FingerLakes1.com Forums
Page 4 of 9 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 >
Topic Options
#1238337 --- 12/07/10 06:57 PM Re: Republicans add $70 billion to annual deficit. [Re: twocats]
kyle585 Offline
Gold Member

Registered: 02/18/09
Posts: 19801
Loc: Somewhere out there
Happy days are here again!

http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20101207-711076.html

NEW YORK (Dow Jones)--The Standard & Poor's 500-stock index rallied Tuesday to highs not seen since September 2008 following an agreement between President Barack Obama and Republican leaders in Congress that would extend the Bush-era income tax cuts for two years.

The S&P 500 index rose 0.5% to 1229 recently after hitting 1235.05, its highest intraday level since Sept. 22, 2008. The industrial sector led the measure's broad climb.

"The deal that's coming through was far better than what most people expected," said Chip Cobb, senior vice president at Bryn Mawr Trust Asset Management. "Over all, it's a big positive. It's taking this fog and lifting it and giving some real clarity toward the end of this year. It's a mini-stimulus in and of itself."

_________________________
**** ATTENTION! BAD POLITICIANS ARE ELECTED BY GOOD PEOPLE WHO DON'T VOTE! ****

Top
FingerLakes1.com
#1238339 --- 12/07/10 07:02 PM Re: Republicans add $70 billion to annual deficit. [Re: Zorn]
Greymane Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 11/09/06
Posts: 6848
Loc: Central PA
Originally Posted By: Zorn
Capital Gainst tax is a tax on the *profit* you gain from selling an asset. So if you buy a house for $100K you pay tax on it, but if you sell it for $200K you pay capital gains tax on the profit you made, not on the $100K. This is the way I understand it.

So you aren't paying tax twice.


So, let's follow this for a minute. I invest in a company (adding capital). The company produces a product. It pays taxes. (Let's forget the special deals in Seneca County for a minute.) The company buys buildings and pays sales tax on the purchase. The company pays taxes on its buildings over time (property tax - I do understand that this goes toward community services, but still another tax). It also pays taxes on its revenues (sales tax). It pays it's employees' wages (who pay all kinds of taxes out of that). Then, I make a profit (because the company has grown) and sell my stock. ALL of the gain in my stock has been taxable in one way or another (at least once to this point), yet I have to pay ANOTHER tax on that profit.

You are right. We aren't paying taxes twice.
_________________________
Against logic there is no armor like ignorance. - Dr. Lawrence J. Peter

Top
#1238393 --- 12/07/10 11:05 PM Re: Republicans add $70 billion to annual deficit. [Re: Greymane]
kimmer Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 09/26/07
Posts: 1403
Loc: here,there and back again
Originally Posted By: Greymane
Originally Posted By: Zorn
Capital Gainst tax is a tax on the *profit* you gain from selling an asset. So if you buy a house for $100K you pay tax on it, but if you sell it for $200K you pay capital gains tax on the profit you made, not on the $100K. This is the way I understand it.

So you aren't paying tax twice.


So, let's follow this for a minute. I invest in a company (adding capital). The company produces a product. It pays taxes. (Let's forget the special deals in Seneca County for a minute.)LMAO! The company buys buildings and pays sales tax on the purchase. The company pays taxes on its buildings over time (property tax - I do understand that this goes toward community services, but still another tax). It also pays taxes on its revenues (sales tax). It pays it's employees' wages (who pay all kinds of taxes out of that). Then, I make a profit (because the company has grown) and sell my stock. ALL of the gain in my stock has been taxable in one way or another (at least once to this point), yet I have to pay ANOTHER tax on that profit.

You are right. We aren't paying taxes twice.


There's another thing that gets under my skin - millionaires get their Bush tax breaks to stimulate the economy (BS) and create jobs (BS) AND they want towns, counties and states to give them more tax breaks so they can stimulate the economy (their own bank accounts) and create jobs (sure). If these guys can do that because it will increase the tax revenue down the road then when I renovate my home I want sales tax exemptions because down the road my bigger, better home will bring more tax revenue too. And don't forget about the jobs that my renovation will "create" and all the trickle down from that too.


