In this current ‘world-wide financial meltdown’ – OK, THAT was American – here is Oz we find this same ‘mainstream’ thinking.

We have a nation here which threw out a Conservative Government which had devised a sound economic system with huge surpluses and barely any ’sub-prime’ problem, possibly the best performing economy in the world, and replaced it with the same bunch that was in many years back that gave us the ‘Recession we had to have’. This time we are getting the recession that is ‘the World Financial System’s fault’.

The Conservatives had taken on a massive deficit and paid it all off over a hard ten years. This new government of Chairman Maosy Rudd is today ‘giving’ selected people a Christmas bonus with the words of one syllable encouragement to ’spend it’, for the sake of ‘the economy’. Conservative – save; Labour – spend. We will have a deficit in the new year. All the money gone. Again.

The selected people who will get the ‘bonus’ are those on benefits. The taxpayer who provided the bonus gets nothing.

So, pay your taxes, clearly far more than is needed, and the Government gives it away to those that don’t pay taxes at all.

My nextdoor neighbour is on benefits. His small rented house, almost identical to my small rented, is held by the housing commission to whom he pays a princely $25 a week in rent. I pay $200. He will get the ‘bonus’. I will not. He will get $1400 for Christmas and tells me that he and his mates have already got a huge order in for booze. He invited me to come around for a tinny or two. Ain’t that nice. I can’t afford Christmas.

“A leading cause of fatherless families is men who walk away from their parental responsibilities and encourage the mothers of their children to “marry” the state instead of them.”

Correction: A leading cause of fatherless families are feminazis and government agencies and other advocates who entice the women to kick their men out of their lives, with or without false and malicious accusations of violence or inconsideration or not understanding them or whatever, and use the Child Support Crusade and the utter stupidity of people like Alan Korwin to further punish their men with whom they made children.

Alan Korwin, You Are A F—ing Moron!

Places in America with a high number of foreign female tourists are doable. Resorts often have “Work and Travel” college students from Eastern Europe working there.

As for me, I prefer living in Eastern Europe and Russia which I helped “save” during the Cold War. The air and the water are fine here. Ten years ago, the quality of the air and water was questionable, which is why I would have said what you just said 10 years ago.

But times change. If the US continues down the present path, many other countries will soon be better places to live. As a proud veteran, I hate having to say that, but a healthier, happier life is a healthier, happier life.

Does your definition of “die fighting to save our country” include walking into a federal courtroom with a complaint about how feminism has personally harmed you?

The New York complaint just failed at the district level because harm was supposedly not definitively shown.

The liberal judge said that being marriage scammed and falsely accused of abuse is not something that harms a man.

So I guess that leaves out lawsuits stating that feminist promotion of rudeness and paranoia among young American women on the streets doesn’t ultimately “harm” men either.

America can still be, (and in most cases still is) the best place in the world to live. That’s all the more reason to do what it takes to make sure it doesn’t become unlivable.

I don’t care how bad it gets, I’m not going anywhere. If anything, feminists and socialists will have to find a new country, not people who want to preserve the Republic. I would rather die fighting to save our country from socialists and fascists than live life in a foreign land.

If you want to break away from the “mainstream” that’s sucking everyone into the drain along with them, then you need to stop supporting the current two-party system. The lesser of two evils will eventually lead to the same place. We need to get back to our roots as a Constitutional Republic.

At first glance most of his presentation seems reasonable. But, someone who misunderstands the problem of fatherless children to the extent he does in #6 deserves a closer look.

Question 1

Business profits average about six percent of national income and keep the nation from having an economy like Cuba’s. Federal, state and local governments consume about 44 percent of national income, versus only 12 percent in 1930.

Therefore, which of the following should be reduced?

a) Corporate profits

b) Government spendin

On question #1

Business profits average 6% of national income, but federal, state and local governments consume 44% of national income. That means that 38% (the lions share) of the money spent by our politicians is not taxes from corporate earnings, it’s the average taxpayer’s money.

The question asked is not appropriate to the facts presented. The government needs to tax everyone less, not just corporations.

_________________________________________________________

On Question #2,

It doesn’t give enough specifics, just vague generalizations about collectivism. That word is used to “scare” people. “Those darn commies are at it again”, yet he fails to mention that the last eight years are the best example in American history of a move toward totalitarianism.

