I have taken are totally consistent with a person who is looking at things realistically, factually.” By the way, last week 75 members of Congress voted that they had “No Confidence” in Holder’s ability to properly execute the duties of the office of A.G., and more than 60 have called for his resignation due to Fast and Furious. But they’re probably all racists.
Barack the Vote: MTV Comes to Obama’s Rescue with Renewed Youth Vote Push by Hollywoodland Keep in mind, MTV does all of this all under the phony shield of being non-partisan. Obviously they’re worried about recent polls showing Obama in trouble with the young and dumb, so they have decided to ride to the rescue: The cable network has replaced its campaign slogan of almost 20 years for a new one — “Power of 12″ – which it hopes will energize today’s disillusioned youth to vote in the upcoming presidential election, the New York Times reports. The “12″ signifies the election year, and the “Power” suggests that young people within the 18-to-29-year-old demo have much influence over the 2012 race — if they take action, that is. According to the Times, MTV’s research revealed that even though youth showed up in droves to champion President Barack Obama last election, they remained cynical about the electoral process. “They were so passionate,” said MTV president Stephen K. Friedman. “And then they hit this wall of the economy.” He added of the name-switch: “Voting is one step in the process — just one step. The question for this generation is, they’ve got this power, will they exert it?” Will the right ever truly comprehend the power of popular culture?
http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=129247741 You only have to follow three simple rules: - Workout 3 times a week with weights. - Eat 1g protein / lb lean body mass. - Reduce calories to lose 1-2 lbs / week. Success is 100% guaranteed.
P. Schiff: "I have challenged Krugman to a debate many times" http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?PHPSESSID=a05494afc3275e275b807cb072306be6&topic=406365.0
Monday, December 19, 2011
Non-Libertarian with some misgivings about this political philosophy (self.Libertarian) submitted 12 hours ago by nandeEbisu So, I've always wondered how libertarians would approach a lot of intractable issues, and was wondering if I could have some input, who knows, you might even make a libertarian out of me. How would deregulation help with reducing health care costs, where the demand is so high, healthcare is basically inelastic since hospitals can charge what they want and you will try your hardest to come up with the money to save yourself or a loved one. How would deregulation stop deforestation, and pollution? As a chemical engineer I know we're trained to cut corners wherever we can to bring processes to market, which is where the government comes in to constrain what we can and cannot cut so that we don't infringe on the quality of life of the general populace. How would getting rid of the Department of Education help poorer communities / states have access to a decent education for their families and lessen future inequality due to circumstances of birth? Basically, how would we not turn into the EU if we weaken our central government? Things like pollution in one state can trickle into other states that would have no recourse except through pushing federal regulation. I know that a lot of current agencies are dysfunctional, but that doesn't mean they are unnecessary, they might even need to be replaced, but fundamentally it seems like we would need some sort of central body to sort a lot of these issues out. Edit 2 It seems like a lot of you think I'm pro-status quo, I'm not. I know that the current way of doing things is messed up, but I'm not sure if shutting out government is the solution. I think government CAN accomplish things, look at our national highway system (before subsequent administrations neglected to pay to maintain it), it was definitely an achievement by the government, and had a HUGE economic benefit to the united states. I know I don't have the answers, but I'm looking for ones that make sense to me and fit with my beliefs, which is why I'm exploring different political philosophies. Edit: Healthcare: I'm not arguing that the current system is fine as is, but I don't understand how a lay-person can be expected to be educated enough to compare different hospitals on price and ensure that the cheap one is still giving you decent quality healthcare. Insurance, from what some have you have said, should only be for emergencies, not checkups / minor injuries which makes sense to me, I think you could shop around for a decent GP on your own. That being said, I'm not entirely convinced that you wouldn't end up with a giant national insurance conglomerate, squashing competitors due to increased leverage due to more customers. It seems to depend on where you start getting bloated and lose the economy of scale, where this point is I'm not really sure of. Environment: I get that a lot of problems could be solved via civil suits / arbitration to drive up costs of polluting, but that still doesn't help the fact that if I own some land, it may be to my economic advantage to use it as a waste dump, buy a big enough buffer so I don't infringe on my neighbors, and I am profiting at the expense of future generations who will be unable to use this land, or will need to spend a large sum of money to clean it up and they have no recourse against this, they are unable to file a lawsuit against a dead person, why shouldn't the government mandate that you cannot cause a certain amount of damage to important ecological areas? Same argument for deforestation, especially old growth forests, or hunting endangered species, they cannot be replaced by future generations. Also, a lot of natural resources provide public benefits, ie clean drinking water, fishing, clean air, buffers against natural disasters etc so how would such a large group of people suing a polluter be any different from a government agency levying a fine? It would provide for more consistent enforcement, and keep a bunch of repeat cases out of the court system. Education: One of the downsides of a true free market is it ends up causing social stratification, ie a wealthy person can give their child a better education, and better job prospects than a poorer person. Why shouldn't some government funds go into ensuring proper facilities for those who cannot afford them? I'm not saying that we should mandate what is taught, or how it's taught (some charter schools and private schools have been getting great results), just that everyone should have at least a certain minimum (like a computer lab, proper textbooks, teachers get paid a reasonable wage, not saying that everyone's entitled to a smart board in every room or an ipad with the latest and greatest educational software) EU: Brain fart, I concede that I stuck that in there based on my cursory knowledge of modern european politics. 25 comments share save hide report all 25 comments sorted by: best formatting help [–]falldems 1 point 68 milliseconds ago Your core belief that government solves problems more efficiently than corporations in the free market is your problem. Until you let that go you will have trouble. Lack of regulation making usa into EU? The EU is failing and i debt precisely because they regulate and stop commerce. It is a myth that commerce pollutes. Pollution causes lawsuits and hurts customers. Only idiotic corporations do that. There are emotional crutches democrats use to keep you voting hope. Free market brings lower prices for same or better goods even as producers make profit so wealth increaces. permalink edit delete reply [–]Drainedsoul 4 points 12 hours ago As a libertarian who sees posts like this literally 3-4 times a day, I've always wondered how non-libertarians can't use the search feature to find answers to questions that are quite literally asked every day. I don't mean to sound asinine, but do you honestly think that no one else, ever, has had your concerns with libertarianism? How would deregulation help with reducing health care costs Regulations are a restriction on how a company may do business. Therefore, regulations necessarily increase the cost of something since that something requires extra time/effort -- in the form of regulatory compliance -- to produce/provide. Unless that regulation is a price control, in which case the regulation forces providers/producers to provide their service/good at below-market prices, which contracts the supply, and causes shortages. How would deregulation stop deforestation, and pollution? Property rights. How would getting rid of the Department of Education help poorer communities / states have access to a decent education for their families and lessen future inequality due to circumstances of birth? Getting government out of education to any level -- whether partially or completely -- will