Jefferson Republican Party Boycotts Bank of America

The Jefferson Republican Party has joined the Bank of America Boycott. Details on the boycott can be found at JRP’s blog

58 Responses to “Jefferson Republican Party Boycotts Bank of America”

  1. Cody Quirk Says:

    That’s why is stick with Wal Mu

  2. globalist_elitist Says:

    Hey boycotts are better than using the government’s guns.

    But let’s look at why they’re boycotting: Because BofA doesn’t require a social security # to open an account? Isn’t that a pro-freedom initiative? What about the kooks like Badnarik, etc., who don’t use their SSNs? Isn’t BofA accomodating them too?

    I would think it would be very risky to offer mortgage loans or credit cards to people without SSNs. What is the recourse if they default? This seems like a bad business move.

  3. globalist_elitist Says:

    The boycott is legit until they get to this point:

    “Contact your member of congress and tell them to Join U.S. Rep. Marsha Blackburn, R-TN., U.S. Rep Tom Tancredo, R-CO,.& U.S. Rep Ted Poe R-TX. to investigate Bank of America.”

    So apparently, the JRP DOES want to use the government’s guns to further regulate financial markets.

    BofA isn’t doing anything illegal. There is no law that only citizens can have bank accounts or credit cards. And if you think that there should be a law, then you’re for big government.

    Financial tip: You should have your money deposited in a credit union, not a bank. If you have a lot of funds, they shouldn’t be in a bank or credit union at all, but in some other vehicle.

  4. Joe Says:

    I have read of at least one case already where an American tried to open a BofA account without a Socialist Security # and they were refused. Apparently their policy only applies to foreigners.

  5. globalist_elitist Says:

    Then I guess its a discrimination issue. And yet, most on the Internet-Right don’t think that the government should interfere and enforce anti-discrimination matters in private businesses. So which is it?

  6. globalist_elitist Says:

    And how do they prove that you’re an American? Because you’re white? Or black? What about ethnic minorities? What about Canadians or Europeans?

  7. Trent Hill Says:

    GE,
    You prove your american by American citizenship. Period.
    Canadians and Europeans are not American unless they have American citizenship.

  8. globalist_elitist Says:

    Trent: You misunderstand. If I want a bank account without an SSN, but they’re only granting them to “foreigners,” then how do THEY (the bank) prove that I’m an American? I know how I can prove that I am. But how do THEY prove that I’m not?

    Point – That I don’t think they’re denying accounts to Americans and only giving them to foreigners. It doesn’t make sense that they could.

  9. globalist_elitist Says:

    The uproar over this shows just how anti-growth and pro-big-government the Hard Right is.

    Bank accounts and credit cards help facilitate the spending of money – something I know the anti-growth right hates (which is why they love the FraudTax).

  10. William Potter Says:

    Joe wrote:
    “I have read of at least one case already where an American tried to open a BofA account without a Socialist Security # and they were refused. Apparently their policy only applies to foreigners.”

    This is exactly the case.
    I was speaking with a gent in Vermont yesterday to whom this had happened. US Citizens still have to produce a SS Card.
    William Potter
    Jefferson Republican Party, Alabama

  11. globalist_elitist Says:

    What if you say, “I’m not a citizen”????

  12. William Potter Says:

    GE Said:

    “What if you say, “I’m not a citizen”????”

    Alles klar, Herr Kommissar?
    William Potter
    Jefferson Republican Party, Alabama

  13. globalist_elitist Says:

    I don’t speak Nazi.

  14. globalist_elitist Says:

    Nutjobs like Badnarik don’t consider themsleves to be citizens of the U.S., but of their individual state. U.S. citizenship is a post-Civil-War concept, and right-wing “libertarians” think the country went to hell post Civil War.

  15. Cody Quirk Says:

    Apparently their policy only applies to foreigners.

    =Thank God I left BofA, this wasn’t the reason before, but I made a good decision going with Washington Mutual.

  16. Cody Quirk Says:

    Why don’t they simply change their names to Bank of the Americas instead?

    At least they’ll be more honest about themselves.

  17. Andy Says:

    “What about the kooks like Badnarik, etc., who don’t use their SSNs?”