Edited by kimmer (12/07/10 11:09 PM)
_________________________
Why is it so hard for some to properly use your and you're??

Top
#1238579 --- 12/08/10 10:02 PM Re: Republicans add $70 billion to annual deficit. [Re: kimmer]
twocats Offline
Silver Member

Registered: 02/10/10
Posts: 11904
Loc: NYS
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/12/0..._campaign=daily
President Obama opened for questions:

Ben Feller.

Q Thank you, Mr. President. You’ve been telling the American people all along that you oppose extending the tax cuts for the wealthier Americans. You said that again today. But what you never said was that you oppose the tax cuts, but you’d be willing to go ahead and extend them for a couple years if the politics of the moment demand it.

So what I’m wondering is when you take a stand like you had, why should the American people believe that you’re going to stick with it? Why should the American people believe that you’re not going to flip flop?

THE PRESIDENT: Hold on a second, Ben. This isn’t the politics of the moment. This has to do with what can we get done right now. So the issue -- here’s the choice. It’s very stark. We can’t get my preferred option through the Senate right now. As a consequence, if we don’t get my option through the Senate right now, and we do nothing, then on January 1st of this -- of 2011, the average family is going to see their taxes go up about $3,000. Number two: At the end of this month, 2 million people will lose their unemployment insurance.

Now, I have an option, which is to say, you know what, I’m going to keep fighting a political fight, which I can’t win in the Senate -- and by the way, there are going to be more Republican senators in the Senate next year sworn in than there are currently. So the likelihood that the dynamic is going to improve for us getting my preferred option through the Senate will be diminished. I’ve got an option of just holding fast to my position and, as a consequence, 2 million people may not be able to pay their bills and tens of millions of people who are struggling right now are suddenly going to see their paychecks smaller. Or alternatively, what I can do is I can say that I am going to stick to my position that those folks get relief, that people get help for unemployment insurance. And I will continue to fight before the American people to make the point that the Republican position is wrong.

Now, if there was not collateral damage, if this was just a matter of my politics or being able to persuade the American people to my side, then I would just stick to my guns, because the fact of the matter is the American people already agree with me. There are polls showing right now that the American people, for the most part, think it’s a bad idea to provide tax cuts to the wealthy.

But the issue is not me persuading the American people; they’re already there. The issue is, how do I persuade the Republicans in the Senate who are currently blocking that position. I have not been able to budge them. And I don’t think there’s any suggestion anybody in this room thinks realistically that we can budge them right now.

And in the meantime, there are a whole bunch of people being hurt and the economy would be damaged. And my first job is to make sure that the economy is growing, that we’re creating jobs out there, and that people who are struggling are getting some relief. And if I have to choose between having a protracted political battle on the one hand, but those folks being hurt or helping those folks and continuing to fight this political battle over the next two years, I will choose the latter.
_________________________
Humanity is an ocean; if a few drops of the ocean are dirty, the ocean does not become dirty.

Top
#1238589 --- 12/08/10 10:25 PM Re: Republicans add $70 billion to annual deficit. [Re: twocats]
Harleybobb Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 05/21/10
Posts: 4061
Loc: Walloon Freedom Fighter
Originally Posted By: twocats
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/12/0..._campaign=daily
President Obama opened for questions:

Ben Feller.

Q Thank you, Mr. President. You’ve been telling the American people all along that you oppose extending the tax cuts for the wealthier Americans. You said that again today. But what you never said was that you oppose the tax cuts, but you’d be willing to go ahead and extend them for a couple years if the politics of the moment demand it.

So what I’m wondering is when you take a stand like you had, why should the American people believe that you’re going to stick with it? Why should the American people believe that you’re not going to flip flop?

THE PRESIDENT: Hold on a second, Ben. This isn’t the politics of the moment. This has to do with what can we get done right now. So the issue -- here’s the choice. It’s very stark. We can’t get my preferred option through the Senate right now. As a consequence, if we don’t get my option through the Senate right now, and we do nothing, then on January 1st of this -- of 2011, the average family is going to see their taxes go up about $3,000. Number two: At the end of this month, 2 million people will lose their unemployment insurance.