give people better access to a "decent education". The less government the better. The government does not provide a "decent education", the government uses force to waste 12 years of everyone's life. Basically, how would we not turn into the EU if we weaken our central government? Roflmfao. permalink report reply [–]nandeEbisu[S] 2 points 12 hours ago Unless that regulation is a price control, in which case the regulation forces providers/producers to provide their service/good at below-market prices, which contracts the supply, and causes shortages. Therefore, regulations necessarily increase the cost of something since that something requires extra time/effort -- in the form of regulatory compliance -- to produce/provide. So the forces of the free market don't really apply here since consumers aren't always able to be informed consumers, they can't shop around they're at the mercy of whatever hospital they end up charging. Also, is it ethical to turn away people due to inability to pay? With taxes + government assistance we can prevent that from happening, other healthcare systems are able to do this, and we spend significantly more than them on healthcare. Property Rights Property rights don't seem to help if I own the land I'm polluting, it doesn't protect future generations who are incapable of owning the land that we would be destroying. Education So I agree that current policy isn't working, but how does that lead one to the conclusion that we should just let the chips fall where they may, and how would this help in inner city areas that aren't able to pay for decent schools as it is. permalink parent report reply [–]Drainedsoul 3 points 11 hours ago So the forces of the free market don't really apply here since consumers aren't always able to be informed consumers, they can't shop around they're at the mercy of whatever hospital they end up charging. How do you figure? Just because you don't have the ability to decide what hospital you go to at the time you need to go to the hospital, doesn't mean you can't shop around and work that out beforehand. Also, is it ethical to turn away people due to inability to pay? How isn't it ethical? With taxes + government assistance we can prevent that from happening, other healthcare systems are able to do this, and we spend significantly more than them on healthcare. You're right. Other healthcare systems do it, and they do it through price controls and government takeovers, which results in shortages, wait times, and a drastic reduction in quality. The reason costs are so high in the U.S. in the first place is because of government involvement. Property rights don't seem to help if I own the land I'm polluting They don't need to help in that case. It's your land. it doesn't protect future generations who are incapable of owning the land that we would be destroying. What. how does that lead one to the conclusion that we should just let the chips fall where they may, and how would this help in inner city areas that aren't able to pay for decent schools as it is. They are able to pay for "decent schools", it's just that the money is being funneled to the government which is basically incapable of creating or maintaining "decent" anything. permalink parent report reply [–]nandeEbisu[S] 1 point 11 hours ago Just because you don't have the ability to decide what hospital you go to at the time you need to go to the hospital, doesn't mean you can't shop around and work that out beforehand. In emergencies, an ambulance would end up dropping you at some hospital, and you may not even have a chance to choose where you end up in serious cases. Also, if you are not close to your favored hospital at the time of injury then you're at the mercy of wherever you can find. They don't need to help in that case. It's your land. What I'm trying to say is who will protect land for future generations? If I use my land as a toxic dump, even if I somehow prevent leakage from entering other people property I will end up condemning that land and preventing it from being used by future generations. Same deal with deforestation. Also I could easily end up causing damage that will last generations, even if I pay through my teeth it is possible that this damage just isn't fixable (ie mountain top removal) so why shouldn't it be prevented by the government in the first place and enforced? ...government which is basically incapable of creating or maintaining "decent" anything. So by this argument we should privatize the military, I'm not talking about government running schools, just implementing minimal standards (ie teacher certification, so teachers can move from state to state without hassle) and ensuring proper funding. permalink parent report reply [–]Drainedsoul 2 points 11 hours ago In emergencies, an ambulance would end up dropping you at some hospital Not if they had instructions not to. Also, if you are not close to your favored hospital at the time of injury then you're at the mercy of wherever you can find. This is a good reason to have insurance if you're travelling then. Real insurance (not "insurance" as it's known nowadays) is a hedge against risk. Getting seriously injured while abroad is a risk. Ergo, insurance. What I'm trying to say is who will protect land for future generations? I dunno, who'll protect my keyboard for future generations? The land doesn't belong to future generations, it belongs to me, or you, or whoever else owns it. preventing it from being used by future generations. They could still use it. so why shouldn't it be prevented by the government in the first place and enforced? Because the government doesn't own it? Besides, who's to say objectively that changing the land -- say through mountaintop removal -- makes it worse? That's the problem with laws like what you're proposing, they're based on the subjective idea that there's something there worth preserving. Besides which, if people want to preserve the land, they can buy it up and fund an organization to hold and maintain it so it can't be ruined. So by this argument we should privatize the military Maybe. I'm not talking about government running schools, just implementing minimal standards (ie teacher certification, so teachers can move from state to state without hassle) I wasn't aware that private institutions were incapable of trusting one another's certifications and issuing certifications. I guess I'll chalk this one up to "function the state can perform but no one else can with no real reason therefore". ensuring proper funding. Oh so you are talking about the government running schools! permalink parent report reply [–]nandeEbisu[S] 1 point 10 hours ago It seems like we have some fundamental disagreements, I feel we don't have the right to benefit at the expense of future generations, since that general strategy is short sighted in my opinion, and isn't sustainable. Yes, in the current moment it is more beneficial to a few people to drive down the price of commodities through mountain top removal, but it is a net drain if you look at it from the perspective of 100-200 years instead of 5-6 months. Same issue with the rainforests, they provide hundreds of millions of dollars worth of water purification which affects everyone, but by cutting this off it would benefit the few in a much smaller capacity than it would affect the many, and it's kind of ridiculous to have an entire country sue an individual, how is that any different from the government levying a fine? What is the purpose of government to you, if not to protect those who cannot protect themselves? The wealthy have no need for government if they can afford to hire their own security, ensure a proper food supply etc, so what is the purpose of government if not to protect those without the ability to protect themselves? Oh so you are talking about the government running schools! No, I am just for ensuring that all school can afford textbooks, computers, salaries that will attract reasonably skilled teachers who don't need a second job to live reasonably well so they can focus on teaching students, not mandating what is taught, or ensuring that poorer areas can afford to have smart boards in every room like wealthier schools. If this is running schools to you, then i guess, from your perspective, i am pro-government running schools. by the way, thank you for taking the time to answer these questions it's been pretty enlightening as to the thought process behind a lot of these policies. permalink parent report reply [–]Drainedsoul 2 points 10 hours ago I feel we don't have the right to benefit at the expense of future generations Sure we don't, that's why we don't mortgage future generations to the hilt with sovereign debt. Using land isn't "benefit[ing] at the expense of future generations" though. "[E]xpense" implies that someone had something, and you took it away. If you mortgage future generations to the hilt with sovereign debt, they had time, they had effort, they used