    Why is somebody a “kook” for not using a Social(ist) (In)Security Number? Social Security is a bullshit government program. By labeling people who reject SSN’s as “kooks” you are implying that Social Security is somehow legitimate.

  18. globalist_elitist Says:

    I’m waitining for an answer to my question.

    Say I’m Micheal Badnarik and I want to open an account without an SSN, because I hate America, I hate capitalism, and I hate wealth and credit.

    I go into Bank of America and here is what happens:

    MB: I want to open a bank account.

    BoA: What’s your SSN?

    MB: I thought I didn’t need to have a SSN to open an account?

    BoA: But sir, you’re clearly a White Christian man. Surely you are a citizen of these great United States of Christian Whiteness, and not a dirty wetback foreigner?

    MB: Thanks for noticing. Indeed, I am a White Chrisitan Patriot, but no, I am not a citizen of the United States.*

    BoA: But we’d be happy to have you as a citizen of our great Chistian Empire!

    MB: Thanks for the offer, but right now, I’d like to open a bank account to deposit my liberty dollars. The Fed is a Jewish-Communist conspiracy.

    BoA: Hmmm… I don’t know. I think you’re a citizen.

    MB: I’m not a citizen of the United States.*

    BoA: Hmmm… How can I PROOVE that you are?

    MB: Well, if you were ME you could look into my wallet and see my SS card, or perhaps go home and find my birth certificate in my safe with my Nazi memorbelia and $200 worth of bullion, but you’re not ME so you have no way of proving that I am a citizen.

    BoA: You’re right. Okay sir, you can have an account!

    *= Like all great White Christian Patriots, Badnarik does not believe in any law or Constitutional amendment beyond #10. He does not believe in citizenship to the United States, but instead, citizenship to the state of Texas (which should, if anything be part of the CSA, since the Confederates were the good guys). Therefore, he did not break the great White Christian oath to not bear false witness, although he does have an idolotry problem with that pre-historian sacrament, gold.

  19. Doug Craig Says:

    I love Bank Of America. I am going to move all my investments there. Long live capiatalism. Let the free market run its course.If BofA screws up it cost them and the shareholders. When the government screws up it costs us all.

  20. globalist_elitist Says:

    Yeah, I wish there were a BofA in my neck of the woods. I also like that automatic savings plan they have with debit card usage. Better than Boortz’s idiotic “dollar bill savings plans” – have you read that? What a joke

  21. Doug Craig Says:

    Ge

    I live in Atlanta, Boortz is on 4 hours in the morning here.Sometimes they run it again at midnight here.

  22. globalist_elitist Says:

    I actually bought Boortz’s new book. About 1/2 of it is right on the money. The other 1/2 is Lou-Dobbsian. It isn’t that he’s “conservative,” it’s that he’s an anticapitalist. Really, he – like most – just doesn’t understand financial markets.

  23. Pat Riot Says:

    Understanding financial markets is not necessary if you understand the Federal Immigration law.

    Here’s the relevant part…

    Federal Immigration and Nationality Act
    Section 8 USC 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv)(b)(iii)

    “Any person who . . . encourages or induces an alien to . . . reside . . . knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such . . . residence is . . . in violation of law, shall be punished as provided . . . for each alien in respect to whom such a violation occurs . . . fined under title 18 . . . imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.”

    Section 274 felonies under the federal Immigration and Nationality Act, INA 274A(a)(1)(A):

    A person (including a group of persons, business, organization, or local government) commits a federal felony when she or he:

    • assists an alien s/he should reasonably know is illegally in the U.S. or who lacks employment authorization, by transporting, sheltering, or assisting him or her to obtain employment, or
    • encourages that alien to remain in the U.S. by referring him or her to an employer or by acting as employer or agent for an employer in any way, or
    • knowingly assists illegal aliens due to personal convictions.

    Penalties upon conviction include criminal fines, imprisonment, and forfeiture of vehicles and real property used to commit the crime. Anyone employing or contracting with an illegal alien without verifying his or her work authorization status is guilty of a misdemeanor. Aliens and employers violating immigration laws are subject to arrest, detention, and seizure of their vehicles or property. In addition, individuals or entities who engage in racketeering enterprises that commit (or conspire to commit) immigration-related felonies are subject to private civil suits for treble damages and injunctive relief.