Now, I have an option, which is to say, you know what, I’m going to keep fighting a political fight, which I can’t win in the Senate -- and by the way, there are going to be more Republican senators in the Senate next year sworn in than there are currently. So the likelihood that the dynamic is going to improve for us getting my preferred option through the Senate will be diminished. I’ve got an option of just holding fast to my position and, as a consequence, 2 million people may not be able to pay their bills and tens of millions of people who are struggling right now are suddenly going to see their paychecks smaller. Or alternatively, what I can do is I can say that I am going to stick to my position that those folks get relief, that people get help for unemployment insurance. And I will continue to fight before the American people to make the point that the Republican position is wrong.

Now, if there was not collateral damage, if this was just a matter of my politics or being able to persuade the American people to my side, then I would just stick to my guns, because the fact of the matter is the American people already agree with me. There are polls showing right now that the American people, for the most part, think it’s a bad idea to provide tax cuts to the wealthy.

But the issue is not me persuading the American people; they’re already there. The issue is, how do I persuade the Republicans in the Senate who are currently blocking that position. I have not been able to budge them. And I don’t think there’s any suggestion anybody in this room thinks realistically that we can budge them right now.

And in the meantime, there are a whole bunch of people being hurt and the economy would be damaged. And my first job is to make sure that the economy is growing, that we’re creating jobs out there, and that people who are struggling are getting some relief. And if I have to choose between having a protracted political battle on the one hand, but those folks being hurt or helping those folks and continuing to fight this political battle over the next two years, I will choose the latter.

So what's your point? The Antichrist President Barack HUSSEIN Obama II uses a teleprompter and or gives flowery speeches that you flaming liberals love?
_________________________
Of course, the whole point of a Doomsday Machine is lost, if you *keep* it a *secret*!

Top
#1238600 --- 12/09/10 12:17 AM Re: Republicans add $70 billion to annual deficit. [Re: Harleybobb]
citydog Offline
Member

Registered: 08/29/10
Posts: 383
Loc: Ontario County
Could you even read from a teleprompter? For someone who seems to have the intellectual prowess of a chiapet, you talk a good game but never have anything positive to contribute.
_________________________
Who let the dogs out

Top
#1238613 --- 12/09/10 01:28 AM Re: Republicans add $70 billion to annual deficit. [Re: citydog]
Harleybobb Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 05/21/10
Posts: 4061
Loc: Walloon Freedom Fighter
Originally Posted By: citydog
Could you even read from a teleprompter? For someone who seems to have the intellectual prowess of a chiapet, you talk a good game but never have anything positive to contribute.
Ahahahahah... Positive contributes to what?
You kissing the Antichrist's butt and how you left-wing nut jobs want to spend money that you didn't earn?
Or is it because I'm not sympathetic to your whinny crap that you spew?
_________________________
Of course, the whole point of a Doomsday Machine is lost, if you *keep* it a *secret*!

Top
#1238632 --- 12/09/10 02:14 AM Re: Republicans add $70 billion to annual deficit. [Re: Harleybobb]
Here's Johnny Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 11/14/10
Posts: 854
Loc: New York
Originally Posted By: Harleybobb
Originally Posted By: citydog
Could you even read from a teleprompter? For someone who seems to have the intellectual prowess of a chiapet, you talk a good game but never have anything positive to contribute.
Ahahahahah... Positive contributes to what?
You kissing the Antichrist's butt and how you left-wing nut jobs want to spend money that you didn't earn?
Or is it because I'm not sympathetic to your whinny crap that you spew?


But who gets to pay the bill?