that time and effort to acquire money, and then had the money taken away to pay back the debt. If you blow the top off a mountain, future generations never had that mountain, definitely never owned it, and therefore you took nothing from them. what is the purpose of government if not to protect those without the ability to protect themselves? That really depends on whether you accept the legitimacy of government or not. If you're really concerned about "protect[ing]" people, you shouldn't be worried about the people who want to provide cheap goods, you should be worried about the people with guns, handcuffs, jails, and courts. No, I am just for ensuring that all school can afford textbooks, computers, salaries that will attract reasonably skilled teachers who don't need a second job to live reasonably well so they can focus on teaching students As soon as government funds something, it puts stipulations on that funding. As soon as government funds something, that money is taken from the tax base at large and therefore is a charge on everyone. As soon as government does this, schools which exercise freedom in their business models -- moving outside the government-imposed stipulations and thereby forfeiting government funding -- necessarily become more expensive and prohibitive. Therefore, by funding anything, government takes it over. Businesses are more than capable of providing supplies to execute their purpose, and are more than capable of providing competitive salaries to attract appropriately-skilled workers. It's government that's incapable of doing this, because there's no incentive linking government payouts to results, as there is in business. You're running terrified from the profit motive -- which gives consumers control -- to the government-subsidy motive -- which gives bureaucrats control. Who should be in charge of education? The consumers -- i.e. the students and their guardians (if applicable) -- or a bureaucrat? permalink parent report reply [–]hopefullydepressed 3 points 12 hours ago I think you should look into some of the history of healthcare. They've been screwing with it for a 100 years. Here's a simple one. I live in a small community and they have a small health center. Before they got federal funding prices were cheap because they wouldn't get any customers. Once they got federal funding, and if you qualified you got it for free, the ones who could pay their price almost doubled. Now that they had enough demand at full price because of gov, they had no incentive to keep prices low so most could afford it. Now the government looks like the good guy, but the reality is it screwed everyone. permalink report reply [–]nandeEbisu[S] 1 point 12 hours ago* I agree that current policy is horrendous, look at agriculture, healthcare whatever and it's been implemented horrendously, but the free market also assumes that at market equilibrium there will be people whose willingness to pay is less than market price, so they won't be able to get health care at all, couldn't the government step in and provide it for them, either through vouchers or subsidies, basically act like an insurance company and refuse to cover people in a hospital that is overcharging / abusing the system? edit: Just remembered something, if prices got so high, and profits increased so much, wouldn't that incentivize other companies to open their own health centers, increasing competition and driving down prices? It seems like some free market assumptions start breaking down when you look at certain real world examples (that or I'm not viewing them through the correct lens) permalink parent report reply [–]foerthan 2 points 12 hours ago* There are several different "branches" of Libertarianism, so you you're not going to get the same response from everyone here. How would deregulation help with reducing health care costs, where the demand is so high, healthcare is basically inelastic since hospitals can charge what they want and you will try your hardest to come up with the money to save yourself or a loved one. By directly increasing competition by removing barriers to entry. Obviously, some of this barrier is due to high cost of starting, which you can't really do anything about, but much of it is that you cannot sell insurance across state lines. If you live in California, you can't buy an insurance policy from someone in New York. By removing that restriction, the national market for health care would be significantly increased, which should trend to pushing prices down. As it stands, a small number of large firms tend to have strangleholds on areas, and can easily push out any newcomers that intend to compete on price, which would be significantly more difficult on a nation-wide scale. How would deregulation stop deforestation, and pollution? As a chemical engineer I know we're trained to cut corners wherever we can to bring processes to market, which is where the government comes in to constrain what we can and cannot cut so that we don't infringe on the quality of life of the general populace. There is a bit of a split between libertarians regarding the right to actually "own" land and natural resources... someone like Pssvr will generally give you a significantly different answer. For my part, I'd say there wouldn't be anything to stop deforestation, so long as the company has the permission of the land owner to cut. Of course, as trees become more scarce, the market price of lumber would increase, which would in turn push for more replanting. As for pollution, it would be handled via a court system. Anytime a company is causing pollution, it's damaging property it does not/cannot own. For instance, nobody owns the air, or you could say that everyone "communally" owns the air, but obviously no specific... "part", so to speak. Therefore, when a company pollutes the air, it is damaging your property, along with that of tons of other people, and you/others can seek reparations from the company. Obviously they wouldn't be able to get away with this for any significant amount of time before they would be driven bankrupt. How would getting rid of the Department of Education help poorer communities / states have access to a decent education for their families and lessen future inequality due to circumstances of birth? Getting rid of the DoE will not eliminate "free" schooling - the majority of that money already comes from local sources. Things like No-child left behind hurt schools and students by relying on standard testing and pass rates as an indicator of the success of the school, and thus additional funding. Rather than making schools up their game, they instead teach specifically what is covered in these tests (which is nowhere near all the material that needs to be covered), and causes them to balk at holding back students who aren't where they need to be for their grade level. It also limits the teacher's flexibility, which combined with teaching to pass tests rather than actually to teach material, significantly harms children. Do schools need to be accountable? Yes. But the federal government is not the one who should be doing that. It is too far removed from these schools, and test scores/pass rates are nowhere near good indicators of what children have actually learned. That accountability would be best coming from parents, but basically anything local is significantly better that what's currently in place. EDIT: Fixed an improper use of "there". Oops. permalink report reply [–]nandeEbisu[S] 1 point 11 hours ago As it stands, a small number of large firms tend to have strangleholds on areas, and can easily push out any newcomers that intend to compete on price, which would be significantly more difficult on a nation-wide scale. So what's to stop a company from beating out all of the fractured state-wide goliaths and becoming one nationwide goliath, causing the same problem as before? Basically, if it could happen on a state/region level, why couldn't it happen on a national level? The interesting thing about insurance companies is that the larger they are the more leverage they have with hospitals, and the lower they can drive their prices, so it's a catch-22 that keeps smaller companies from springing up and allowing for competition. you/others can seek reparations from the company If you look at something like old-growth forests that have been cleared, if I own the land and the trees what's to stop me from cutting them down and selling the lumber? Or from hunting endangered species on my own land (I know that current endangered species laws are idiotically enforced and screw the little guy in favor of people who can afford the impact studies, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't have a policy to deal with this at all, imo). I'm cheating future generations out of these natural habitats and they have no recourse against me. Education I've believed no child left behind is bad policy since it started, and I guess I misunderstood