    I don’t care what the Patriot Act says they can do, they CANNOT contravene existing Federal law. B of A is aiding and abetting illegal aliens for PROFIT, which is ILLEGAL

  24. globalist_elitist Says:

    Wow. That’s the most draconian pro-communist law I’ve ever seen. I’m speechless.

  25. Pat Riot Says:

    That’s the law that was passed when Simpson-Mazzoli gave amnesty to over 3 million illegal aliens in 1986. It was supposed to be the stick that stopped illegal immigration.

    How you come to define it as communist I haven’t a clue.

    Anyway, the 1986 amnesty was supposed to effect 1.1 million aliens. By the time they quit counting it was 3.1 million. It is estimated that as much as 70% of those receiving amnesty filed fraudulent paperwork to do so. Some of the Trade Center bombing conspirators obtained legal residence through it, as well.

    Additionally, Senator Ted Kennedy said at the time that with passage of this ‘one-time’ amnesty they would NEVER have to ask for it again. That they would FINALLY secure our borders and ENFORCE the law.

    There have been SEVERAL amnesties since.

    And way back in 1965, that same Senator Kennedy, in proclaiming his support for THAT immigration bill, promised on the floor of the Senate that “Our cities will not be overrun with a million immigrants annually.”

    He was partly right, the REAL figure is closer to 4 million.

    On a side note, WaMu accepts the Matricula Consular card, too. Put your money in a local credit union.

  26. globalist_elitist Says:

    Communism = Government ownership and regulation of the free flow of capital and people. The government should not be in the business of determining how many gardners or engineers we need. Markets should.

  27. Doug Craig Says:

    Ge

    I do not understand you , sometimes you seem like a super freak and the next
    i would like you to move in next door to me :)

  28. Pat Riot Says:

    When you flood a market with illegal labor it drives the wages of legal workers into the dirt. It’s not the government controlling the “free flow of capital and people”, it’s the sovereign citizens.

    The laws were put in place to protect the American worker from unfair competition, and ignored to enrich the corporate cronies who subverted them.

    Do you just not give a flip about American gardeners and engineers? Have you, too, mortgaged your citizenship for money?

  29. globalist_elitist Says:

    No, Pat, it merely drives the wages of “legal” workers to where the market says they should be. If you are unskilled, your labor is a commodity. If you don’t like being treated like a cog in the machine, get some skills.

    “The laws were put in place to protect the American worker from unfair competition” – spoken like a true New Dealer. HOORAY FOR GOVERNMENT SUPREMACY! The only unfair competition is that which is created by the government.

    No, I do not give a “flip” about “American” gardeners or engineers. At least not any more than I do for global gardeners or engineers. Why should we subsidize artificial wages for overpaid Americans? That’s the biggest welfare scam ever. And furthermore, globalization will benefit everyone in the long run – the gardeners and engineers included. You are the type who would have had us protect the jobs of buggy-whip manufacturers at the exclusion of the auto industry. If people all thought like you, then we would still be living in caves. But at least there wouldn’t be a central bank! Hooray!

  30. Pat Riot Says:

    Spoken like a true Globalist!

    I’m sure Robert Pastor is an icon in your mind.

    Have you purchased your ‘Amero’ futures yet?

  31. Trent Hill Says:

    GE, as iv noted in the past…Pakistani workers do NOT get the same pay as Americans. It is easy for an American conglomerate to take advantage of three hundred pakistanis who will work for 9 cents an hour and no bathroom breaks. This ENSURES that that Conglomerate will export all (or most) of its jobs, and then sell goods at either a MUCH lower price than any local guy can manage or keep selling at the same rate and reap an unfair profit.
    You espouse FAIR Market Trading, and yet the Market becomes less fair when you introduce a “free trade agreement”.
    Small business is destroyed because they cannot afford to export jobs.
    The wages of the Pakistanis will not raise at all, because they will never see the majority of small businesses, only large business’ who do not have to introduce competitive wages…they can simply advise the company to work in a different area of pakistan, or china, or india. There are more than enough people in those countries so that competitive wages are not a problem.

