Why the Federal Reserve, is the problem
Printed From: Tippmann Paintball
Category: News And Views
Forum Name: Thoughts and Opinions
Forum Description: Got something you need to say?
URL: http://www.tippmannsports.com/forum/wwf77a/forum_posts.asp?TID=188356
Printed Date: 14 November 2025 at 7:02pm
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.04 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Why the Federal Reserve, is the problem
Posted By: impulse418
Subject: Why the Federal Reserve, is the problem
Date Posted: 17 May 2011 at 2:53am
|
http://money.cnn.com/2011/05/16/news/economy/debt_ceiling_deadline/index.htm?hpt=T2 - http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/19-reasons-why-the-federal-reserve-is-at-the-heart-of-our-economic-problems - http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/19-reasons-why-the-federal-reserve-is-at-the-heart-of-our-economic-problems Most Americans do not understand what the Federal Reserve is or why it is at the heart of our economic problems. When Americans get into discussions about the economy, most of them still blame either the Democrats or the Republicans for inflation, for the housing crash, for our rampant unemployment and for the national debt. But the truth is that the institution with the most power over our economic system is the Federal Reserve. So exactly what is the Federal Reserve? Most people would say that it is an agency of the federal government. But that is absolutely not true. In fact, the Federal Reserve itself has argued in court that it is not an agency of the federal government. Rather, the Federal Reserve is a privately-owned banking cartel that has been given a perpetual monopoly over our monetary system by the U.S. Congress. This privately-owned central bank has been destroying the value of the U.S. dollar for decades, it has run our economy into the ground and it has driven the U.S. government to the brink of bankruptcy. The Federal Reserve operates in great secrecy, it has never been subjected to a comprehensive audit and it is not accountable to the American people. Yet the decisions that the Federal Reserve makes have a dramatic impact on the lives of every single American citizen. If you really want to understand what is causing our economic problems, it is absolutely crucial that you understand exactly what the Federal Reserve system is and how it is systematically destroying our economy. Once you understand the truth about the Federal Reserve, you will view economic issues a whole lot differently. The following are 19 reasons why the Federal Reserve is at the very heart of our economic problems.... #1 The Federal Reserve system is a debt-based financial system. The way our system is designed, normally no money comes into existence without more debt being created. But this creates a huge problem, because when a new dollar is created, the interest owed to the banking system on that dollar is not also created at the same time. Therefore, the amount money that is created is not equal to the larger amount of debt that is also created. This is a Ponzi scheme that is designed to drain wealth from the American people and transfer it to the banking system. Today, the amount of debt in our economic system is far, far, far greater than the total amount of money. The only way to keep the game going is to create even more money which creates even more debt. #2 The Federal Reserve and the bankers have a monopoly on the creation of this debt-based money. In the United States today, the only people that can create money are the bankers. You cannot create money. You would go to jail if you tried. Even the U.S. government cannot create money. Although the U.S. Constitution specifically gives Congress the power to create money, the U.S. Congress has given that power to the Federal Reserve and to the banking system. This gives them an enormous amount of power. So how does money creation actually work? Most Americans don't understand this. http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/debt-money-money-debt - As I have written about previously , the way our system is designed is that all money is supposed to originally come into existence as government debt....
Once "Federal Reserve Notes" are in circulation, there is another way that money is created. It is called "fractional reserve lending". Once you or I deposit money into a bank, the bank is only required to keep a very small amount of it actually in the bank. The rest of it the bank can loan out to others (at interest of course). This process can be repeated over and over and over, creating more money and an even larger amount of debt. But the important part to take away from all this is that normally money is only created when debt is created, and the amount of debt to be paid back is always larger than the amount of money created. This entire system is designed to drain our wealth and to put it into the hands of the bankers. #3 The power of money creation and debt creation is in the hands of private individuals - not the government. The Federal Reserve claims that it is an http://www.federalreserve.gov/generalinfo/faq/faqfrs.htm - "entity within the government, having both public purposes and private aspects." That sounds so reasonable, but the truth is that the Federal Reserve is a legalized banking cartel that is privately-owned. In fact, the Federal Reserve is about as "federal" as Federal Express is. In defending itself against a Bloomberg request for information under the Freedom of Information Act, the Federal Reserve objected by declaring that it was http://www.wlf.org/Upload/legalstudies/legalopinionletter/102309Fleschert_LOL.pdf - "not an agency" of the U.S. government and therefore it was not subject to the Freedom of Information Act. It is kind of funny how Fed officials are always talking about how important their "independence" is, but whenever anyone starts criticizing them for being private they start stressing their ties with the government. So who owns the Federal Reserve? http://www.federalreserve.gov/generalinfo/faq/faqfrs.htm - As the Federal Reserve's own website describes , it is the member banks that own it....
In particular, as we will see below, the banks of the New York Federal Reserve have the most influence over the system. So who owns the member banks? Well, when you trace the ownership of the member banks to the very top you find that the international banking elite are very strongly represented. #4 The Federal Reserve itself is not much of a profit-making institution. Rather, it is a tool that enables others to make obscene amounts of money. There are many that think of the Federal Reserve as an evil profit-making machine. But the truth is that the Fed doesn't make that much money. Rather, the system was set up so that others could make an obscene amount of money from U.S. government debt. Many of those opposed to the Federal Reserve point to the record $80.9 billion in profits that the Federal Reserve made last year as evidence that they are robbing the American people blind. But then those defending the Federal Reserve will point out that the Fed returned $78.4 billion to the U.S. Treasury. In the end, those numbers are not nearly as important as the hundreds of billions of dollars in interest that are made off of U.S. government debt each year. If the U.S. government had been issuing debt-free money all this time, the U.S. government would likely not be spending one penny on interest payments. Instead, the U.S. government spent http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/ir/ir_expense.htm - over 413 billion dollars on interest on the national debt during fiscal 2010. This is money that belonged to U.S. taxpayers that was transferred to the U.S. government which in turn was transferred to wealthy international bankers and other foreign governments. This is where the magic of the Federal Reserve system is. It is in getting the U.S. government enslaved to debt and using that debt to transfer hundreds of billions of dollars of our wealth into the hands of others. As interest rates go up, this phenomenon is going to become even more brutal. Right now it is being projected that the U.S. government will be paying http://www.defeatthedebt.com/understanding-the-danger/recognizing-the-danger/ - 900 billion dollars just in interest on the national debt by the year 2019. As you fill out your tax return this year, just keep in mind that vast quantities of our money is going to pay interest on debt that the U.S. government never needed to become enslaved to. There are some very happy people out there that are becoming fabulously wealthy at our expense. What a system, eh? #5 The Federal Reserve is a perpetual debt machine. As mentioned above, the U.S. government is enslaved to debt. So how did it get enslaved? Well, instead of printing up and spending the money that it needs, the U.S. government borrows it through the Federal Reserve system at interest. In fact, as noted above, the U.S. government cannot create a single new dollar without borrowing it. But each new dollar that the U.S. government borrows creates more than a dollar of new debt. As a result, the government eventually has to collect more in taxes than what it has borrowed. This phenomenon creates an endless debt spiral. And is that not what we have in the United States today? In fact, you see this in almost every nation on earth where a similar central banking system has been established. Did you know that the U.S. national debt is more than 5,000 times larger than it was 100 years ago? That's right - back in 1910, prior to the passage of the Federal Reserve Act, the national debt was only about http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo3.htm - $2.6 billion . The only way that the U.S. government can inject more money into the economy is by going into more debt. But when new government debt is created, the amount of money to pay the interest on that debt is not also created. In this way, it was intended by the international bankers that U.S. government debt would expand indefinitely and the U.S. money supply would also expand indefinitely. In the process, the international bankers would become insanely wealthy by lending money to the U.S. government. However, things did not have to turn out this way. http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/10-things-that-would-be-different-if-the-federal-reserve-had-never-been-created - If the Federal Reserve had never been created , and the U.S. government had been issuing debt-free currency all this time, it is entirely conceivable that we would have absolutely no federal government debt at this point. Unfortunately, we are now trapped in a debt-based system. The U.S. national debt simply cannot ever be paid off. U.S. government debt has been mathematically designed to expand forever. It is a trap from which there is no escape. Sadly, we have now gotten to a terminal phase of the debt spiral. The