Top
#1238655 --- 12/09/10 09:44 AM Re: Republicans add $70 billion to annual deficit. [Re: Here's Johnny]
Harleybobb Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 05/21/10
Posts: 4061
Loc: Walloon Freedom Fighter
Originally Posted By: Here's Johnny
Originally Posted By: Harleybobb
Originally Posted By: citydog
Could you even read from a teleprompter? For someone who seems to have the intellectual prowess of a chiapet, you talk a good game but never have anything positive to contribute.
Ahahahahah... Positive contributes to what?
You kissing the Antichrist's butt and how you left-wing nut jobs want to spend money that you didn't earn?
Or is it because I'm not sympathetic to your whinny crap that you spew?


But who gets to pay the bill?

The other 50%?
_________________________
Of course, the whole point of a Doomsday Machine is lost, if you *keep* it a *secret*!

Top
#1238720 --- 12/09/10 02:01 PM Re: Republicans add $70 billion to annual deficit. [Re: Greymane]
Zorn Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 09/06/06
Posts: 1376
Loc: ny
Originally Posted By: Greymane


So, let's follow this for a minute. I invest in a company (adding capital). The company produces a product. It pays taxes. (Let's forget the special deals in Seneca County for a minute.) The company buys buildings and pays sales tax on the purchase. The company pays taxes on its buildings over time (property tax - I do understand that this goes toward community services, but still another tax). It also pays taxes on its revenues (sales tax). It pays it's employees' wages (who pay all kinds of taxes out of that). Then, I make a profit (because the company has grown) and sell my stock. ALL of the gain in my stock has been taxable in one way or another (at least once to this point), yet I have to pay ANOTHER tax on that profit.

You are right. We aren't paying taxes twice.


Well with your logic, I pay income tax on my paycheck, then get taxed on that money when I use it to buy something (sales tax) and get taxed for owning property, so my money is taxed again for a property tax.

So... lets get rid of the income tax and just tax capital gains. Sound ok? Im all for only getting taxed once. Why not just tax capital gains, and not income? Im not taxed on my paycheck, but I get taxed when I sell stock or my house. ok?



Edited by Zorn (12/09/10 02:01 PM)
_________________________
"I guess I want smaller government and my Social Security". - Tea Party Member

Top
#1238789 --- 12/09/10 07:49 PM Re: Republicans add $70 billion to annual deficit. [Re: Zorn]
cwjga Offline
Silver Member

Registered: 11/06/08
Posts: 12660
Loc: NY
Originally Posted By: Zorn
Originally Posted By: Greymane


So, let's follow this for a minute. I invest in a company (adding capital). The company produces a product. It pays taxes. (Let's forget the special deals in Seneca County for a minute.) The company buys buildings and pays sales tax on the purchase. The company pays taxes on its buildings over time (property tax - I do understand that this goes toward community services, but still another tax). It also pays taxes on its revenues (sales tax). It pays it's employees' wages (who pay all kinds of taxes out of that). Then, I make a profit (because the company has grown) and sell my stock. ALL of the gain in my stock has been taxable in one way or another (at least once to this point), yet I have to pay ANOTHER tax on that profit.

You are right. We aren't paying taxes twice.


Well with your logic, I pay income tax on my paycheck, then get taxed on that money when I use it to buy something (sales tax) and get taxed for owning property, so my money is taxed again for a property tax.

So... lets get rid of the income tax and just tax capital gains. Sound ok? Im all for only getting taxed once. Why not just tax capital gains, and not income? Im not taxed on my paycheck, but I get taxed when I sell stock or my house. ok?



Only if you adjust that gain for inflation. An example:

My parents bought their farm in the late 50's for $8,000. Today it is valued at $150,000. If they sold it they would pay capital gains on $142,000. Yet most of the increase in value was due to inflation.

Here is another example of why capital gains taxes make no sense.

If my company buys equipment for, let's say $100,000, then uses and depreciates it for 10 years and the value is now 0. I am interested in upgrading so I find out equipment to replace it is now $150,000. I can sell the old equipment for $50,000. Ok, it would make sense to sell my old epuipment and buy the new stuff. Nope, forgot that because my equipment was worth $0 I would have to pay capital gains on that $50,000. It no longer makes sense to buy new as long as my old works.