the ultimate purpose of he DoE, but it seems like having a nationwide tax / pool of funds to help out struggling communities is a good thing that would promote education equality, and increase the supply of talented workers, which would be a good thing for the economy as a whole. permalink parent report reply [–]foerthan 2 points 11 hours ago So what's to stop a company from beating out all of the fractured state-wide goliaths and becoming one nationwide goliath, causing the same problem as before? Basically, if it could happen on a state/region level, why couldn't it happen on a national level? The interesting thing about insurance companies is that the larger they are the more leverage they have with hospitals, and the lower they can drive their prices, so it's a catch-22 that keeps smaller companies from springing up and allowing for competition. Because now instead of dealing with a single entity popping up in a local area (and being able to adjust their local - but not national - prices accordingly to drive out the newcomer), it has to do this on a nation-wide scale. If they drive down their prices to force out the newcomer, and then subsequently raise them back up, without any barriers to entry, yet another newcomer can come onto the scene to make a profit. The large firm will again have to lower prices to force it out, etc. All the time this is happening the consumer is benefiting. There's also more to look at than simply prices (since many people will pay some extra to go with a company that has better service or reputation, or things like plans specifically to fill your needs), so pushing out another competitor isn't just as simple as reducing prices. It's largely an issue of market scalability - I might not can gather enough customers on a local level to continue running when the large firm is trying to push me out, but when I have a 50x larger market... In regards to hospitals, they have no real incentive to refuse a certain insurance provider, so long as they are being paid. Why would they? If they refuse to take anything but the "large providers", they are losing a significant amount of business and are at threat of someone stealing that market. If you look at something like old-growth forests that have been cleared, if I own the land and the trees what's to stop me from cutting them down and selling the lumber? Or from hunting endangered species on my own land (I know that current endangered species laws are idiotically enforced and screw the little guy in favor of people who can afford the impact studies, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't have a policy to deal with this at all, imo). Nothing is stopping you from doing that. At most, if some group was significantly invested in not having you do it, they could pay you to not cut down the forest, kill the animal, etc, but they could not use force against you to stop it. (Again, a libertarian with different views on property will give you a significantly different answer). I'm cheating future generations out of these natural habitats and they have no recourse against me. "Future generations" do not have a right to anything, or else abortion would be illegal. You cannot form a contract, explicit or implied, with something that does not yet exist. I've believed no child left behind is bad policy since it started, and I guess I misunderstood the ultimate purpose of he DoE, but it seems like having a nationwide tax / pool of funds to help out struggling communities is a good thing that would promote education equality, and increase the supply of talented workers, which would be a good thing for the economy as a whole. Again, almost all of that funding comes from the local level to begin with. People have incentives to contribute to their local schools and often do. Don't forget that things like fund raisers, sports, school events, donations, etc. can all be used to help fund a school that is struggling. permalink parent report reply [–]nandeEbisu[S] 1 point 10 hours ago Larger hospitals can bully smaller insurance companies into either paying more, or not covering their customers for that institution which reduces the quality of their service and loses them customers (this is from talking with people I know who have seen this firsthand working in hospitals). So my major argument with preservation is that the people who are willing to pay the most to prevent you from using up these resources haven't been born yet. I think we have a fundamental disagreement on whether or not things should be run sustainably, and what responsibilities and obligations we have to people that come after us. I also mentioned that a lot of these natural resources provide a public good, ie water purification, that benefits everyone and if everyone sues someone how is that different form levying a fine? If you look at current schools, people living in poorer areas clearly don't have the ability / willingness to pay (willingness to pay in an economic sense) for better schools for their children, so why should their children suffer when this can be remedied through taxation? Depending entirely on altruism in this case clearly isn't working currently, what's to imply it would work without government regulation? Thanks for taking the time to answer my questions. It's been pretty eye opening for me. permalink parent report reply [–]foerthan 1 point 9 hours ago and what responsibilities and obligations we have to people that come after us. I have an issue with the argument that we do because it's essentially an implied contract to someone who does not exist, which is ridiculously open-ended. I also mentioned that a lot of these natural resources provide a public good, ie water purification, that benefits everyone and if everyone sues someone how is that different form levying a fine? It's essentially not very different from a fine, other than who it is "levying" the fine (in this case consumers/citizens rather than the government). Like fines, it has the same result - regulating businesses. The point is that it can be done without the government stepping in to take care of it. If you look at current schools, people living in poorer areas clearly don't have the ability / willingness to pay (willingness to pay in an economic sense) for better schools for their children, so why should their children suffer when this can be remedied through taxation? Depending entirely on altruism in this case clearly isn't working currently, what's to imply it would work without government regulation? Essentially, there's not. However, you ask "Why should children suffer", yet I ask "Why should someone be forced to give up what they own". I know that sounds exceptionally callous, and while I agree that it is an "injustice" in a sense towards the child, I also feel that forcibly taking money or other resources from someone in order to correct that injustice is wrong. Basically everything libertarians argue is either derived from or an explicit part of the NAP (Non-aggression principle; essentially, the initiation of force against another person is illegitimate - note the qualifier of "initiation", as defense is not in violation of this). This tends to give the impression that libertarians are all about "me me me" and selfishness, but that's not really the case. It's more that we feel you shouldn't attempt to force someone to be altruistic. Thanks for taking the time to answer my questions. It's been pretty eye opening for me. No problem, but to be honest, I'm not really the best person to be answering your questions :P. Hopefully Pssvr will show up and attempt to answer your questions. He's a geo-libertarian, so his answer should be rather different regarding the land question. You could always attempt to PM him too. If you want an anarcho-capitalist (also known as voluntarism) opinion, you should ask throwaway-0, although I can tell you weren't "satisfied" with my answers (in the sense that they didn't sit well with you), so you probably won't find his answers any more tasteful. I personally am probably somewhere between Minarchism and anarcho-capitalism, mostly because I'm skeptical about the plausibility of the emergence of an ancap society from what we currently have now. Regardless, I'm considerably less well read than either of those two, and many others on this board. I appreciate you not being hostile here though, as many others are :) permalink parent report reply [–]nandeEbisu[S] 1 point 9 hours ago So, less of a philosophical argument, but I think things should be run sustainably, also a lot of the things we take for granted actually provide a HUGE economic benefit for us http://www.ted.com/talks/pavan_sukhdev_what_s_the_price_of_nature.html and if we intentionally start rocking the ecological boat it could cost society a large amount of money to either right it, or suffer the consequences that come with it, and since some of these consequences come to people who don't know it's kind of like that philosophical