Congressional Budget Office is projecting that U.S. government debt held by the public will reach a staggering http://www.newsweek.com/2010/03/15/the-troubles.html - 716 percent of GDP by the year 2080. Remember when I used the term "debt spiral" earlier? This is what a debt spiral looks like.... http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/19-reasons-why-the-federal-reserve-is-at-the-heart-of-our-economic-problems/us_national_debt_chart_2010-4"> #6 The Federal Reserve system is designed to cause inflation. As U.S. government debt expands at an exponential pace, it inevitably causes inflation. Most Americans believe that inflation is a fact of life, but the truth is that the United States has only had a major, ongoing problem with inflation http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/10-things-that-would-be-different-if-the-federal-reserve-had-never-been-created - since the Federal Reserve was created back in 1913. Sadly, the U.S. dollar has lost well over 95 percent of its value since the Federal Reserve was created. If the Federal Reserve did not exist, it is theoretically conceivable that we could have an economy with little to no inflation. Of course that would greatly depend on the discipline of our government officials (which is not very great at this point), but the sad truth is that our current system is always going to produce inflation. In fact, the Federal Reserve system was originally designed to be inflationary. Just check out the inflation chart posted below. The U.S. never had massive problems with inflation before the Fed was created, but now it is just wildly out of control.... http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/19-reasons-why-the-federal-reserve-is-at-the-heart-of-our-economic-problems/inflation-5"> #7 The Federal Reserve has decided to play bizarre games with our money supply. In a desperate attempt to revive the dying U.S. economy, the Federal Reserve has resorted to chucking gigantic quantities of cash into the financial system. Remember how earlier I explained that normally whenever new money is created that more debt is created? Well, lately the Fed has been resorting to a trick called "quantitative easing". What "quantitative easing" means is that the Federal Reserve zaps massive amounts of money into existence out of thin air and starts spending it on anything that it wants to buy. Lately, this has primarily been done to buy up U.S. government debt. But isn't that "monetizing the debt"? Of course it is, and it is a blatant Ponzi scheme. However, what is even more alarming is what this is doing to our money supply. Just look at what has happened to our monetary base since about mid-2008.... http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/19-reasons-why-the-federal-reserve-is-at-the-heart-of-our-economic-problems/adjusted-monetary-base"> Does anyone in their right mind believe that this is not going to cause horrible inflation? Right now most of the new cash is tied up in the financial system, but once it gets out into the regular economy watch out! #8 The Federal Reserve is undemocratic. http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/how-is-the-central-economic-planning-that-the-federal-reserve-does-different-from-the-central-economic-planning-that-communist-china-does - In a previous article , I asked the following question:
In both cases, a bunch of unelected elitists run the economy and make important economic decisions for the rest of us. So what really is the difference? #9 The Federal Reserve runs the U.S. economy. Most Americans want to blame Obama or Bush or the U.S. Congress for the state of the economy. But the truth is that it is the Federal Reserve that sets interest rates, it is the Federal Reserve that determines the money supply, it is the Federal Reserve that sets the "target rate" of inflation, it is the Federal Reserve that determines if unemployment is too high or too low and it is the Federal Reserve that watches over all of our banks. Yes, Obama, Bush and the U.S. Congress all have things to answer for as well. But none of them have the direct power over the economy that the Federal Reserve does. #10 The Federal Reserve favors the big banks. Not all financial institutions are treated equally by the Fed. The truth is that the big banks (particularly those on Wall Street) are treated with great favor by the Federal Reserve. If the Federal Reserve did not exist, the big Wall Street banks would not have such an overwhelming advantage. Most Americans simply have no idea that over the last several years the Federal Reserve has been giving gigantic piles of nearly interest-free money to the big Wall Street banks which they turned right around and started lending to the federal government http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/11-reasons-why-the-federal-reserve-is-bad - at a much higher rate of return . I don't know about you, but if I was allowed to do that I could make a whole bunch of money very quickly. In fact, it has come out that the Federal Reserve made over http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/debt-money-money-debt - $9 trillion in overnight loans to major banks, large financial institutions and other "friends" during the financial crisis of 2008 and 2009. Wouldn't you like to be able to zap trillions of dollars into existence and loan it out to your friends at very favorable terms? Sadly, most of the "help" from the Federal Reserve always seems to go to the big boys. When "small enough to fail" banks need assistance, they are usually told to go sell themselves to one of the big banks. #11 The worse the debt problems caused by the Federal Reserve become, the more money the IRS needs to collect from the rest of us. If the U.S. government could issue debt-free money, it is conceivable that we would not even need the IRS. You doubt this? Well, the truth is that the United States did just fine for well over a hundred years without a national income tax. But about the same time the Federal Reserve was created a national income tax was instituted as well. The whole idea was that the wealth of the American people would be transferred to the U.S. government by force and then transferred into the hands of the ultra-wealthy in the form of interest payments. If the Federal Reserve was shut down, it is entirely possible that we would be able to shut down the IRS as well. But the only way that the current system works is if massive amounts of wealth continue to be drained from the American people. #12 The Federal Reserve creates artificial financial bubbles. When you look back over the last several decades, you will find financial bubble after financial bubble. So who created all of those bubbles? It was the Federal Reserve. The ridiculous policies of Greenspan and Bernanke have wrought disaster after disaster and yet most of our politicians still will not even consider major changes to the Federal Reserve. #13 The Federal Reserve is anti-free market. In a true free market system, the marketplace would determine what interest rates are. In a true free market system, the marketplace would determine which financial institutions survive. In a true free market system, artificial financial bubbles would be far less likely. But we don't have a true free market system. #14 The Federal Reserve tells the rest of the our banks what to do. Most Americans don't understand just how much power the Federal Reserve actually has over our local banks. For example, just last year Federal Reserve officials walked into one bank in Oklahoma and demanded that they take down http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/the-federal-reserve-bans-a-local-oklahoma-bank-from-displaying-crosses-bible-verses-and-christmas-buttons - all the Bible verses and all the Christmas buttons that the bank had been displaying. #15 The people currently running the Federal Reserve pretty much have no idea what they are doing. In case anyone has not noticed, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke has http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/is-ben-bernanke-a-liar-a-lunatic-or-is-he-just-completely-and-totally-incompetent - a very long track record of incompetence . Nearly every major judgment that he has made since taking over that position has been dead wrong. If one of us could go down the street and appoint the manager of the local Dairy Queen as the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, it is very doubtful that person would do a worse job than Bernanke has done. #16 Even though the Federal Reserve has such extraordinary power over the financial system, the American people are not permitted to examine their books. The Federal Reserve claims that they are regularly audited, but when some members of Congress attempted to push through a true comprehensive audit of the Fed last year Federal Reserve officials threw a hissy fit. The truth is that the Federal Reserve has never undergone a true comprehensive audit since it was created back in 1913. Whenever the subject of an audit comes up, Bernanke and others at the Fed keep repeating the mantra of how important "the independence of the Federal Reserve" is. Sadly, Ron Paul’s proposal to audit the Federal Reserve last year, which had previously been co-sponsored by 320 members of the U.S. House of Representatives, http://endoftheamericandream.com/archives/its-independence-day-but-are-we-really-free-as-long-as-a-privately-owned-central-bank-controls-americas-currency-and-runs-our-economy - ultimately failed by a vote of 229-198. Instead, a very, very limited examination of Fed transactions that occurred during the recent financial crisis was approved. So what did that limited examination reveal? Well, the Federal Reserve was forced to reveal the details of 21,000 transactions stretching from December 2007 to July 2010 that combined were worth trillions of dollars. It turns out that the Federal Reserve was just handing out http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/trillions-in-secret-fed-bailouts-for-global-corporations-and-foreign-banks-has-the-federal-reserve-become-a-completely-unaccountable-global-bailout-machine - gigantic piles of nearly interest-free cash to their friends at the largest banks, financial institutions and corporations all over the globe. Many members of Congress were absolutely stunned by these revelations. So what would a more comprehensive audit reveal? #17 The Federal Reserve has way too much power. If the Federal Reserve did not exist, we would not have an unelected, unaccountable "fourth branch of government" running around that has gotten completely and totally out of control. Even some members of Congress are now openly complaining about how much power the Fed has. For example, Ron Paul told MSNBC last year that he believes that the Federal Reserve is now http://thetruthwins.com/archives/ron-paul-and-the-federal-reserve - more powerful than Congress .....