Top
#1238790 --- 12/09/10 07:58 PM Re: Republicans add $70 billion to annual deficit. [Re: cwjga]
tomwaits Offline
Member

Registered: 09/07/08
Posts: 360
Loc: BetweenMud&FlintCreek


[/quote]


My parents bought their farm in the late 50's for $8,000. Today it is valued at $150,000. If they sold it they would pay capital gains on $142,000. Yet most of the increase in value was due to inflation.
[/quote]
I don't think there would be any tax on that farm
Individuals can exclude up to $250,000 in profit from the sale of a main home (or $500,000 for a married couple) as long as you have owned the home and lived in the home for a minimum of two years. Those two years do not need to be consecutive. In the 5 years prior to the sale of the house, you need to have lived in the house for at least 24 months in that 5-year period. In other words, the home must have been your principal residence

Top
#1238809 --- 12/09/10 09:31 PM Re: Republicans add $70 billion to annual deficit. [Re: cwjga]
Chosenspot Offline
Member

Registered: 01/05/10
Posts: 137
Loc: Penn Yan, New York
Originally Posted By: cwjga


Here is another example of why capital gains taxes make no sense.

If my company buys equipment for, let's say $100,000, then uses and depreciates it for 10 years and the value is now 0. I am interested in upgrading so I find out equipment to replace it is now $150,000. I can sell the old equipment for $50,000. Ok, it would make sense to sell my old epuipment and buy the new stuff. Nope, forgot that because my equipment was worth $0 I would have to pay capital gains on that $50,000. It no longer makes sense to buy new as long as my old works.


I think the logic for this is for depreciable assets, some of the gain may reflect the possibility that the property was depreciated too quickly. In this case if you had depreciated this equipment for 50,000 and sold it for 50,000 you wouldn't have any capital gains.

Top
#1238811 --- 12/09/10 09:33 PM Re: Republicans add $70 billion to annual deficit. [Re: tomwaits]
Zorn Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 09/06/06
Posts: 1376
Loc: ny
Your equipment isn't worth $0 just because you depreciated it on your books. Used equipment increases in value because of inflation too you know. If new equipment still cost $100K like it did the first time, your used equipment might be worth say.. 10% of its original value. That's $10K.

But now new equipment costs $150K, so the old equipment will sell for $15K (or at least, will sell for more than it did if new equip still only cost $100K). Through inflation you should be making more money too, because the price of the product you are selling has increased... unless of course your company exists in a country that breaks unions and encourages a high income gap and you end up with the bulk of your citizens having stagnant wages, then businesses find it hard to increase the sell price of their product because people just can't afford it... and it causes economic problems.

kind of like how the US is right now. \:\)

also:

"Why do we have a preference for capital gains in the first place? The main argument is that lower taxes on capital gains boost investment. But the evidence on that point is iffy at best, and there are better ways to spur investment, like, say, the investment tax credit. Besides, lower taxes on capital gains reduce the tax bills of the rich relative to the rest of us — after all, they own most of the capital. But in this age of hyper-inequality, shouldn’t we be making the tax code more progressive, not less?
A far more important objection is that the tax preference for capital gains undermines capitalism — a system in which capitalists, not the state, are supposed to make the investment decisions. When I discuss this issue with my Economics 101 students, I show them an example of a proposed investment that loses money before tax (and which, therefore, should be rejected) but which actually turns a profit after tax because of the preferentially low capital gains rate. (Accountants and tax lawyers live this example every day.) The government thus induces people to make bad investments."

Read more: http://www.portfolio.com/views/blogs/mar...x#ixzz17eWZ8ACk

Rich people run the country, is it any wonder you are parroting their arguments as to why you should reduce their tax burden?


Edited by Zorn (12/09/10 09:38 PM)
_________________________
"I guess I want smaller government and my Social Security". - Tea Party Member

Top
#1238926 --- 12/10/10 11:44 AM Re: Republicans add $70 billion to annual deficit. [Re: Zorn]
cwjga Offline
Silver Member

Registered: 11/06/08
Posts: 12660
Loc: NY
Originally Posted By: Zorn
Your equipment isn't worth $0 just because you depreciated it on your books. Used equipment increases in value because of inflation too you know. If new equipment still cost $100K like it did the first time, your used equipment might be worth say.. 10% of its original value. That's $10K.