conundrum where you get a million dollars, but if you accept someone somewhere will die. You could argue that better education and less poverty will reduce crime, and actually benefit everyone, but since it's a public good everyone will benefit regardless of if they pay, so no one pays. I believe that you should be asked (or, in your words, forced) to make sacrifices commensurate to the benefits you receive from government, ie for roads, and security. permalink parent report reply [–]foerthan 1 point 8 hours ago I believe that you should be asked (or, in your words, forced) to make sacrifices commensurate to the benefits you receive from government, ie for roads, and security. And that's where we will fundamentally disagree. Roads can certainly be handled by private entities, as for security a minarchist would say that is a legitimate government function, although ancaps would say it could also be done by private entities. Regardless, it's not "asking" if the penalty for not doing it is jail time - you are threatening someone with force if they do not comply. permalink parent report reply [–]nandeEbisu[S] 1 point 5 hours ago I've never really heard of roads being handled by private entities except for toll roads, so in other words you would need to pay a private entity or you wouldn't be able to drive off of you property? People who cannot afford to would not have access to running water or proper roads, and would essentially live in a 3rd world country? That kind of sounds worse than being forced to pay for civilization if you can afford it and are taking part in it. If you wanted to you could live off of the grid and not have to pay any taxes that way. permalink parent report reply [–]tocano 2 points 11 hours ago Drainedsoul made some good points about the intervention that govt has in health care that causes problems. Let me just also add that emergencies (where choice of healthcare provider is minimal) is a minority of health care. There is little price checking currently on all sorts of medical procedures because health insurance is so prevalent and covers the vast majority of all procedures. Thus, there's little pressure pushing prices down. Insurance companies, as costs increase, simply raise their premiums on the consumer, and the cycle continues. Private property rights being strongly enforced would help curb pollution. Though this would require some changes to how property is treated now and how tort law works currently. And if a person decided to pollute his own property, the value of that property will reduce - assuming people will just massively pollute their own property, which is already unlikely - and reducing their own property value could negatively affect the property value of neighbors, which could make a case that their property value is being damaged by their neighbor's polluting actions. Things like pollution in one state can trickle into other states that would have no recourse except through pushing federal regulation. No, states could use the federal govt as an arbitrator to fix a specific situation/problem. Not to apply regulations for all situations and circumstances. Basically, how would we not turn into the EU if we weaken our central government? You realize that the EU is in trouble now because each individual member ceded authority and sovereignty to create a stronger central govt? You seem like a person with some realization of the problems that current centralization has created. So let me make you this proposal: Work with libertarians to help roll back some of the govt intervention (for example, by electing Ron Paul. Then we'll deal with the question of "who will build the bridges". For example, Ron Paul is for eliminating some of the least useful depts (Education, Commerce, HUD (helped push and create the housing bubble), Interior), would end corporate bailouts, would try to end subsidies and tax loopholes, and would strongly push for a full and transparent audit the Federal Reserve, etc and would push other social issues to the state (where they could be continued as desired), in addition to ending the wars and military intervention and bringing transparency and openness to the executive branch. This wouldn't result in a totally free market or anything. In fact, a great deal about govt wouldn't change at all. However, it would be a step back from the mess we're in now. Help get him elected and then we can start talking about just what should be left to the free market and what should be regulated and controlled by govt. permalink report reply [–]nandeEbisu[S] 1 point 11 hours ago How would one pay for certain emergencies then, such as breaking a bone, or expensive complications, some things just are expensive since they require hours of time from a skilled professional to treat, how do you get around this without insurance spreading risk amongst a group? The funny thing about insurance companies though is that the more customers they have the more leverage they have on hospitals, and the lower they can drive their operating costs, which would allow them to drive out any newcomers. They don't operate on a traditional free market basis. So plenty of corporations would have no problems purchasing land to dump waste in, since it would be much cheaper than properly disposing of it, this just ruins the land for future generations regardless. If you look at fracking, without someone paying for a non-partisan impact study people have no way of definitively tieing pollution back to industry, who would then pay for the study and keep it non-partisan? So, it seemed like some of the EU's problems were that they centralized poorly, ie they had no way to keep greece / italy from bankrupting themselves and holding the EU hostage, they obviously shouldn't have bailed them out, but they were basically damned if they did, damned if they didn't. I very much believe that we need a variety of people in government with differing ideas, since it's highly unlikely that any one political philosophy is the ideal perfect strategy. I know that a lot of our current departments are dysfunctional and need to be overhauled, but I also don't think that we should replace them with a vacuum, since the free market has distinct flaws, even Adam Smith realized that there are situations where the individual profit-maximizing strategy would end up with squandered public goods, and a lower societal well-being, which is where government comes in. permalink parent report reply [–]tocano 2 points 10 hours ago How would one pay for certain emergencies then You're missing the point. The overall cost of healthcare has gone up because of things like regulations, patents, licensing, FDA requirements, as well as almost universal healthcare coverage in which there was little downward pressure on prices. Thus I call this an artificially increased prices. So now that prices have skyrocketed due to govt intervention, and I point out that non-emergency medical procedures could still be subject to price competition, you ask how could one afford to pay the artificially increased prices? You realize that broken bones and surgeries and other complicated procedures were handled with very little insurance prior to govt overtaking the health care industry? The funny thing about insurance companies though is that the more customers they have the more leverage they have on hospitals, and the lower they can drive their operating costs, which would allow them to drive out any newcomers. Except reality challenges that view. Insurance is a growth industry - more companies offering more services - and health care prices have skyrocketed. If the pollution truly is contained within the property, and the company/companies are willing to deal with owning a worthless piece of land, you'll still have public pressure against the practice and against the company. Why does a study to demonstrate the impact of fracking have to be non-partisan? So, it seemed like some of the EU's problems were that they centralized poorly So you're saying if only the EU had MORE authority, then those pesky states couldn't have gotten out of hand? I very much believe that we need a variety of people in government with differing ideas, since it's highly unlikely that any one political philosophy is the ideal perfect strategy Perfect, then a libertarian society where each state/local community can pass the laws it wishes (or not), can test everything from anarcho-capitalism to voluntary communism and we can see how they work out without everyone being latched to the one monolithic state system. And Adam Smith is not the ultimate source on free markets. permalink parent report reply [–]evilmarscapone 2 points 11 hours ago How would deregulation help with reducing health care costs Healthcare in the US is a giant credit bubble. healthcare is basically inelastic since hospitals can charge what they want and you will try your hardest to come up with the money to save yourself or a loved one. Is that true