#18 The Federal Reserve is dominated by Wall Street and the New York banks. The New York representative is the only permanent member of the Federal Open Market Committee, while other regional banks rotate in 2 and 3 year intervals. The former head of the New York Fed, Timothy Geithner, is now U.S. Treasury Secretary. The truth is that the Federal Reserve Bank of New York has always been the most important of the regional Fed banks by far, and in turn the Federal Reserve Bank of New York has always been dominated by Wall Street and the major New York banks. The cold, hard reality of the matter is that the Federal Reserve is just another one of the tools that the Wall Street banking elite use to dominate all the rest of us. #19 The Federal Reserve has brought us to the brink of economic collapse. If the Federal Reserve had never been created, the American people would not be so enslaved to debt. At the very core of our economic problems is debt. American consumers are swamped with debt, state and local governments are facing horrific debt problems from coast to coast and the federal government has piled up the biggest mountain of debt in the history of the world. We are living in an absolutely massive debt bubble, and when it bursts the world is going to experience financial chaos like it has never seen before. Things did not have to turn out this way. We did not have to adopt a debt-based financial system. We did not have to allow the bankers to enslave us with debt. But that is what happened. Sadly, most Americans and the vast majority of our politicians are still clueless about these issues. http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Conspiracy - In 1922 , Henry Ford wrote the following....
Hopefully this article will help people understand our debt-based financial system a little bit better. Until we fundamentally change our system, many of the economic and financial problems we are currently experiencing will never go away. Thankfully, it does appear that some Americans are waking up. According to http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-12-09/more-than-half-of-americans-want-fed-reined-in-or-abolished.html - a recent Bloomberg National Poll , the number of Americans that would like to see the Federal Reserve held more accountable or even completely abolished is increasing....
Those are very exciting numbers. Hopefully we can awaken many more Americans to the dangers of a debt-based economy. In the book of Proverbs, it tells us the following....
Well, by allowing ourselves to become enslaved to debt, we have become the servants of the international banking system. Not only that, we have also sold our children and our grandchildren into perpetual http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/17-national-debt-statistics-which-prove-that-we-have-sold-our-children-and-grandchildren-into-perpetual-debt-slavery - debt slavery . Thomas Jefferson tried to warn us about this. He believed that when the government borrows money in one generation which must be paid back by future generations http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson - it is equivalent to stealing ....
In fact, Thomas Jefferson said that if he could add one more amendment to the U.S. Constitution http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson - it would be a ban on all government borrowing ....
Where would we be today if we had listened to Thomas Jefferson? The amount of government debt that we have racked up is a great evil. We have stolen the future away from our children and our grandchildren. We have put them in a position where they will spend the rest of their lives paying off our debts to the bankers. We owe it to future generations to fix the problems that we have created. That is why so many of us believe that it is time for the U.S. Congress to shut down the Federal Reserve. Our current financial system is a complete and utter failure and we need to start over. |
Replies:
Posted By: Rofl_Mao
Date Posted: 17 May 2011 at 11:14am
|
inb4 defending Obama. also inb4 FE
|
Posted By: impulse418
Date Posted: 11 July 2011 at 7:22pm
|
“I could end the deficit in 5 minutes. You just pass a law that says
that anytime there is a deficit of more than 3% of GDP all sitting
members of congress are ineligible for reelection.” -Warren Buffet |
Posted By: ThatGuitarGuy
Date Posted: 11 July 2011 at 8:02pm
|
Why is their first response "We should raise the legal limit of money we can borrow," and not "why don't we reduce spending to try to curb this debt"? ------------- Skillet: I've never been terribly fond of the look of a vagina |
Posted By: __sneaky__
Date Posted: 11 July 2011 at 8:06pm
Well, at least this will make for an interesting thing to watch.  You know what amazes me though? The fact that this has been coming up for quite some time, and I see almost no facebook statuses about it. I had to talk a group of friends through what was going on the other night because none of them had heard anything about it. Not exactly a small issue to miss. ------------- "I AM a crossdresser." -Reb Cpl Forum Vice President RIP T&O Forum |
Posted By: impulse418
Date Posted: 11 July 2011 at 8:41pm
It's not hard to miss, when your time is not spent on watching Jersey Shore, or the Anthony trial haha. I don't blame the youth today. Ignorance is bliss. Except when these kids are getting out of college, and can't get a job.  |
__sneaky__ wrote:Posted By: Donald Blake
Date Posted: 12 July 2011 at 12:00am
Because that wouldn't help the current situation. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/07/11/debt-ceiling-debate-a-primer-for-what-s-going-on.html - http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/07/11/debt-ceiling-debate-a-primer-for-what-s-going-on.html ------------- 
|
Posted By: FreeEnterprise
Date Posted: 12 July 2011 at 7:45am
|
Well... you have to "spend" your way out of a depression... Oh wait.
 Well, that didn't work very well. Maybe if we spent MORE?
Yeah, that would fix it! AMIRITE!!!
------------- They tremble at my name... 
|
Posted By: oldpbnoob
Date Posted: 12 July 2011 at 10:08am
|
Hate to say it, but seems like the solution is to raise the debt ceiling, make massive spending cuts and raise taxes on the rich. I"m not an economist, and I know the argument is that raising the taxes on the people creating the jobs is a bad thing, but the people making these arguments are the same people. I personally think raising taxes on the middle class is a horrible idea, but of course I am middle class, so that would make sense. Arent they really just talking about raising taxes on those that make like $2mil+ /year? And it isnt really raising taxes, just discontinuing the tax decreases that took place during the Bush admin? And even if the taxes are against business owners, hasn't the argument been made that corporations don't pay taxes? Don't they simply pass them on to those buying the goods? So really the middle class still ends up paying the taxes anyways. ------------- "When I grow up I want to marry a rich man and live in a condor next to the beach" -- My 7yr old daughter. |
Posted By: High Voltage
Date Posted: 12 July 2011 at 10:17am
|
opbn, yep. This left vs right battle is getting so old. Each side has half of the solution and they're so busy trying to secure votes for the next elections that they simply can not admit they're both half-right and could solve a problem by working together. Instead they are too busy trying to discredit the other party to make it seem like only they have the correct answer. Cut spending, raise taxes. ------------- 
|
Posted By: FreeEnterprise
Date Posted: 12 July 2011 at 10:24am
|
all the more reason for the government to CUT itself in half, and stop spending, and spending and spending...
What we have is not a revenue problem but an out of control spending problem.
Giving them MORE to spend will only kick the can down the road, as they will just hit the NEW level of spending quickly.
We are Taxed Enough Already.
Even when the congress cuts spending to organizations like Acorn. The Liberals in charge just keep spending even though that spending is now illegal. http://biggovernment.com/mvadum/2011/07/11/breaking-it-turns-out-obama-gave-acorn-541k-this-year-not-80k/#more-296136 - http://biggovernment.com/mvadum/2011/07/11/breaking-it-turns-out-obama-gave-acorn-541k-this-year-not-80k/#more-296136
Our fiscal issues are a result of a massive spending and accountability problem. ------------- They tremble at my name...
|
Posted By: oldpbnoob
Date Posted: 12 July 2011 at 10:54am
|
As mentioned, I agree that we need to cut spending drastically. Perhaps some cuts can be temporary, but in the short term at least major cuts need to be done and not from things like SS, Medicare, Medicaid etc. Sometimes you do have to go further in debt in the short term to ride the wave. Unfortunately, in good times where there were surplus' we should have been stockpiling cash and shoring up things like the above mentioned programs. As far as being taxed enough already, while I agree that I don't want to pay more taxes, the money has to come from somewhere and historically, we are paying the lowest tax rates ever if I am not mistaken. I am not saying that we go back to the 70% tax brackets of the 50", but some tax increase will be necessary. As U.S. citizens, the wealthy, many of which made their fortunes on the backs of low wage earning workers that are now unemployed, have a civic duty to make some sacrifices. I beleive I read somewhere that showed that the people least hit by the recession are in fact, the wealthy. If I remember correctly it actually said many fortunes increased dramatically wherea the trend for the middle class was reduction. If I get the inclination, I'll try to look for it, but probably not. My best example of people deserving more taxes is my wifes boss. He owns a label making company and does quite weill. In fact, well enough to buy both a Bentley for his everyday driving and a Ferrari for his fun driving. This doesnt include his wifes 8 series BMW, nor the cars he has bought for his adult children. He also owns a $2mil+ house in a very exclusive neighborhood in Central Florida as well as, from my understanding ones for at least two of his kids. All of which "work" for him. From my understanding the only one that really does anything is his son who borrowed money from his dad in order to get another division of the company started and actually earned what he makes. While I know this man has worked hard over the years, made good business decisions and earned his money, I would have a hard time arguing that he couldnt afford to pay more in taxes. He could afford it a hell of a lot more than I or anyone else I know can.
i am not saying higher taxes are the only answer. I know they arent, but they are at least a short term help. Getting out of Irag, Afghanistan and whatever else we are in should help I would imagine, but also look at the vacuum it will create when we have a hundred thousand troops no longer deployed. Will they become unemployed or are these guys mainly reserve or what? Not sure how that works, but I would imagine we will save a butt ton of money once we are able to bring our troops home. ------------- "When I grow up I want to marry a rich man and live in a condor next to the beach" -- My 7yr old daughter. |
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 12 July 2011 at 10:59am
If not an increase, at least letting the Bush Tax Cuts - a driving problem behind the defect - expire would be beneficial.
|
Posted By: FreeEnterprise
Date Posted: 12 July 2011 at 11:08am
|
I agree with bringing the troops home, it is silly to think we can "fix" anything over there, when that part of the world has been fighting for centuries.
