I accept your reasoning.
My point is that “socialism” is supposed to care and provide for the lower echelons of society; whereas tyranny is only interested in exploiting the lower echelons of society.
1 Like
You are right. The biggest mistake (in general) that we Boomers made was not instilling the same values of hard work, perseverance and personal responsibility in our children that our parents instilled in us.
2 Likes
Do you know what tyranny was to the Founding Fathers?
It was, in a nutshell, Arbitrary government, where the government was able by the ordinary means at its disposal to decide what were its powers.
It was also seen by them as a form of laws that is expressly arbitrary. Let me explain this last one: over in Europe one of the memes of the continental version of liberalism was to decry Common Laws as being arbitrary; however, in place of Common Laws what did these men advance to replace them? It’s called Administrative Law, a form of laws that are derived purely from politics. The problem here is that Administrative Laws are expressly and can only be arbitrary. They are in the end nothing but what is fashionable. The protest that Common Law was arbitrary is then a meaningless one.
Now, if you look in the DoI you see that a big part of the reason why we were a Republic at all was to retain the free System of English Laws.
So do you think the Founders were deaf to the criticisms of English Common Law? Not in the least.
To cut to the quick, I know: too late, when received at a point in time Common Law becomes a known quantity. We do not have a federal Common Law where the Jurist or the Minister acts as a representative of the Sovereign to make new Law: statutes or executive orders or even opinions of the Court are not Law in the sense that the Constitution is Law. The power to make new Law of that sort was reserved to the amendment process.
BUT we still have our Common Law as it was when the Constitution was Ratified. It is that specific body of Law that defines thinks like the other rights retained in the 9th Amendment or the “Privileges and Immunities” in A4.
Here we arrive at a fundamental divide in notions of what a written constitution is.
One may, as happened under the 1st French Republic which was founded to have Administrative Laws and do away with French Common Law, merely derive the departments of government, their respective responsibilities, and leave the means to achieve those responsibilities entirely up to the political process. There is no contradiction that the exact same folks who helped to write the French essay the Rights of Man were also the architects of The Terrors … when all is political what government gives government can take away.
Conversely, as Chief Justice Marshall pointed out, one may do more than the French did (and every other “constitutional” system rooted in Administrative Law including the Soviets and Third Reich) and enumerate the specific Powers by which the government may attempt to perform some task, beyond which it may not lawfully pass.
Our federal Constitution is most definitely of the latter type and tyranny is what happens when the federal government exceeds its delegated Powers to do things it is not permitted to do.
Taking care of people or not is immaterial: their circumstances are not amendments to the Constitution.
As for the flip side it is true a government that can do little for you can also do little to you.
C.S.Lewis correctly pointed out that the well intentioned tyrant whose conscience supported him in anything and everything he does is a more steadfast tyrant than the regular bounder who can tire of just being bad and has to take breaks.
3 Likes
My first homeloan was a 1 year arm at 8%
But these gimme-gimme idiots will see us go there again…
1 Like
what was the costed of a education at the time? what was the costed of living? what was average house prices? and what was average earnings? just to put some perspective into your comment
Yes the Carter era was difficult with a top interest rate of 22%, inflations at 16%.
People couldn’t afford to buy a house or an auto at the time.
Briefly, in 1988 (might have been '89) the UK bank base rate went to 15%
It was an example of headless chickens.
edit: …then again, it might have been '92
1 Like
I am surprised that not one socialist, democratic socialist has commented or given us the silly excuse of “that wasn’t real socialism” or " Democratic socialism is totally different"
Gang Yangkers is a fitting name.
Who but boomers practiced survival techniques for a nuclear battle? And the millenials practice making pouty lips and singing like they are going to cry.
Millennial Bad Ass Mofo 
2 Likes
I agree with you there cowboy
I was able to buy my house in 1976 because of the so-called “Carter malaise.” I had put all my savings into money markets in the early ‘70s which were paying 20%+ interest. I doubled my money in no time and so was able to make a 20% down payment that qualified me for the loan. The down side was my mortgage rate was 10%.
The “costed” was the same it is today as a formula.
Work hard. Save. Don’t spend beyond your means.
It took me TEN YEARS to get my bachelor degree. Because I took night classes only when I could afford them. My weekends were spent studying, my weekdays working.
I had a goal. My goal wasn’t pissing and moaning or making excuses. My goal was getting it done.
I bought my first house as a single woman when I was 32 when 20% down was required.
So that meant a lot of saying “no” to fun things everyone else was doing, working and saving.
It isn’t easy, but it can be done. Many don’t have the fortitude. And if you don’t have the fortitude, I’ll be damned if you’re going to borrow off of mine.
4 Likes
by any chance do you have the answer to these questions
what was the costed of a education at the time? what was the costed of living? what was average house prices? and what was average earnings? what was you mortgage interest rates?
Other then the mortgage rates (which vary year by year,) those questions are ambiguous. The cost of education varied considerably (as it does today.) The cost of living question as posed has no meaning. The average cost of houses varied considerably (also as it does today.) And the average earnings of whom? All earners? or just those trying to buy houses? Income qualification for a home mortgage is about the same today as it has always been.
1 Like
Instead or going from home ownership to renting, why not consider a condominium instead? (There is still not the hassle of typical home ownership–for instance, someone else mows the lawn–yet one does not pay for it ad infinitum.)
Note: I have owned a condominium for quite awhile now–and the mortgage was paid in full over 25 years ago–so that is one less monthly bill. And a rather large one, at that.)
Bravo.
8 years for my BSEE, 3 years for the masters.
Pay as you go, something everyone should learn including this government.
2 Likes
like normal my dim-witted friend my points goes right over your head I bought my first house at 23 or 24 without a mortgage the details do not matter when in fact the details are the only thing that really matters in that statement
my Mum had her first mortgage at 21 but did not paid it off until she was in her 50’s and she is a Boomer
DMK sorry if you think I was being rude to you I was just being blunt comparing achievements without all the details is pointless
What? You asked several questions (which I attempted to answer in spite of the fact that they were somewhat unintelligible.) There was no point being made in your series of questions to go over my head.
and you still missed my point 