  32. globalist_elitist Says:

    If the market dictates that the Pakistanies labor is only worth 9 cents an hour then so be it. For one, the 9 cents figure is not accurate. If Pakistani laborers are being coerced to work for these wages or governments are supressing their labor rights, then it will all work out in the end. Slavery does not work. I think the fundamental disagreement between pro-growth capitalists and their opponents is that the opponents think that slavery works. I’m not saying you think it’s moral, but you think it works. It doesn’t. And economies who employ slave labor are doomed to low growth.

    So the business exports its jobs to Pakistan. Now there are lower prices for American consumers. This is bad? Now the American workers who lost their jobs can find other, more meaningful work – work that untrained Pakistanis earning 9 cents an hour cannot do. YOUR SKIN COLOR AND NATIONALITY SHOULD NOT DETERMINE YOUR VALUE - YOUR SKILLS SHOULD. If an American can only do jobs that are worth 9 cents an hour, then we are better off with him on welfare than we are subsidizing his job. In the 1980s, every steelworker job “saved” through protectionist measures cost us $100,000. A government training program or even straight up welfare is actually a smaller-government initiative then the major welfare scam known as protectionism.

    Small businesses absolutely can outsource jobs. This is where you’re totally wrong. I founded a corporation with $34k in capitalization – about as small as you can get. We outsource 100% of our labor. If the option weren’t available to us, we would not be in business. Who loses out?

    Any small businesses that are not good enough to keep up deserve to fail. The only thing that small businesses have legitimate gripes about are over-regulation and goverment collusion with big business. Free trade is the opposite of this. Trade restrictionism is more government, not less. We should not have initatives to protect or promote small businesses anymore than we should for big ones.

    Yes, China is losing more manufacturing jobs than we are. They move from the coastal areas to inland, where people work for less. So what? Who owns the capital – the shareholders or governments? Let them find the cheapest labor and let me buy the cheapest products. Displaced workers need to find ways to make themselves valuable, period. In the long run – barring a right-wing Christian takeover of the government – we are all going to be so ridiculously rich. All of us. All 7 billion. But even then, there will be the whiners who say “Look how much better we had it in 1912.”

  33. Pat Riot Says:

    OK, so we (America) give to the rest of the world all of the benefits that we as a nation have worked so hard to accrue for ourselves, and then we set these beneficiaries of our largess into direct competition with our own sons and daughters in the name of the ‘Corporate Bottom Line’?

    Your lack of loyalty to anything other than money makes you unworthy of debate. When you go to bed at night, do you say your prayers to Grampa’s Piggy Bank?

    You must’ve been in Banff, or was it Davos?

  34. globalist_elitist Says:

    I don’t say any prayers at all. I wake up in the morning and work for money, aka my own rational self interest. If you think I should do otherwise, you’re a fucking Commie.

    What “benefits” did you “work hard” for? Check your bank statement to find the answer. You get what you deserve. If you don’t like the answer, work harder and or smarter.

    Who owns corporations? We do. Buy shares in your favorite company, or start your own. Start whining like a welfare queen.

    Competition is good. It is the essence of capitalism. Protection and insulation from competition is the essence of Communism. Christianity is a collectivist, socialist creed, and as the Radical Right grows more bold, its Communist sympathies continue to rear their ugly heads.

  35. Trent Hill Says:

    GE,

    Your arguement AROUND my question does not satisfy the inquiery.

    Explain to me how 10 million…or even 30 million business’ (an EXTREMELY high estimate) can employ even 3 billion people (a VERY low estimation of the people who earn less than minimum wages).
    That means each of the 30 million business’ would have to outsource 100 jobs to the 3 billion people who earn beneath minimum wage.

    Your idea is decent on paper. Ideally, the market COULD be able to regulate who gets what. But, becasue there are SO many people, and the United States is outsourcing but NO ONE ELSE IS…instead of making a fair and balanced economy, we instead just create unemployment in our own country, further burdening my tax rate.

    And the reality is…I just plain DO NOT CARE about Pakistani’s as much as Americans. Dont get me wrong, it isn’t because I think Americans are superior, it isn’t because of some moral issue. It is because if there is a war, I will fight beside some man from Michigan. Because on September 11th (regardless of what you think happened), I let a girl from Annapolis cry on my shoulder.
    I do not regularly interact with Pakistanis. I regularly interact with Louisianans first, and Americans second. I feel a comradery with something more than money…
    Im sure the Pakistanis you outsource are just wonderful people, but realistically…you arent helping your own capital that much. Your tax burdens get heavier becasue you outsource.