But, increasing the debt limit is a bad idea.
If they don't increase the debt limit, it forces them to make cuts. As they would have to do something shocking...
Actually spend only what they bring in.
I know... I know... the horror of having to live within your means.
How about we make it a fair tax, instead of companies like GE paying zero tax while my tax burden is not discounted as I don't have tons of lawyers looking for loopholes, and I don't grease the wheels of government to get special deals.
What we need is equal rights not special rights.
Everyone should pay their fair share. We currently have 51% of the country that PAY NO FEDERAL INCOME TAX!
51%
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/05/51-of-americans-pay-no-federal-income-taxes/238329/ - http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/05/51-of-americans-pay-no-federal-income-taxes/238329/
It would be irresponsible to allow the government to keep spending the way they are... They are spending 1.5 trillion more PER YEAR than they bring in!!! Since Obama and the democrats took over the purse strings... No wonder they never passed a budget... The public would shreik if they put it on paper and signed it saying they were going to spend that much over what they bring in per year.
Increasing taxes is a death move, and yet Obama and the democrats have already done that (course it takes a while for them to start so the public hasn't felt it yet).
And their promise of MORE increases in taxes make businesses hunker down and NOT hire because they are waiting for the next shoe to drop on them...
We have to force them to spend what they bring in. ONLY. Anything less will is like taking your buddie who ran up his credit card to max, and drives a porsche he can't afford in a house he can't afford and telling him YOU are going to co sign on all his debt.
No one is that crazy...
right?
Except that is exactly what increasing the 14.5 trillion debt limit is doing... Giving them MORE access to money they will just waste. And in a few months we will be having the exact same converstation again. ------------- They tremble at my name...
|
Posted By: oldpbnoob
Date Posted: 12 July 2011 at 11:16am
------------- "When I grow up I want to marry a rich man and live in a condor next to the beach" -- My 7yr old daughter. |
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 12 July 2011 at 11:19am
Not a very good long-term plan for government budgets. Debt - albeit a manageable debt - is good for progress and innovation. And, as has been said before, and will probably be said again as politicians begin using this flawed analogy in campaigns, a capitalist economic system within a democratic government simply doesn't work like balancing the family check book.
While I've read some interesting fair-tax ideas, none of the proposals I've seen are anything more than attempts to shift the tax burden in the U.S. away from high earners to low earners. The problem with a flat-tax is that it puts a rather hefty portion of the taxation equation on low-income houses. Which leads to . . .
GASP! Hey wait, what's the average household income of these folks paying no Federal income tax?
And this is something I certainly agree with. |
Posted By: oldpbnoob
Date Posted: 12 July 2011 at 11:29am
|
If you would read the link that DB posted it explains that even if all spending were to stop immediately, we still have to pay for past debts coming due. Not raising the debt ceiling, according to the article, will not make those debts go away. A lot of these debts owed are bonds coming due as well as contracts having to be paid etc. No one is arguing that the government shouldnt have to live within it's means, but occassionally it doesnt happen. Most people don't walk in and pay cash for their cars and/or homes so it might be considered unreasonable for the government to do it to a certain degree. As mentioned, money should have been set aside to pay for the debts coming due, but it wasnt. I would venture to bet a lot of these debts predate our current administration. I do agree though, that with less money coming in from taxes that cuts should have occurred, but to what extent? I know locally nearly every school system is having to tighten it's belt significantly with the lack of funds coming down from on high.
I think one thing that you have to keep in mind with the 51% not paying income tax is that from my understanding it includes EVERY person in the U.S. including children so it is skewed. ------------- "When I grow up I want to marry a rich man and live in a condor next to the beach" -- My 7yr old daughter. |
Posted By: FreeEnterprise
Date Posted: 12 July 2011 at 11:37am
|
Yeah, I agree the 51% is skewed, but so is the "rich aren't paying their fare share" bit...
That is skewed too, I know lots of "rich" guys paying a crapton of money in taxes.
And even if the government took 100% of their income, it wouldn't put a dent in the 1.5 trillion they are spending over what they bring in per year.. So it is a moot point!
We have to cut government. Eliminate entire sections of the government. But, that never happens.
That is the problem. Giving them the ability to ignore the issue is the only thing increasing the debt limit does. I realize they have to pay for what they have spent. But, it is time to cut government, significantly. They need to learn to budget, and have a safety net of cash for emergencies.
But, both parties like spending money. Look at the bills they pass, it is never a "real" amount for anything. They just pull numbers out of the air... Look at gunrunner $10,000,000 stimulus funds. Where did that amount come from?
EVERYTHING they do has a made up figure associated with it... No quotes, no real costs... Just pull a number out of pelosi's backside, and poof that money is gone...
Corruption plain and simple, but you guys keep saying "but the rich aren't paying their fair share"...
Come on, the government is ripping all of us off to the tune of 1.5 trillion more than they take in per year!
And you want to let them borrow more...
------------- They tremble at my name...
|
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 12 July 2011 at 11:43am
Lovely anecdotal evidence, but do you have something to support it?
So cutting every last cent of spending won't clear everything on its own. And taxing every last cent of income won't clear everything on its own. It's almost as if the most-correct solution lies somewhere within these two points.
If one has a lack of proper understanding of the workings of wide-scale economics, I can totally understand why it appears that way.
|
Posted By: FreeEnterprise
Date Posted: 12 July 2011 at 12:34pm
|
You act like this current massive spending has been going on for ever...
Look at the graph. This is a liberal democratic spending spree since they took over... The spending is MASSIVE.
It is on purpose to destroy the economy because they "never let a crisis go to waste".
The strategy of forcing political change through orchestrated crisis. The "Cloward-Piven Strategy" seeks to hasten the fall of capitalism by overloading the government bureaucracy with a flood of impossible demands, thus pushing society into crisis and economic collapse.
Then blaming their spending of trillions not being financed by a few million in taxes waged on the backs of the rich... It is manipulation pure and simple.
The graph shows the truth of spending. ------------- They tremble at my name...
|
Posted By: impulse418
Date Posted: 12 July 2011 at 12:41pm
|
We do not produce anything! We will never get out of debt. |
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 12 July 2011 at 12:43pm
The level of spending did particularly increase when we got ourselves involved in two wars overseas in the early 2000s.
While the graph is cute, and it does show an effect of the recession, it doesn't exactly show that Democrats are automatic spenders, if that little bump into "surplus" in the 1990s shows anything.