about food and water? Other necessities which are required to live? Food prices as a percent of average income are practically the lowest they've ever been. Plus the majority of healthcare costs do not come from lifesaving procedures but from medicine and preventative care, both of which would have high elasticity in a free market. How would deregulation stop deforestation Property rights and private ownership and pollution Once again, property rights. Look at BP, they had liability caps imposed by the state. Instead of said caps, strict property rights would serve as a much better deterrent. How would getting rid of the Department of Education help poorer communities / states have access to a decent education for their families and lessen future inequality due to circumstances of birth? How has the state made education better? Spending (adjusted for inflation) and regulations have increased dramatically since the 60's and school systems are worse off nationwide. Basically, how would we not turn into the EU if we weaken our central government? Economic freedom leads to prosperity. Things like pollution in one state can trickle into other states that would have no recourse except through pushing federal regulation. Once again, property law. I know that a lot of current agencies are dysfunctional, but that doesn't mean they are unnecessary, they might even need to be replaced, but fundamentally it seems like we would need some sort of central body to sort a lot of these issues out. All government bodies should be done away with, then should plead their case as to why they should exist, and how they can preform their functions without the initiation of force/violence. permalink report reply [–]metamemetics 1 point 10 hours ago* society != government. Because libertarians don't think the government should have a monopoly on farmland and be responsible for producing our food, does not mean we think people should starve. Usually it's the opposite, we know that putting the government in charge of producing all of our food would lead to starvation and shortages down the road. We generally all agree it would be barbaric for the government to take over something as important as food production, so why do we support the government taking over other parts of the economy, when it's just as unconstitutional? Additionally, what is the nature of government? It is an institution which we have chosen to give the monopoly of violence, so that individuals do not have the right to use violence against one another. If you believe in the principle of specialization leads to efficiency gains, why do we wish to give the ONE institution to which we have already given the monopoly of violence, other monopolies which it must be tasked to carry out? And why do we not call for another institution to possess these monopolies, and instead wish them upon the one which already possesses the monopoly of violence? Is it because these additional roles it must fulfill, that we do not perform ourselves, are dependent upon the ability to threaten violence? permalink report reply [–]nandeEbisu[S] 1 point 9 hours ago I agree that food production is something that SHOULD be subjected to market forces, let farmers have private insurance or something to handle draught years or blight, and do away with protectionist tariffs and subsidies, but not every sector should be subjected to this. Healthcare is something that's very non-predicatable and can have serious detriment to society if it's mismanaged. I tend to agree that the government that governs least governs best, but I still think that there are certain things that government needs to do, as in make sure people who are not being cared for by the private healthcare sector get treatment, though this seems like a philosophical difference, since I believe that we all should be responsible for making sure that everyone at least has a certain minimum access to healthcare, which would not happen in a free market, there would always be the stragglers at the bottom. How this is to be accomplished is another question though. Gotta say, that first sentence in the last paragraph brought my back to my high school comparative politics class! So, in order for these institutions to act in the best interest of society they need to be non-biased, and the easiest way to sway an organization is through funding, if the funding is not done impartially by both parties then you might as well not have the institution. The only way, that I know of at least, for this to be done is through taxes or something similar. If you don't want to call that institution government, fine by me, but if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck... permalink parent report reply [–]jp007 2 points 10 hours ago I don't understand how a lay-person can be expected to be educated enough to _____ We shouldn't abolish slavery because those slaves are just too darn stupid to take care of themselves without the benevolent wisdom of their masters. permalink report reply [–]nandeEbisu[S] 1 point 9 hours ago It's just not reasonable to expect someone to, for instance, look at every toy in the toy aisle and know whether they are safe or not for their child they would need to look into many different processes and be knowledgeable about many different subjects, like material stresses and physiology to properly judge whether something is safe or not, and that's IF the companies are required to disclose what is in each of their toys. This is where the government really shines in my opinion, providing public non-biased (if done properly) expertise to give the general public useful understandable information. (If you don't trust the government, you can always finance a suite of tests yourself, but that's pretty damn expensive, especially when the information has a very minimal marginal cost to disseminate) permalink parent report reply
Fair Tax would solve tax dilemma Thursday, October 6, 2011 By: Ted Hruzd My Central Jersey ...Especially today we need to grow our economy. Can tax reform play a role? Most certainly and via the Fair Tax now in Congress as HR 25. The Fair Tax rewards and encourages economic success and is progressive. It eliminates all federal personal and corporate and payroll taxes; it replaces that with a revenue neutral consumption tax on only new products and services. Rebates are provided to low-income earners. The zero percent corporate tax rate will position the U.S. as an entrepreneurial haven for domestic and foreign investors. More jobs will be created in the U.S. as a result. Furthermore, the Fair Tax eliminates the IRS along with a $430 billion annual burden or almost 3 percent of our economy. Technology is in place for tax collection at point of sales. How much of the $430 billion (total cost of the IRS, plus compliance) contributes to economic growth? Likely none. Ted Hruzd MORRIS TOWNSHIP
why not tons of debt of usa paid off by fed interest income?
ABOUT THE FAIRTAX ABOUT THE FAIRTAX:: FairTax Bill Information More FairTax Basics FairTax FAQs FairTax Research Papers Try the new FairTax Calculator Ask the Experts Contribute to FairTax.org Contact Congress Presidential Scorecard Congressional Scorecard The FairTax Book Neal Boortz, John Linder Buy It Now FairTax: The Truth: Answering the Critics Neal Boortz, John Linder Buy It Now What is the FairTax plan? The FairTax plan is a comprehensive proposal that replaces all federal income and payroll based taxes with an integrated approach including a progressive national retail sales tax, a prebate to ensure no American pays federal taxes on spending up to the poverty level, dollar-for-dollar federal revenue neutrality, and, through companion legislation, the repeal of the 16th Amendment. The FairTax Act (HR 25, S 13) is nonpartisan legislation. It abolishes all federal personal and corporate income taxes, gift, estate, capital gains, alternative minimum, Social Security, Medicare, and self-employment taxes and replaces them with one simple, visible, federal retail sales tax administered primarily by existing state sales tax authorities. The FairTax taxes us only on what we choose to spend on new goods or services, not on what we earn. The FairTax is a fair, efficient, transparent, and intelligent solution to the frustration and inequity of our current tax system. The FairTax: Enables workers to keep their entire paychecks Enables retirees to keep their entire pensions Refunds in advance the tax on purchases of basic necessities Allows American products to compete fairly Brings transparency and accountability to tax policy Ensures Social Security and Medicare funding Closes all loopholes and brings fairness to taxation Abolishes the IRS We offer a library of information throughout this Web site about the features and benefits of the FairTax plan. Please explore!
Thursday, December 15, 2011
People, get your english straight. OBama has raised taxes 40,000 for each living citizen in usa including old and babies.