  36. globalist_elitist Says:

    Trent plays the “Everything changed on 9/11” card. How very Donderian of you.

    The U.S. is outsourcing but no one else is? Hmmm… Funny… The checks I’ve received from business owners in Australia and the U.K. have cashed just like the ones I’ve received from the U.S. I sell labor on the global market. I buy labor on the global market. There are companies from India hiring Americans. There are companies from China hiring Americans. I just wrote marketing copy for a Chinese company with a U.S. HQ. Infosys hires tons of Americans, Europeans, etc.

    I’m sorry, but I care about all human beings equally. I don’t think that Jesus taught us to care more for people within our nation than outside of it. But Christian Communist thinking is irrelavent. You should act only in your own rational self interest. Raising my tax burden? Protectionism is the ultimate hidden welfare scam. It not only literally costs people money, it also retards growth.

    You act as if there aren’t Indian and Chinese businesses. This is absurd. Growth begets growth begets growth begets growth. And guess what? Capitalist countries don’t (generally) go to war against one another. On September 11, a group of deranged theists flew planes into the symbol of world capitalism. Hmm…. I know a lot of theist anticapitalists here. Wasn’t the WTC a symbol of the “NWO”? Isn’t World Trade bad? If Bandarik wants to blow up the Fed, then what of the WTC? Islam = Socialism = Christianity. It’s all the same.

    Barring a theocratic takeover of the West, poverty will cease to exist and the entire world will be rich – in the very near future. In our lifetimes. Why? Because capitalism works. I feel comradery with my fellow man. Not with my fellow Michiganders, or with “Americans” who hate capitalism and America. I feel comradery with any man or woman who wakes up in the morning and resolves to do something and to BE someone. The only injustice in this world is when governments, relgiion, etc., get in the way of people’s self-determination.

  37. Trent Hill Says:

    There are most certainly Indian and Chinese business, but they are not exporting jobs as quick as we are. The U.S. is currently in a trade war with China…and losing. A large portion of our national debt stems from this problem.
    The fact that you have no sense of nationalism doesnt bother me. But I do. I love this country, and my family has laid down life after life in service to it (even in unjustified wars).

    However, im going to let this statement stand for itself…
    “Islam = Socialism = Christianity. It’s all the same.”

    I needn’t say anything else.

  38. globalist_elitist Says:

    I love this country because it is the freest, wealthiest, most capitalistic ever. America is more than just a piece of land stolen from (the other) Indians. It is an idea. You love the land and the people. I love the idea. You are a collectivist and I am an individaulist. Which is more American?

  39. Trent Hill Says:

    Wrong. If a “collectivist” means a patriot. You are indeed right.

    Saying I love America because of the land or people is WAY off base however…you’ve no idea why I love my country. Talk about putting words in people’s mouths.
    I honestly don’t care about the land…only that it has alot of minerals and we have alot of it.
    The people, I cant stand a TON of them. I have a heavy intolerance for ignorance. I would rather someone be educated and wrong (you) than ignorant and spouting rhetoric.

    It is the idea of America that I love also. For many of the same reasons. Because of its freedoms, its birth by Liberty-loving-revolution, its capitalistic advantages, and its culture(s).

  40. globalist_elitist Says:

    I’m only ASSuming that you loved the land and the people since you want to erect walls around the land and insulate the people from capitalist competition. Just like the USSR. Where does the idealism come in?

    True American patriotism = individualism. Individualism is the essence of the American Revolution, and of the American Spirit. Comradery should be shared with all men and women with whom one shares those ideals, not with one’s countrymen who actively seek to destroy them.

  41. Trent Hill Says:

    Oh really GE? I didnt know you had your PhD in American Patriotism…

    You don’t get to decide what IS and what IS NOT patriotism.

    As for me wanting to “Erect walls around the land and insulate the people from capitalist competition.”

    There are plenty of people in this country, plenty of resources, plenty of genius’. We do not need Central Americas unskilled workers, we have our own. As for their skilled workers, they can move here to our capitalist utopia, or they can do WELL enough to override protectionist tarriffs with their profit.
    This evens the playing field because they dont have to pay as much for labor, and dont have to give benefits.