Oh neat, another conspiracy.
|
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 12 July 2011 at 12:45pm
Well that's a rather silly statement. I'm pretty sure we're still one of the top producing countries as far as raw output goes. And that's not even counting the intangibles.
|
Posted By: impulse418
Date Posted: 12 July 2011 at 12:46pm
Scrap and trash is what we export. |
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 12 July 2011 at 12:48pm
Interesting opinion, but a largely unfounded one.
|
Posted By: impulse418
Date Posted: 12 July 2011 at 12:52pm
|
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/jodie-allen/2010/03/03/americas-biggest-trade-export-to-china-trash - http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/jodie-allen/2010/03/03/americas-biggest-trade-export-to-china-trash http://www.manufacturingnews.com/news/08/0731/PIERS.html - http://www.manufacturingnews.com/news/08/0731/PIERS.html We aren't even #1 for making meth anymore. |
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 12 July 2011 at 1:00pm
It's extraordinarily silly to downplay the recycled raw materials market. I used to cover the recycling market for a business publication. I started just as the recession was beginning to rumble, and even through the recession most all commodities in the recycling market stayed firm. Metals and plastics were doing OK. Down but OK. Granted, paper took a major hit. And recycling glass is useless in the South East, so it was hard to pin that one down. But yeah. Saying that the U.S. is faltering by exporting "trash" is a major downplay of a lucrative market. We produce a whole lot of disposable raw product in this country - especially metal and plastic - and other countries are more than willing to buy them from us.
|
Posted By: oldsoldier
Date Posted: 12 July 2011 at 1:22pm
|
Historically whenever a 'empire' loses its financial edge in the known world markets the fall is inevitable unless the 'empire' adapts a far more internal bussiness friendly enviornment. Rome taxed traders bringing products into the empire, as well as goods dold in within the empire, but for some unknown reason did not tax as high Roman goods made in the far reaches of the empire. One result was the unusual difference in economies from the Eastern and Western Roman empires.
In the 1980's when the war ravaged economies of Europe and Asia became a viable trade competitor, the US market maintained the same old products, and the Japanese really took hold as they re-invented the 'dependable' small gas efficient auto, while detroit maintained the large designs and smaller less than successfull small cars (Pinto, Gremlin, Vega, etc)with very questionable quality control. Electronics and small appliances soon followed the pattern and design improvments as well as manufacture moved to Asia, because America refused to adapt to the changing market. We also failed to maintain a good manufacturing base. The Marshall plan rebuilt Europe and Asia heavy industries to a 1950's standard, which the Germans and Japanese modernized as needed, while US plants remained in a early 40's and earlier mode. Go to Krupp Steel in Germany than US Steel in Pittsburg, which is more modern and which sells steel at a lower cost. So like with the example of NY where taxes and an truely unfriendly labor market has chased manufacturing from the state, along with the jobs, I can not help but compare to Nebraska, where the Omaha/Lincoln I-80 corridor is growing with manufacturing and distribution centers, heavy indistry (Kawasaki), and the employer is having difficulties finding 'qualified'(the key word here)workers. A friend, a recent graduate of UNL applied at Kawasaki, did not pass the math testing requirements for the position he applied for, even though he had a 3.97 GPA at UNL. We are creating a monster, a dependant monster economy preying on the few true providers left, and we wonder why more and more providers are leaving. There is no revenue problem in Washington, there is a spending problem. In the 1930's we sold scrap and the 'recyclables' of the time to the Japanese, and they maximized that potential, yet today even third world manufacturing nations are creating and utilizng thier 'trash' instead of importing ours. Wonder why. ------------- 
|
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 12 July 2011 at 1:34pm
Granted I'm three years off from when I covered such a thing - but the plastics and metal recyclers I talked to quote often at the time (In 2009), China and Indonesia were two of their biggest customers. China was buying bundled plastic shopping bags by the dozens of shipping container load. Of the metal collecting agencies I often talked to, almost all had a waiting list of Indonesian manufacturers. Essentially we couldn't make scrap fast enough.
|
Posted By: oldpbnoob
Date Posted: 12 July 2011 at 1:35pm
|
Something that seems to be being missed here by some is that the Republican leadearship has agreed that the debt ceiling needs to be raised. From my understanding, the issue at hand is that the dems don't want entitlement programs cut and the Reps dont want taxe breaks continued for the wealthy. Unfortunately, I have to lean towards the Dem position on this one. As mentioned, if the tax breaks are closed/rescinded wont they just past those costs onto the buyer/patron/employee? I don't foresee Mr. Millionaire giving up his digs or vacation home, but raising the prices on his products to cover his costs. Which perhaps is the problem. Perhaps if they paid their employees more they would have more disposable income to spend on things and thus stimulate the economy. I'm sure my mother and 10-20 other employees would love to get an extra $10k per year if the boss gave up his Bentley or Ferrari. ------------- "When I grow up I want to marry a rich man and live in a condor next to the beach" -- My 7yr old daughter. |
Posted By: FreeEnterprise
Date Posted: 12 July 2011 at 2:54pm
|
Thou shalt not covet. And yet, the democratic party is sold on class warfare (coveting others reward for their work).
Regardless, even if you took 100% of the high income earners in the country in taxes, you still would'nt come near the 1.5 trillion deficit per year that the democrats are spending.
NO matter how high you raise the taxes, it won't cover what they are spending per year...
Raising the debt limit is just enabling MORE spending when they have to cut spending to fix this. ------------- They tremble at my name...
|
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 12 July 2011 at 2:57pm
Not a legally binding command, funny enough.
Based on the cuts to social welfare programs in the 1990s and 2000s, the increasing tax cuts for the top percent of earners and big businesses, stagnation of worker pay while productivity increases, etc., it appears that if there is indeed a class warfare going on, it's not the Democrats who are winning.
And even if you cut every last single cent of spending, you'd still owe on back expenditures and payments. Again, it's almost as if the solution is somewhere in the middle.
Again, I can see how one would think this way without a knowledge of large-scale economic systems.
|
Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 12 July 2011 at 3:02pm
| Any time it comes to budget cuts, the US just makes me want to punch someone in the face. Cutting arts funding to fight the deficit is like trimming your toenails to fight obesity. Its just a feel-good measure for those involved that screws a terribly underfunded and important part of society. |
Posted By: stratoaxe
Date Posted: 12 July 2011 at 3:54pm
Look to Texas as an example. We have one of the highest income rates and yet lowest education rates in the union. Any time money troubles come around, we cut teacher pay. Its' shameful.
------------- 
|
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 12 July 2011 at 4:03pm
It's hard for me to take any conversation or opinion piece about problems with Federal spending that doesn't begin with Social Security and the military seriously. Everything else is simply feel-good cuts.
|
Posted By: impulse418
Date Posted: 12 July 2011 at 4:09pm
You feel that we should cut into SS? |
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 12 July 2011 at 4:12pm
You'll have to define "cut into."
|
Posted By: impulse418
Date Posted: 12 July 2011 at 4:14pm
You feel that we should quit giving people money, from SS? |
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 12 July 2011 at 4:16pm
Not at all. It's a valuable system - the whole thing , not just RSDI.
|
Posted By: impulse418
Date Posted: 12 July 2011 at 4:19pm
| What would you cut from military spending? |
Posted By: FreeEnterprise
Date Posted: 12 July 2011 at 4:22pm
|
Why is Obamacare off the table in this negotiation?...
1 trillion a year, and the program hasn't even started yet (takes 10 years to pay for 5 years of services... duh, of course that will never work). and yet... nothing about fixing Obamacare...
Instead Obama goes out and tells seniors today "we may not mail checks on the 2nd...".
Nice, scaring seniors. I hate politics. Dude spends 1.5 trillion more than he brings in for years, and then blames republicans for trying to get him to face reality, that this massive spending can't continue. And he goes out and scares seniors.
How about spending less? Naa, it will be a 10 year plan with all of the spending reductions AFTER he is out of office so he can just keep spending and rewarding his friends while penalizing his enemies.
Someone take the sugar away from Obama sugar daddy. ------------- They tremble at my name...
|
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 12 July 2011 at 4:48pm
As someone who knows little about specifics in cost of the military - If my lack of knowledge in the M203 discussion was any proof - I can answer that I don't know. But we're spending almost as much on our military as other countries combined. I'm not going to pretend like I know exactly what to cut, or that it needs to be a hack-and-slash. But, I think that it's of the utmost importance to have a serious, serious spending audit. See what works, what doesn't. What we're wasting, what we need more of. Tighten up efficiency. Etc. All contracts should be examined. Same with Social Security and all that comes with it: Audit, examine, make appropriate cuts and adjustments. For SS I know a bit more - the wage-cutoffs, age of collection, and employee compensation of OASDI need to be reconsidered. Not scrapped. Not burned. Just examined and tightened up.
|
Posted By: oldsoldier
Date Posted: 12 July 2011 at 5:02pm
|
I do find it interesting that Obama chooses to hold Social Security hostage, a program paid for in part (by government confiscation, no option offered) by the reciepiant (and in a lockbox as per the Democrats). Yet does not even consider maybe halting benifits to illegals, or the professional welfare reciepiant.