Wednesday, December 14, 2011
democrat corzine and former new jersey governor b4 chris christie doesn't know as CEO where 1.2Billion $$ of customers swent from IMF global
Monday, December 12, 2011
Sunday, December 11, 2011
Saturday, December 10, 2011
Author Schweizer: Pelosi Made Killing Off of Most In-Demand IPO in History As Congress weighs a measure that would ban insider trading among lawmakers, the author whose book touched off a national maelstrom on the topic, insists that the practice rises to the level of corruption. “We are supposed to be a country governed by laws, not by men,” charges Peter Schweizer in an exclusive interview with Newsmax.TV. A research fellow at the Hoover Institution, Schweizer chronicles alleged abuses by members of both chambers in his new book, “Throw Them All Out."
Thursday, December 8, 2011
http://www.ashemaletube.com/videos/20213/busty-eva-fucks-her-lover.html http://xhamster.com/movies/297956/fucking_a_big_tit_shemale.html http://www.charmingtranny.com/cms/watch/71021.php?big-tits http://www.ashemaletube.com/videos/4518/titty-ladyboy-masturbates.html
http://www.ashemaletube.com/videos/20213/busty-eva-fucks-her-lover.html http://www.ashemaletube.com/videos/20045/sexy-threesome-wanking-and-blowing.html http://www.trannytube.net/video/big-boob-shemale-gets-her-huge-cock-sucked-OKPxohtjzI4.html?utm_source=alexz&utm_medium=web&utm_campaign=alexz http://www.ashemaletube.com/videos/20000/titty-tranny-pounded-nicely.html
Wednesday, December 7, 2011
The Great Western Crackup by Peter Schiff Recently by Peter Schiff: Gold Buyers Guide: How To Avoid Getting Ripped Off From World War II until very recently, the West – specifically Europe and the United States – was on a course for greater centralization, greater integration, and greater economic intervention. But this consensus is breaking down. In Europe, the euro has gone from steadily adding new members to now facing the prospect of having its weaker members quit. In America, the US Congressional Supercommittee has now officially failed in its mandate to bring even meager cuts to the bleeding US deficit. This is the beginning of the end. Both the EU and US are politically paralyzed, seeming only to be able to make compromises that involve more spending, more debt, and more central planning. The results are all too predictable to free-market thinkers: bailouts leading to moral hazard, low interest rates leading to ballooning debt, and eventually a cascade of systemic failures – leading to more bailouts. This was confirmed yet again last Wednesday when central bankers on both sides of the Atlantic announced a coordinated tidal wave of new money to bailout the Western banking system yet again. Now, the only money you can trust is the gold and silver in your pocket. LIKE LEMMINGS OFF A CLIFF The poison of Keynesianism has left the politicians unable to even listen to free-market solutions. Personally, I have found it nearly impossible to find a Keynesian professor or official to debate me – even though (or perhaps because) I have a track record of accurate economic predictions. You would think at least one of them would want to tell me why I'm wrong... to offer some excuses for their failure to predict the dot-com bubble, the housing bubble, or anything that has come after that. This is just an illustration of what we, as investors and citizens, are facing. The halls of power, the media, and academia are completely closed off from reality. They're clutching their theories and hoping that they don't end up having to work for a living like the rest of us. EUROPE I have repeatedly stated that the fact that Germany has been resistant to printing more euros is the main argument in favor of the euro. Of course, the mainstream consensus is the opposite. The same people who pushed for entitlement programs that Western nations couldn't afford are now arguing that the EU must use the power of the printing press to "help" bankrupt Greece, Italy, Spain, and others. Really, this is just a secret tax on those who chose to save for a rainy day, and it will lead the euro on the road to ruin just like the US dollar. If Greece, Italy, et al, can't stomach the austerity that comes with staying in the euro, they should withdraw and see how the bond markets treat them without the implicit backing of Northern Europe. Either way, they must be made to face the market consequences of their previous spending. Unfortunately, with this past Tuesday's announcement that the EU would provide another $10.7 billion bailout to Greece and Wednesday's bank bailout announcement, there is no sign that Europe's politicians are going to allow market forces to play out. Instead, repeated bailouts will ensure that other ailing economies, like Italy or Portugal, do not make the necessary cuts in time to avoid needing their own bailouts. And no one, save perhaps China, can afford to bail out the likes of Italy. Thus, like pulling off a bandaid, the politicians have made the euro crisis more painful by drawing it out. This means more risk and more volatility for investors, causing them to abandon the supranational currency in droves. AMERICA Abandoning the euro looks like a wise course of action, but it becomes extremely unwise when you buy dollars instead. Remember, my concern with Europe is that they have started down a path that may lead them to the sorry state of the US. If you're worried that your refrigerator doesn't get as cold as it used to, you don't move your perishables to another fridge that won't even turn on! In other words, the current status of the dollar is the nightmare scenario for the euro: no significant member-states are thriving, bailouts are assumed and given without significant debate, and the money supply is growing rapidly to cover the debts. At worst, the EU could be facing a rump euro comprised of the healthier Northern economies or years of debt monetization to try to "save" the PIIGS. But the US has already spent decades monetizing its debt and is now facing a 'game over' scenario. Remember, the EU might be going along with the latest bank bailout scheme, but the US Fed spearheaded it and the swaps are denominated in dollars. The failure of the Congressional Supercommittee shows how laughable Washington – and, by extension, the dollar – has become. The Federal Reserve is frantically buying Treasuries at auction to make up for wilting demand from foreign creditors, such that it may soon hold 20% of all outstanding Treasury debt. Meanwhile, the Supercommittee failed in its meager mandate to slow the growth of new spending by $100 billion a year, barely a dent in an annual deficit that runs over $1 trillion a year – not to mention the $15 trillion in debt already accumulated. The failure caused ratings agency Fitch to downgrade its outlook on US credit, potentially joining S&P soon in stripping the US of its AAA. Perhaps the analysts at Fitch realize that if the Fed were to stop buying Treasuries, say because consumer prices started rising too quickly to ignore, then rising interest rates would add additional trillions to the debt problem, making default inevitable. Or maybe they're starting to realize that getting paid back the whole coupon in worthless dollars is just another form of default. In short, the US is going to be mired in economic depression for the foreseeable future, with no reform efforts likely, and so the Fed will continue printing as much as it can to paper over the problem. This is tremendously bearish for the dollar, even moreso than a euro facing the loss of a few weak member-states. THE BUCK STOPS HERE The knee-jerk buying of US dollars, which has sent metals prices on a roller coaster this fall, represents pure market manipulation by the Fed. Private buyers and foreign governments were selling dollars and Treasuries before this recent market action sent confusing signals. We saw a short rally, but on last Wednesday's bank bailout news, dollar selling resumed in earnest. Overall, the trend remains: the Fed will continue