  42. globalist_elitist Says:

    I got a PhD from the same university as Richard Campagna, so suck it.

    Why limit wealth to one country? That is a profoundly anticapitalist concept. Have you read Wealth of Nations? On what do you base your capitalism if not that work? If not Ricardo?

    You are a socialist, plain and simple. You are a welfare-statist. I say these things because you want government to control the movement of capital and labor and you want an immense government “safety net” to “protect” and insulate unskilled losers WHILE MAKING ME FOOT THE BILL. That is not capitalism, no matter how much you want to say it is. It is mercantalism. Adam Smith’s treatise are not an indictment of Soviet Communism – it didn’t even exist at the time. They are indictment of YOUR type of thinking, which is anything but “patrotic.”

  43. Trent Hill Says:

    Ohk GE. And your a libertarian (/sarcasm).
    Go levy taxes, prop up the fed, and promote your “web party”

  44. globalist_elitist Says:

    I’m a capitalist who knows how to read and write. Unlike the functional illiterate who posted above me.

  45. Trent Hill Says:

    Illiterate? Hmmm, and how am I illiterate GE?
    Or is this one of those “he’s whitew so he is stupid” things?

  46. Trent Hill Says:

    White*

  47. globalist_elitist Says:

    Yes, because white people are stupid. No, it has more with your apparently poor reading comprehension and your routine misuse of your/you’re.

    Protectionism is the cruelest, most regressive, most anti-growth, and most big-government form of taxation.

  48. Trent Hill Says:

    Oh my. I’m quite sorry if my lazy typing skills have a tendency to make menial errors. However,let’s address the bigger misuse.

    You, using racism, prejudice, and vulgarity to try and disparage people from voting third party (because in your words “Only democrats and republicans will win”).

    Oh,and in case you didn’t realize, i’m quite well read.
    You’ve read Adam Smith.
    I’ve read Adam Smith and understood it.

  49. globalist_elitist Says:

    For one, I’m not using racism anywhere in this thread. I’ve also toned down the vulgarities.

    I’m not trying to discourage people from voting third-party. I have voted third party in the vast majority of races for which there were third-party candidates since I began voting in 1996.

    Unlike others, I do not believe you should vote for a candidate because he/she will win. That’s idiotic. You vote is your voice. You have to choose how you want your voice to be heard and counted.

    I’ve donated small amounts of money to a lot of candidates. I just did the math; 15 in all over the course of the past three years. 10 of the 15 were third-party or independents. Only 2 of the 15 won. Only one or two additional had any realistic chance of winning.

    I’ve you understand Adam Smith, then you reject him. He was an opponent of mercantlism, a creed to which you profess your faith.

    Also, it is typically low class to quote me saying words I’ve never said.

  50. Trent Hill Says:

    I dont reject him…simply his opposition to protectionism.
    Just like I like Hamilton’s protectionist support, but not the way he killed Aaron Burr.

    Actually, i believe you have said those words GE, or if not those exactly, then I am paraphrasing. But for the sake of a nicer thread ill say “whoops, maybe not.”

    However, rather than bicker about Adam Smith, i’d like to concentrate on your first two paragraphs.
    First, I realize you haven’t place the race card in this thread.
    Second, why HAVE you toned down the vulgarity? (not that im complaining)
    Third, here is my question—do you only vote LP?

  51. globalist_elitist Says:

    As has been exposed, I was a member of the Green Party in 2004. Immediately after the election, I was pretty much out of that thinking. In fact, it was watching the now-disgraced Badnarik in debates that got me to begin the process of re-evaluation. So in 2004, I mostly voted for Green, Natural Law, and a few Dems. I did vote for one Republican (because I really hated the Dem) and one Constitution Party candidate (because amazingly, she was my next-door neighbor!) Prior to 2004, I had mostly voted for Dems, although I always voted for third parties in the races I knew nothing about (i.e. Board of Education, etc.)

    In 2006, I voted for Libertarians, Democrats, and Greens. Whomever was the least worst in my view.

    I am not thrilled with my state’s LP. It has a more conservative approach, focusing on issues that align it with the far right. Many of its candidates do not share my values. And furthermore, it runs a whole lot of “paper candidates” over and over and over again, for whom I feel like my vote would literally be a waste.