Our military spending is being dwarfed by the spending by the Red Chinese. Fleet Carriers, Nuclear Missile Submarines, Modernized Surface Fleet, the Chinese are going to roam the seas as we do soon, and will outnumber our aging fleet here soon. The modernization of thier ground forces alone should be of concern, when they do decide to Invade Taiwan what are we going to do, and how long will Taiwan last. We found out from 1926 to 1941 how well isolationist policies work in the face of expanding potentially hostile empires. Eventually 4 Chinese Fleet Carriers sitting off Hawaii to our 1 will almost repeat history in a way. -------------
|
Posted By: oldpbnoob
Date Posted: 12 July 2011 at 5:04pm
|
I think a serious examination of Medicare/Medicaid fraud would be another place to look. I have seen estimates into the the billions a year for fraudulent claims. Also stop giving out Scooters to anyone that applies. Just and example, and I know a drop in the bucket, but with enough drops, perhaps we can get somewhere. While I think it is a shame to cut funding to the arts, I also feel that it is something perhaps better funded by private entities, at least for the short term. I would think substantial decreases in military spending are due once we draw down from Iraq and Afghanistan. At least I would hope. ------------- "When I grow up I want to marry a rich man and live in a condor next to the beach" -- My 7yr old daughter. |
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 12 July 2011 at 5:05pm
You and I must have different definitions of the term "dwarf."  |
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 12 July 2011 at 5:09pm
Agreed. Medicare/Medicaid is a bit of a delicate position between rock and a rather hard place. The same mechanisms within the system that make it more cost-effective than private insurance (Far fewer middle-men, streamlined approvals, etc.) also make it easier to scam.
Fine, but you're the one who has to tell Mack his claim for a Hoverround is being denied. |
Posted By: Dune
Date Posted: 12 July 2011 at 5:15pm
|
Posted By: oldpbnoob
Date Posted: 12 July 2011 at 5:46pm
------------- "When I grow up I want to marry a rich man and live in a condor next to the beach" -- My 7yr old daughter. |
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 12 July 2011 at 6:01pm
In my brain I picture you placing the note gently on the door, ringing the doorbell, and as you turn to run, the garage lifts up to reveal Mack wearing a U.S. Airforce jumpsuit with old WW1-style leather flying cap and goggles, in a motor scooter painted to look like a fighter jet, cane raised above his head in ultimate strike position, leading a screaming charge down the driveway. And this is what my brain does in its spare time.
|
Posted By: stratoaxe
Date Posted: 12 July 2011 at 6:25pm
This sums up most ideas on debt reduction.
The problem with debt is that when you're dealing numbers like billions, and now trillions, it's almost impossible to fully comprehend the amount of slices in that pie. We tend to approach the big 2-military and welfare-as the end all solutions to this debate. But the truth is that few of us are educated or privy enough to the details of US debt to full understand how it branches into the many sectors of the economy.
In fact, I will say it's one of those select few subjects regarding politics that I have little interest in educating myself on until my education demands it-because when I do, it seems hopeless and overwhleming. The men and women that manipulate American financial markets are true geniuses that earn their pay.
That said, if I were to engage in a little uneducated speculation, I'd throw out a solution list that would look something like this:
1-Rethink our global military position. I don't like the term "spending cuts" when it comes to the military, because it gives the idea that we're simply going to cut the amount of dollars that military receives. I think that it needs to be much deeper than that-I thnk the American powers that be need to come together and really rethink where we stand in the world. I think that the "Team America World Police" image, whether it's real or simply perceived, no longer serves our best financial or diplomatic needs.
2-Complete restructure of American healthcare. By this I mean implementing a single initiative, be it federal or state level mandated, that provides one end all healthcare plan and eliminates existing government health care on the federal, state, and local levels. This would conglomerate the Medicaid, Medicare, and other programs into a single plan. This would serve the purpose of A:) making it easier to set across the board standards for who does and does not receive medical benefits and B:) make it much easier to report the exact cost of American health care. This is vital IMO.
3-Restructuring of the tax system. This is just long overdue. Mitt Romney has made ths a campaign issue for his camp, and it should be for everyone including the sitting president. America's taxes are being outsourced through loopholes and exceptions, and in many cases avoided altogether. A global business market requires a much different tax ideology that one on the national level.
4-Restructure our aid system. Let's be a little pickier about what countries receive American aid, mmmkay.
5-TAX RECEIPTS. I just like this idea, and it's been linked here on the forum if you search. It's not cost effective, but it would certainly put whole new meaning to fiscal responsibility.
6-Reform of the lobbying system.
7-Education initiatives
That's the short list. A real list would be hundreds of pages long and would likely take years, or even decades to study and implement, which is why it isn't going to happen any time soon. -------------
|
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 12 July 2011 at 6:41pm
I should clarify my points on military and Social Security spending - I think that reforms and audits are needed to get spending under control moving forward - but spending control is only one portion of the overall deficit problem.
One of the only active Republicans in the field right now that I do like. Him and Huntsman are running solid, non-silly campaigns. Perhaps there is some connection between Mormonism and being a fiscally minded social-moderate. |
Posted By: impulse418
Date Posted: 12 July 2011 at 7:42pm
| Ron Paul |
Posted By: StormyKnight
Date Posted: 12 July 2011 at 8:25pm
So, how many out there believe if the debt ceiling isn't raised by August 2nd, no SS, Medicare, etc. pmts go out? Why? ------------- 
|
Posted By: impulse418
Date Posted: 12 July 2011 at 8:30pm
I hope it doesn't get raised. I think that will be the spark. |
Posted By: Rofl_Mao
Date Posted: 12 July 2011 at 9:13pm
| Damn glad I live in Canada now. |
Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 12 July 2011 at 9:18pm
| Agreed, Ron Paul is not realistically viable. He has some good ideas, and some batcrap crazy ones. Just doesnt work. |
Posted By: StormyKnight
Date Posted: 13 July 2011 at 12:32am
QFT -------------
|
Posted By: FreeEnterprise
Date Posted: 14 July 2011 at 12:57pm
|
Ron Paul is winning the commercial battle so far...
That was just a little better than the GOP commercial that just came out.
------------- They tremble at my name...
|
Posted By: impulse418
Date Posted: 14 July 2011 at 1:10pm
 Ron PaulThe GOP will play the same game, if they get into office. It doesn't matter if they are democrat, or republican, they play the same game.  |
Posted By: impulse418
Date Posted: 15 July 2011 at 3:27pm
| I love checking the news everyday. It's better than any show on TV. |
Posted By: impulse418
Date Posted: 16 July 2011 at 12:19pm
| Updated my first post |
Posted By: Donald Blake
Date Posted: 16 July 2011 at 5:41pm
Judging by your brand-new (and off-topic) first post, you still haven't checked the actual news. -------------
|
Posted By: impulse418
Date Posted: 16 July 2011 at 8:33pm
http://tippmann.com/forum/wwf77a/forum_posts.asp?TID=188748 - http://tippmann.com/forum/wwf77a/forum_posts.asp?TID=188748 You disagree with those videos? |
Posted By: Donald Blake
Date Posted: 16 July 2011 at 11:14pm
|
I'm sorry, I don't have 30 minutes to blow on that. Glancing through the blog-pasta you puked up on page 1, however, you are clearly confusing "news" with "propaganda," "falsehoods," "bovine feces," and similar silliness. If those videos are along the same lines, then I definitely don't have 30 minutes to blow on that. -------------
|
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 17 July 2011 at 1:07am
| That thing on the front page is one of the silliest things I've seen in a while. |
Posted By: impulse418
Date Posted: 17 July 2011 at 3:55am
Watch the videos. |
Posted By: Donald Blake
Date Posted: 18 July 2011 at 1:51am
|
Nope. Not gonna watch the videos just because you are too lazy to explain your own point. I have better things to do, like licking glass shavings off the floor. -------------
|
Posted By: mbro
Date Posted: 18 July 2011 at 3:18am
------------- 
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos. |
Posted By: Donald Blake
Date Posted: 18 July 2011 at 12:34pm
|
I was guessing it was going that way... Why do these people hate capitalism so much? (And thanks for taking one for the team)
-------------
|
Posted By: FreeEnterprise
Date Posted: 18 July 2011 at 1:08pm
|
But, to bernanke...
"gold is not money"...
http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2011/07/16/bernanke-gold-is-not-money.aspx - http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2011/07/16/bernanke-gold-is-not-money.aspx
This administration thinks up is down, down is up, right is left, and liberals are "the ones we've been waiting for"...