But now new equipment costs $150K, so the old equipment will sell for $15K (or at least, will sell for more than it did if new equip still only cost $100K). Through inflation you should be making more money too, because the price of the product you are selling has increased... unless of course your company exists in a country that breaks unions and encourages a high income gap and you end up with the bulk of your citizens having stagnant wages, then businesses find it hard to increase the sell price of their product because people just can't afford it... and it causes economic problems.

kind of like how the US is right now. \:\)

also:

"Why do we have a preference for capital gains in the first place? The main argument is that lower taxes on capital gains boost investment. But the evidence on that point is iffy at best, and there are better ways to spur investment, like, say, the investment tax credit. Besides, lower taxes on capital gains reduce the tax bills of the rich relative to the rest of us — after all, they own most of the capital. But in this age of hyper-inequality, shouldn’t we be making the tax code more progressive, not less?
A far more important objection is that the tax preference for capital gains undermines capitalism — a system in which capitalists, not the state, are supposed to make the investment decisions. When I discuss this issue with my Economics 101 students, I show them an example of a proposed investment that loses money before tax (and which, therefore, should be rejected) but which actually turns a profit after tax because of the preferentially low capital gains rate. (Accountants and tax lawyers live this example every day.) The government thus induces people to make bad investments."

Read more: http://www.portfolio.com/views/blogs/mar...x#ixzz17eWZ8ACk

Rich people run the country, is it any wonder you are parroting their arguments as to why you should reduce their tax burden?


Glad you are not running the country. Under your logic used equipment somehow gains value. And by selling equipment for $50,000, that I paid $100,000 for, I made a profit.

Must be that new math.

Top
#1238928 --- 12/10/10 11:46 AM Re: Republicans add $70 billion to annual deficit. [Re: tomwaits]
cwjga Offline
Silver Member

Registered: 11/06/08
Posts: 12660
Loc: NY
Originally Posted By: tomwaits





My parents bought their farm in the late 50's for $8,000. Today it is valued at $150,000. If they sold it they would pay capital gains on $142,000. Yet most of the increase in value was due to inflation.
[/quote]
I don't think there would be any tax on that farm
Individuals can exclude up to $250,000 in profit from the sale of a main home (or $500,000 for a married couple) as long as you have owned the home and lived in the home for a minimum of two years. Those two years do not need to be consecutive. In the 5 years prior to the sale of the house, you need to have lived in the house for at least 24 months in that 5-year period. In other words, the home must have been your principal residence [/quote]

Glad to know the farm is now a home. Could you plese call the IRS and let them know that.

Top
#1238960 --- 12/10/10 01:35 PM Re: Republicans add $70 billion to annual deficit. [Re: cwjga]
tomwaits Offline
Member

Registered: 09/07/08
Posts: 360
Loc: BetweenMud&FlintCreek
Guess i assumed that farm also included their home .
Property not used as a residence would be taxed .

Individuals can exclude up to $250,000 in profit from the sale of a main home (or $500,000 for a married couple) as long as you have owned the home and lived in the home for a minimum of two years

Top
#1239016 --- 12/10/10 05:33 PM Re: Republicans add $70 billion to annual deficit. [Re: Zorn]
sands Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 09/05/05
Posts: 8255
Loc: NY
Originally Posted By: Zorn
I hope to convince the govt to take from some neighbors and give to others.



"To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it." --Thomas Jefferson


You must be right, what does Thomas Jefferson know about freedom?
_________________________
01 - 20 - 2017

Top
#1239035 --- 12/10/10 06:12 PM Re: Republicans add $70 billion to annual deficit. [Re: Ranger]
Here's Johnny Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 11/14/10
Posts: 854
Loc: New York
Originally Posted By: Ranger
I'd be a bit more concerned with the Fed bailing out Europe to the tune 3.3 trillion

3.3 Trillion Bail Out to Europe...


It is sad that there are news stories about the bail out mega bucks going to European banks. Sad because that was common knowledge at the time and most paid little attention to it in the glow of the election of the messiah to office as President. All people saw was a free ride for everyone with bail outs galore. It was not so then, it will not be so now. People need to be aware!