_______________________________________________________

Question 3

Medical care and medical insurance are much more costly than they would otherwise be, due to the government virtually destroying a consumer market in healthcare over the last 66 years and shifting costs to third parties.
What should be done to make medical care/insurance more available and less expensive?

a) Nationalize all remnants of a consumer market.

b) Restore a consumer market.

Correct answer: “a.” Wow, your intellect is awesome if you got this one correct. No doubt, in order to be intellectually consistent (you know what that means, right?) you want the government to nationalize the food industry and require all Americans to eat at government commissaries. Burp! Excuse me.

On question #3

Read the question.

He goes from healthcare to the nationalization of “all remnants of a consumer market”.

Then he goes to “a nationalized food industry that requires all Americans to eat at government commissaries.”

_________________________________________________________

Question 4

The federal government is insolvent and is printing money to hide the fact. In addition, it has over $60 trillion in unfunded liabilities for Social Security and Medicare, or over $700,000 for each American under the age of 18.
What should be done about this?

a) Give Americans more free stuff and entitlements.

b) Give Americans less free stuff and fewer entitlements.

Correct answer: “a.” You should run for office if you got this one right.

On question #4

Believe me when I tell you that I’m no fan of the “Slick Willy” years, but he had the budget close to being balanced, and makes George Bush look like the worst tax and spend liberal in American history. RINOS are every bit as guilty of “giving away free stuff” as any liberal DINO.

________________________________________________________

Question 5

Inflation is an insidious, hidden tax. In the 137 years from 1776 to the passage of the Federal Reserve Act in 1913, inflation averaged almost zero. Since 1913, inflation has increased dramatically, especially after the gold standard was removed. In the last half-century, the dollar has lost about 90 percent of its value, and the “money” supply has increased by about 3,000 percent. Along with government housing policies, easy money was the primary cause of the latest housing bubble and subsequent collapse. Government printing presses are now running red hot to pay the cost of the bailout. High inflation will inevitably follow the current economic downturn, thus penalizing savers, who are the backbone of a healthy economy.

So, can you trust the government with your money?

a) Yes.

b) No.

On Question #5

I’m pretty much in total agreement with him on the issue, except he fails to point out that Republicans are the party who removed us from the gold standard. A Democrat was President in 1913 when the Fed was created. The point is that both parties are responsible for this problem and there is no escaping that fact.

The Republican Party needs to become the party of men because the Democrats won’t represent us at all. Men are not necessarily social conservatives, especially those of us single guys who like dating gorgeous women.

Most of the US troops like dating and having sex with a variety of women…and guys like me will make sure they understand what the hidden agendas are of any Republican Party politician going forward.

The issue of keeping government meddling and hidden agendas out of our social lives TRUMPS the idiocy of the left wingers on other topics.

This is why Republicans like me refused to vote in this past election. The Republicans have to basically become the Libertarian Party to ever win again.

I would advise them to drop all social policies not related to men’s rights and fighting feminism, while keeping the other great points you mentioned.

Therefore, what government action would have the highest payoff in reducing poverty, school dropouts, crime, and emotional problems?

a) Increase welfare, K-12 education, child care, tutors, and psychotropic drugs.

b) Remove incentives for men to walk away and for women to marry the state.

______________________________________________________

Increased welfare, k-12 education, child care, tutors, and psychotropic drugs, (and let’s add these for shits and giggles) Free housing, free medical care, free legal representation, free food stamps and WIC coupons, free educational opportunities, free vocational training and a whole host of others we’re probably not aware of. (To protect the mother’s privacy of course)

Those are the incentives for mothers to marry the state and send the father of their children packing.

On the other hand, what incentives does the father have to walk away from his “parental responsibilities”?

How about having to pay extortionate child support payments for the next 18 to 23 years of his life under the constant threat of incarceration while the government collects a bounty of “matching federal dollars” from the already molested taxpayer.

Oh my God, we need to do something about those enticing incentives for “fathers” to walk away from their families. How dare we encourage this by providing such lucrative incentives for men to “encourage the mother to marry the state?”

Perhaps Mr. Cantoni is a lot more “mainstream” than he would care to admit.