Clueless liberals, maybe if they spent MORE we might get out of our obama depression?
spend, spend, spend, it isn't "money" after all. ------------- They tremble at my name...
|
Posted By: Donald Blake
Date Posted: 18 July 2011 at 1:12pm
Maybe that's because gold in fact is not money... unless we want it to be. -------------
|
Posted By: impulse418
Date Posted: 18 July 2011 at 2:02pm
Capitalism? You mean being a slave to a private bank? That doesn't sound like capitalism to me. |
Posted By: Donald Blake
Date Posted: 18 July 2011 at 3:47pm
"Blue desk is to fish telephone" also doesn't sound like capitalism, and makes about as much sense as what you said. Can you formulate a sentence in English, please, instead of tinfoil? -------------
|
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 18 July 2011 at 4:30pm
| I've never understood why exactly anti-Fed, Ron Paul-ian regressive Libertarians rarely form actual arguments, and instead tend to fall back on conspiracy-based language, sarcastic questions, and political cartoons. |
Posted By: Donald Blake
Date Posted: 18 July 2011 at 4:40pm
Because actual arguments aren't possible. I mean, look at the wharrgarrble on page one. They manage to say the Fed is bad because it is owned by teh evil private banks, AND the Fed is bad because it is government control over private industry - at the same time. The only way to do that without having even the most slack-jawed FNC addict notice a problem is to separate the two claims with a couple of paragraphs of tinfoil. -------------
|
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 18 July 2011 at 4:55pm
That thing on the front page now is amazingly silly. For one, it bemoans the looming terror of inflation, while not mentioning deflation a single time. Not only is deflation just not mentioned, it's almost pretended not to exist, as the talk of currency conversion and other such deflation causing actions are proposed without a single instance of talking about any negative effect. For two, it talks about inflation as if it is some kind of curious mutant that nobody understands anything about. It just seems like to hold these kind of beliefs requires an intentional misunderstanding of almost every modern economic concept. |
Posted By: Donald Blake
Date Posted: 18 July 2011 at 5:10pm
|
Did you also see how they casually "estimate" the CPI back to 1800? I should start using made-up and obviously false data to prove my point, and then just label it an "estimate." Even so, they don't appear to notice how their CPI chart (inflation is bad) completely undermines their debt chart (OMG debt spiral) just a few inches above. They also ... oh man, this is why rational people can't win. To fully explain all the things that are wrong with that one post would fill an entire book. It just takes too much time to swat down the buckshot of BS put out by the loonie fringe. -------------
|
Posted By: impulse418
Date Posted: 18 July 2011 at 6:02pm
|
You feel comfortable having trust in fiat money? You think it's fair for us to be taxed, so our government can pay off interest to the Federal Reserve? I would like to know, who you guys are voting for 2012. Are you going to give BHO another 4 years to actually accomplish something he promised? |
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 18 July 2011 at 6:08pm
Two out of three isn't bad. |
Posted By: impulse418
Date Posted: 18 July 2011 at 6:16pm
|
Bush signs in Patriot Act: Democratic outcry Obama signs in Patriot Act Extension: Republican outcry Bush starts war with Iraq ( with congress approval): Democratic outcry. Obama starts war with Libya (without congress): Republican outcry Bush sets up GitMo: Democratic outcry Obama fails to close Gitmo, and introduces "Prolonged Detainment", which he said will work around the DOJ, and not abide by Habeus Corpus.: Republican outcry Bush puts us into a deficit: Democratic outcry Obama quadruples that deficit: Republican outcry It's time for a parliament system. |
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 18 July 2011 at 6:19pm
These two things rarely compute. |
Posted By: impulse418
Date Posted: 18 July 2011 at 6:21pm
We have to try something. Nothing changes if nothing changes. |
Posted By: Donald Blake
Date Posted: 18 July 2011 at 6:27pm
Seriously dude. None of that made any sense. -------------
|
Posted By: Donald Blake
Date Posted: 18 July 2011 at 7:01pm
Aha! An actual specific suggestion, and a potentially legitimate one as well! You have correctly identified that our 2-party structure tends to lead to irrational partisan behavior, and you appear to suggest that a parliamentary system would remedy this problem. I have some immediate observations in response: 1. As a practical matter, you are discussing a complete rewrite of the US Constitution and 50 state constitutions. That ain't gonna happen. So while this is a festive theoretical exercise, that is all it is. 2. Parliamentary systems are interesting creatures, and they come in many varieties. At one extreme they are basically the same as our current system; at the other extreme they are just shy of direct democracy. All parliamentary systems are not the same. It's all in the details. 3. In my experience, parliamentary systems lend a louder voice to fringe groups. In our current system, there are single-issue voters, and the occasional single-issue congressman. In a parliamentary system, there are single-issue parties. Single-issue parties are generally not the most rational of folks, and a parliamentary system can give them lots of power. 4. Even within the more middle ground parties, partisanship runs strong - see the British parties, for instance. Bottom line: while a parliamentary system may decrease irrational partisanship, or it may not. It is certainly no guarantee of increased rationality. -------------
|
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 18 July 2011 at 7:11pm
It's because, I believe, parliamentary systems don't have the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_voter_theorem - median voter theorem to contend with. In the two-party system, you'll get some cranks in the primaries, but even the most left or right candidate will go back to the middle when it comes time to an actual election and actually holding office. Because you need that mass of voters to either 1) win, or 2) not lose the war of public opinion while in office. In quite a few parliamentary systems you don't have that, so you end up with fringe parties on both sides of the isle, because they can still get some people in seats catering to the ends of that bell curve. I like the two-party system. I'll take partisanship as a trade-off for fringe parties any day. |
Posted By: impulse418
Date Posted: 18 July 2011 at 9:02pm
|
So we're a suppose to be contempt, with getting the same results, regardless of what party we vote for? Just wondering. Why do you two, not favor Ron Paul? Is there any policies you don't agree with? |
Posted By: GroupB
Date Posted: 18 July 2011 at 9:06pm
|
Yes. He's from Texas.
Texas does not have a good record in recent history. ------------- 
|
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 18 July 2011 at 9:45pm
There are so many things to approach in this one little statement I don't even know where to start. One, looking at specific, important metrics, the two parties are very, very different. However, yes, neither party tends to take extreme actions by larger, more macro metrics. Which I see as a good thing. I don't want governments taking drastic movements. Such actions tend to lead to instability. The two-party system keeps people very close to the middle of the spectrum in more than one way.
I tend to see across-the-board Libertarianism without restraint as a general failure when tested in the real world. There are some decent concepts to be had, but in practice, they've not worked so well. Either financial or social.
|
Posted By: impulse418
Date Posted: 18 July 2011 at 9:52pm
Illinois has had a horrible track record for politicians also. |
Posted By: impulse418
Date Posted: 18 July 2011 at 9:53pm
Do you have an example where it has failed? |
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 18 July 2011 at 10:15pm
In the current world, or in history? In history, the lack of appropriate business and banking regulations that led to the Great Depression in the U.S. The lack of spread of civil rights for black people until it was legislated by congress. That's one from both economic and social. In the modern world? Somalia.