    So I consider myself to be a true independent. A neo-liberal. In 2008 and beyond, my guiding principle will be to select the candidate that best reflects my values of maximizing individual rights and economic growth. I care not if the candidate has a “chance to win,” but I do care whether or not they deserve to win. Whether or not they could do the job, whether or not they’re working hard to get it. So sadly, I do not anticipate on voting for as many LP candidates as I would if I lived in a state like Georgia, for example.

  52. globalist_elitist Says:

    Opposition to protectionism is the biggest idea in Wealth of Nations. That’s like saying you like the Communist Manifesto but you don’t like the collective ownership of property. Actually, it’s virtually the same thing, because protectionism is pretty much collective ownership, since you’re allowing the elite in Washington to make buying and selling choices for individuals who are too dumb to act in their own rational self interest, according to you.

  53. Trent Hill Says:

    I didnt say I supported “Wealth of Nations”, only that I supported John Adams. I’v read Wealth of Nations, I don’t care much for the way it ignores national soviergnty (oh my god. I butchered that word).

    As for some elite in Washinton deciding what the tarriff rates are….how is that worse than the Elite in washington determining what the income tax rate is?
    The idea is to keep it low in both cases. But this way, the American citizen doesn’t pay that tax.

  54. Trent Hill Says:

    Hm. What Constitution Party candidate did you vote for? And what state do you live in? (I’d like to know because it corresponds to the state LP).

    You can email me if you don’t feel comfortable giving out info.
    Shotdown1027@yahoo.com

  55. globalist_elitist Says:

    Michigan. I can’t remember the lady’s name now. She was my neighbor at the time – directly across the street. I did not know her until I saw a filing from my town (Adrian at the time) on a list of filings and then noticed she was on the same street! I went over and talked to her and her husband. Those were some good conversations. I think her name was Gloria Van something. Anyway, her husband was one of the guys who made an impassioned plea to keep “Jesus Christ” out of the preamble to the CP platform.

  56. globalist_elitist Says:

    Income tax is better than protectionism because protectionism works as a sales tax, and sales taxes are regressive and place a higher burden on the poor and working people than they do on the rich. The data is in on that. And I’m not opposing sales tax from a purely egalitarian perspective, but from the fact that it’s anti-growth. It discourages economic activity.

    Actually, Smith was too much of a nationalist! Along with courts, police, defense, patents, and public education, he also said government had a responsibility to “maintain the dignity of the sovereign,” which I’m guessing means the king. Riccardo is the better economist.

    Americans most certainly do pay for tarrifs. They pay for them in the form of higher prices on imported goods, and lower quality of domestic goods since domestic producers are not incentivized to produce higher quality or lower cost competitors.

    Take this recent disaster by the Bush admin to slap “sanctions” on Chinese paper. The Chi-Coms are subsidizing the purchase of printer paper for Americans. The Chinese taxpayer is helping ME buy a pack of paper! How is this bad for me? I don’t want my government doing it, but if another government is dumb enough, then great! Do we really need domestic paper producers anyway? And if we do, then that just makes it so they have to produce better quality paper / add value in some other way. Let the Chi-Coms make my paper cheaper. It only hurts them in the long run.

  57. Trent Hill Says:

    Personally, im not sure having Jesus Christ in the preamble helps us…and it certainly does some damage. Not sure where I stand on that one.

  58. Lucky225 Says:

    Globalist Elitist—it’s easy for the bank to prove you’re not a foreigner, see the whole thing is they require you to show a VISA proving your LEGAL status and that you are NOT eligible for an SSN. If you can’t provide proof that you ARE a foreigner OR a US citizen(i.e. illegal alien) you don’t get an account open at all—end of story. That’s why this ‘uproar’ about mortgages being given to people without SSN’s is non-sense since they’re only given to LEGAL aliens. Trust me, I AM a us citizen and don’t give my ssn for anything, but ever since the patriot act I have not been able to open any other accounts because I’m a ‘us person’, I’ve tried saying I’m a foreigner, they want documentation that you are and that you have applied for a tax ID with the LEGAL documentation post-2002">IRS

Leave a Reply