to buy a greater and greater share of US debt until all the new money it's printing sends inflation into the double digits. So, in a world where the two major reserve currencies are both faltering, which asset is going to become the new foundation for international trade and personal savings? A look at history sees periods of monetary debasement and market mania followed by a return to more fundamental values. Every successful civilization in history has relied on sound money to grow, always in the form of precious metals. With globalization, we live in a world where investors don't have to live with their governments' bad choices. Allocating a portion of your portfolio to precious metals means being able to sit on the sidelines and laugh at the comedy of the sovereign debt crisis. It means that when new dollars or euros are printed, your metals simply go up in price. That is the ultimate resolution to this crisis. More banks, institutions, and individual investors will simply withdraw from the fiat money system and rely on precious metals as their reserve asset. As they do so, the fiat system will be all the weaker for the those left behind. After this period of uncertainty, a new consensus is sure to form, and the 24% run up this year alone indicates that gold may play a central role. December 6, 2011 Peter Schiff CEO of Euro Pacific Precious Metals, a gold and silver dealer selling reputable, well-known bullion coins and bars at competitive prices. He is author of The Little Book of Bull Moves in Bear Markets and Crash Proof: How to Profit from the Coming Economic Collapse. His latest book is How an Economy Grows and Why It Crashes. Copyright © 2011 Euro Pacific Precious Metals
Move Over Penn State, Syracuse...Hollywood..the home of Pedophelia??? « on: December 06, 2011, 10:26:28 PM »
Move Over Penn State, Syracuse...Hollywood..the home of Pedophelia??? « on: December 06, 2011, 10:26:28 PM » If a spate of recent allegations proves true, Hollywood may have a hideous epidemic on its hands. The past two weeks have brought three separate reports of alleged child sexual abuse in the entertainment industry. Martin Weiss, a 47-year-old Hollywood manager who represented child actors, was charged in Los Angeles on Dec. 1 with sexually abusing a former client. His accuser, who was under 12 years old during the time of the alleged abuse, reported to authorities that Weiss told him "what they were doing was common practice in the entertainment industry." Weiss has pleaded not guilty. On Nov. 21, Fernando Rivas, 59, an award-winning composer for “Sesame Street,” was arraigned on charges of coercing a child “to engage in sexually explicit conduct” in South Carolina. The Juilliard-trained composer was also charged with production and distribution of child pornography. Registered sex offender Jason James Murphy, 35, worked as a casting agent in Hollywood for years before his past kidnapping and sexual abuse of a boy was revealed by the Los Angeles Times on Nov. 17. Murphy’s credits include placing young actors in kid-friendly fare like "Bad News Bears," "The School of Rock," "Cheaper by the Dozen 2” and the forthcoming "Three Stooges.” Revelations of this sort come as no surprise to former child star Corey Feldman. Feldman, 40, himself a survivor of childhood sexual abuse, unflinchingly warned of the world of pedophiles who are drawn to the entertainment industry last August. "I can tell you that the No. 1 problem in Hollywood was and is and always will be pedophilia,” Feldman told ABC’s Nightline. “That's the biggest problem for children in this industry... It's the big secret.” Follow FOX411 on Twitter. Another child star from an earlier era agrees that Hollywood has long had a problem with pedophilia. “When I watched that interview, a whole series of names and faces from my history went zooming through my head,” Paul Peterson, 66, star of The Donna Reed Show, a sitcom popular in the 1950s and 60s, and president of A Minor Consideration, tells FOXNews.com. “Some of these people, who I know very well, are still in the game.” “This has been going on for a very long time,” concurs former “Little House on the Prairie” star Alison Arngrim. “It was the gossip back in the ‘80s. People said, ‘Oh yeah, the Coreys, everyone’s had them.’ People talked about it like it was not a big deal.” Arngrim, 49, was referring to Feldman and his co-star in “The Lost Boys,” Corey Haim, who died in March 2010 after years of drug abuse. “I literally heard that they were ‘passed around,’” Arngrim said. “The word was that they were given drugs and being used for sex. It was awful – these were kids, they weren’t 18 yet. There were all sorts of stories about everyone from their, quote, ‘set guardians’ on down that these two had been sexually abused and were totally being corrupted in every possible way.” Friend FOX411 on Facebook. In fact it is the very nature of a TV or movie set that invites predators, experts tell Fox News. “A set in Hollywood with children can become a place that attracts pedophiles because the children there may be vulnerable and less tended to,” explains Beverly Hills-based psychotherapist Dr. Jenn Berman. “One thing we know about actors, psychologically speaking, is that they’re people who like a lot of attention. Kids naturally like a lot of attention, and when you put a kid on a set who is unsupervised and getting attention from someone who is powerful, it creates a vulnerability for a very dangerous situation.” Feldman, who claims he was “surrounded” by pedophiles when he was 14, says the sexual abuse by an unnamed “Hollywood mogul” led to the death of his friend Haim at the age of 38. "That person needs to be exposed, but, unfortunately, I can't be the one to do it," Feldman told Nightline. “There’s more than one person to blame,” says Arngrim. “I’m sure that it was not just one person who sexually abused Corey Haim, and I’m sure it wasn’t only him and Corey Feldman that knew about it. I’m sure that dozens of people were aware of the situation and chose to not report it.” Arngrim, a board member and the national spokeswoman for protect.org, an organization that works to protect children from physical, sexual, and emotional abuse, says greed in Hollywood allows sexual predators to flourish. “Nobody wants to stop the gravy train,” says Arngrim. “If a child actor is being sexually abused by someone on the show, is the family, agents or managers – the people who are getting money out of this – going to say, ‘OK, let’s press charges’? No, because it’s going to bring the whole show to a grinding halt, and stop all the checks. So, the pressure is there is not to say anything.” “It’s almost a willing sacrifice that many parents are oblivious to – what kind of environment do they think that they’re pushing their kid into?” said Peterson. “The casting couch is a real thing, and sometimes just getting an appointment makes people do desperate things.” Sign Up for the FOX411 Entertainment Newsletter. Arngrim, who revealed her own sexual abuse in her 2010 autobiography, “Confessions of a Prairie Bitch,” explains: “I’ve heard from victims from all over the country. Everyone tells the same kind of story, everyone is told to keep it secret, everyone is threatened with something. Corey Feldman may have opened a can of worms by speaking out, but yes, this does go on.” Even though Feldman spoke candidly about the abuse, he hasn’t named the predator. “People don’t want to talk about this because they’re afraid for their careers,” says Peterson. “From my perspective, what Corey did was pretty brave. It would be really wonderful if his allegations reached through all of the protective layers and identified the real people who are a part of a worldwide child pornography ring, because it’s huge and it respects no borders, just as it does not respect the age of the children involved.” Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2011/12/05/recent-charges-sexual-abuse-children-in-hollywood-just-tip-iceberg-experts-say/#ixzz1fp7hp66f