|
Posted By: mbro
Date Posted: 19 July 2011 at 2:20am
-------------
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos. |
Posted By: Donald Blake
Date Posted: 19 July 2011 at 5:27am
All of them. Arguably the greatest invention of mankind is government. Nothing we take for granted today would be possible without centuries of government behind it. Without government, there wouldn't be a "we" to be taking things for granted. The central failing of American libertarianism is the idea that government is inherently bad, and that less government is inherently better than more government, that less taxes is inherently better than more taxes, that less regulation is inherently better than more regulation, etc. This is an absolutely moronic idea, of course, but yet also very persistent, to the point where it now has crept into the mainstream GOP. More importantly, it is a very dangerous and harmful idea, and I believe this idea is at the heart of many of current partisan struggles we are having. It is an inherently ideological idea, not a rational idea. Adhering to this idea requires you to take an ideological approach to policy instead of a rational approach, and this is harmful to the success of society. Sometimes less government is better, and other times more government is better. Too little government is just as bad as too much government. Everyone knows this, yet the rhetoric of "the government is the problem, not the solution" has twisted the collective mindset of America to where many people think of the government as the enemy. This is disastrous on many levels. Beyond the general idea, so it is with many of Ron Paul's proposed policies. They are driven not by realism, pragmatism, or rational thought, but an ideology that for government, less is always more. As a result, the policies generally sound great, but when you scratch the surface you will quickly discover very serious problems. Here - pick one of your favorite RP policies, and I will tell you why it is (probably) stupid, or at least poorly thought through. -------------
|
Posted By: stratoaxe
Date Posted: 19 July 2011 at 9:42am
|
Libertarianism is a pipe dream. Less is more only works if the thing you are limiting is altogether bad. This, for my money is the flaw in much of libertarian logic-thR assumption that government is bad. As Donald said, it's moronic,
Government is a nice, compact word to describe a massive, complex system of regulatory bodies. To apply a philosophy to an already oversimplified term is am exercise in futility. So for example, while we're scaling back government interference in the business sector, are we also scaling it back in the military branch? Are we applying that philosophy all around, or just where it suits the interest of certain individuals? Each aspect supports the other. The government is not an evil entity, but a collection of entities. Some of those entities need to be scaled back more than others, but I can't take a philosopy or ideology seriously that condenses all of government down to either big government or small government. Those are both very misleading terms. -------------
|
Posted By: FreeEnterprise
Date Posted: 19 July 2011 at 10:48am
|
The Fed Reserve isn't the problem. Socialism is the problem, never will work, always fails, and yet... The democrats are always pushing it and expecting "different" results. (definition of insanity comes to mind)
Interesting conference call yesterday for investors from Wynn resorts CEO. (a self professed democrat btw)
http://seekingalpha.com/article/279999-wynn-resorts-ceo-discusses-q2-2011-results-earnings-call-transcript?part=qanda - http://seekingalpha.com/article/279999-wynn-resorts-ceo-discusses-q2-2011-results-earnings-call-transcript?part=qanda
If you don't know about Wynn, they pay CASH for everything, they don't owe banks a dime, so when Obama talks about guys sitting on the sidelines with buckets of cash, he is referring to companies like Wynn.
He discussed the problem America is facing right now in detail... If we had a "true" media this would be front page today, but we all know the media is carrying the water for their precious Obama.
Stephen Wynn
"Well, here's our problem. There are a host of opportunities for expansion in Las Vegas, a host of opportunities to create tens of thousands of jobs in Las Vegas. I know that I could do 10,000 more myself and according to the Chamber of Commerce and the Visitors Convention Bureau, if we hired 10,000 employees, it would create another 20,000 additional jobs for a grand total of 30,000. I believe in Las Vegas. I think its best days are ahead of it. But I'm afraid to do anything in the current political environment in the United States. You watch television and see what's going on, on this debt ceiling issue. And what I consider to be a total lack of leadership from the President and nothing's going to get fixed until the President himself steps up and wrangles both parties in Congress. But everybody is so political, so focused on holding their job for the next year that the discussion in Washington is nauseating. And I'm saying it bluntly, that this administration is the greatest wet blanket to business, and progress and job creation in my lifetime. And I can prove it and I could spend the next 3 hours giving you examples of all of us in this market place that are frightened to death about all the new regulations, our healthcare costs escalate, regulations coming from left and right. A President that seems -- that keeps using that word redistribution. Well, my customers and the companies that provide the vitality for the hospitality and restaurant industry, in the United States of America, they are frightened of this administration. And it makes you slow down and not invest your money. Everybody complains about how much money is on the side in America. You bet. And until we change the tempo and the conversation from Washington, it's not going to change. And those of us who have business opportunities and the capital to do it are going to sit in fear of the President. And a lot of people don't want to say that. They'll say, "Oh God, don't be attacking Obama." Well, this is Obama's deal, and it's Obama that's responsible for this fear in America. The guy keeps making speeches about redistribution, and maybe we ought to do something to businesses that don't invest or holding too much money. We haven't heard that kind of talk except from pure socialists. Everybody's afraid of the government, and there's no need to soft peddling it, it's the truth. It is the truth. And that's true of Democratic businessman and Republican businessman, and I am a Democratic businessman and I support Harry Reid. I support Democrats and Republicans. And I'm telling you that the business community in this company is frightened to death of the weird political philosophy of the President of the United States. And until he's gone, everybody's going to be sitting on their thumbs." "And incidentally, I'm going to stay on this point for another minute. If the government -- if the administration in Washington isn't frightening the dickens out of those of us who create jobs and build buildings and make lives for their employees, they are attacking China where, in the case of my company, the vitality of capital to improve Las Vegas has come from. It's the double whammy. American companies that have ventured abroad to broaden their markets are bringing money, have reinvested much of that in America. And so the rhetoric about offshore capital, there'd be a lot more of it brought back here if the government did intelligent and encouraging things to bring capital back. But this is a very business, job creating, unfriendly administration, and that's the plain truth of it. And so you know when you want to build condominiums, why? You want to protect yourself in this environment. Everybody's in a defensive crouch, except for Jim [indiscernible], who is sort of a Judas goat."
Thomas Marsico It's been my understanding that the visa process for the Chinese to come to the United States is more difficult than it is to go to other countries such as France where they've seen a tremendous impact of the Chinese going to Europe. Do you see any changes or have you been in discussion at all with the Commerce Department as far as trying to ease those restrictions? Stephen Wynn Yes, well, as a matter of fact, Tom, you're quite correct. Coming to the United States is tougher than going almost anywhere else in the world. Homeland Security has -- we seem to have been safe more or less, but so much of it is excessive and irrational, like patting down babies and old ladies and stuff like that. But it is very difficult. It's more difficult today to get to the United States for people who've been coming here for years, for decades. Our customers that are big businessmen that have been coming to America for 10, 15, 20 years are asking us for help to relieve the bureaucratic congestion of government over regulation in this area. We've talked to Homeland Security. They are aware of the problem, so is Customs and Immigration and the State Department. And when we talk to any given individual in those organizations and those bureaucracies, they're very sympathetic and they know the truth of the complaint. And they know the truth of the fact that these things are very often excessive and unnecessary. But yet, there seems to be a tremendous amount of inertia to move government in America, whether it's the deficit management and coming to some kind of logical conclusion before August 2 or whatever it is, or whether it's getting visas. Everybody has a clear understanding of the problem, but when it comes to our government, it seems to be getting more and more sclerotic, more and more inflexible by its own device, it keeps growing and growing and getting more and more onerous, more and more sluggish in its responses to real problems, and sluggish in its ability to take advantage of real opportunity. And it's frustrating for me because I got a front row seat. Hmm, he says tons of stuff I have been saying for years... weird huh...
fwd, fwd, fwd.
1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. 2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. 3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. 4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it! 5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation. ------------- They tremble at my name...
|
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 19 July 2011 at 11:30am
That's a mean thing to say about the military.
|
Posted By: Lightningbolt
Date Posted: 19 July 2011 at 2:46pm
|
This is too much reading for me but I'll add that taxing the rich isn't the answer. The wealthy are smart enough to shelter themselves to the best of their abilities and if they get pushed too hard, it's really quite easy to move your money off shore via banks in Canada. If they get pushed too hard watch even more big money move off shore. IMO increased taxing to the rich is an intentional move to de-value the dollar.
So what I'm saying is that increasing taxes to the rich will hurt the middle class.
|
Posted By: Donald Blake
Date Posted: 19 July 2011 at 2:52pm
So... what exactly do you mean by "socialism?" That term gets bandied about a lot, so we should agree on an operational definition. Please define it for us.
Whoever told you this piece of hogwash? That is obviously and completely false.
On what planet is this first-page news? Business leaders give long interviews all the time, and they are never first-page news.
Actually, no, he didn't say any of those things. -------------
|
Posted By: impulse418
Date Posted: 19 July 2011 at 2:58pm
2nd Amendment is a biggy. Even though I'm not a fan of homeschooling, I do like the fact that he will give tax breaks, for those who home school. I don't understand why those who have kids, get tax breaks. I feel it should be the other way around, especially if they are being sent to public schools. |
Posted By: Donald Blake
Date Posted: 19 July 2011 at 3:00pm
We already tax the rich, along with everyone else.
If the "they" you are talking about are individuals, then it doesn't matter where the money is. US citizens and residents are taxed by the US on their worldwide income. I just don't see a mass exodus of trust fund babies happening. Besides, it isn't as if there is some major land grab in the works. Most places to where "the rich" would consider expatriating have higher tax burdens than the US.
... I don't even know what to say to that. The what to the who? -------------
|