A major chunk of the bail out money went overseas to keep European banks afloat and while some argue this helps America, it is just not the truth.
The USA provided, 3.3 TRILLION in credit to those banks from the Federal Reserve, which some people STILL fail to realize is a NOT a federal agency at all but a private institution controlling much of the US money policies.
The bailed out institutions of Wall Street, big banks and European banks are the ones who caused the financial crisis. Americans were not bailed out of anything and lost much as a result. The American public will shoulder this debt that benefited them not at all.
The "too big to fail" idea is one foisted on the public by the Federal Reserve.


A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is privately concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men ... We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated, governments in the civilized world—no longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and the duress of small groups of dominant men. (Woodrow Wilson)

Wilson signed the Fed into existence in 1913 and they have "debauched" the currency of the US on a steady ongoing basis.
As John Maynard Keynes stated,

“There is no subtler, no surer means of overturning the existing basis of society than to debauch the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic laws on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner which not one in a million is able to diagnose.”


One can note that men like Soros and the Wall street boys have actually changed our society. In fact Soros himself has brought down a few nations in just that way!
Our founding fathers all warned of the dangers of a central private bank creating money by fiat. It would lead to the downfall of the nation. Money talks my friends and those who control the money , control the nations.
Wilson was right, the creation of the Federal Reserve was a huge mistake.
The fact is these private bankers are not concerned with the welfare of the nations to any extent at all except as those nations make money for them. They, like George Soros etc, view nations and their populations as get rich quick schemes. It is all about lining the pockets and line them is exactly what these men do. They live off the people who are left lean and starving while they live sumptuous lives of greed.

You can read more about these massive amounts given away at the Financial Times.

And more about this colossal rip off of the American people at the Washington Post and HERE

Always look at what the other hand is doing while they keep you occupied with some other nonsense.


Also consider how the funds of the few are used to help keep the re-election campaigns of our politicians well financed. Even a decent person, which for the most part most of those who run for office initially are, gets corrupted. As a result we have what we have now.
It's quite sad how solid economic planning has been supplanted. The disolution of the middle class at the hands of our government. It would be one thing to allow the tax cut and make the deal on unemployment insurance, but we can't go on borrowing all this money. The gov't already borrows 41 cents of every dollar it spends. C'mon. The only thing that is trickling down is the blood from the knife that has been stuck in our back.
The saddest thing of all is that there is so much waste and duplication of services in all areas of government. If you could find some way to really look at improving the services we need and eliminating the ones we don't a lot of money could be saved. Of course what with the various entities all only looking out for their own self interests it would be a daunting if not impossible task.
I had a conversation with a person who works as an itinerant auditor for the state the other day. She usually puts around 150,000 miles on her car as she travels to meet the people and businesses she is checking on. Considering the IRS rate on mileage there's a very tidy sum indeed. And this is in addition to what she makes in salary, and insurance, and benefits.
She got talking about how "bad" things are and she felt very strongly that the gov't bail out of General Motors was a bad idea. Government Motors she sneered. But I said that the money they borrowed has been paid back. Doesn't matter she says. Okay there you go. One person with a huge fat sweet set up in State Government who doesn't want to see a huge manufacturing company survive. Never mind that manufacturing is the best way to provide jobs and sustain growth. I asked how many people work in her department (Western NYS). Thirty she said. Five secretaries,fourteen auditors, and SIX SUPERVISORS! "Oh", I said, "that seems like an awful lot of waste." She shrugged.
As long as she gets sweet deal, what does she really care anyway? Think of all the stuff like this that could be changed if we only had people with the fortitude to do it.

Top
#1239047 --- 12/10/10 07:18 PM Re: Republicans add $70 billion to annual deficit. [Re: Here's Johnny]
citydog Offline
Member

Registered: 08/29/10
Posts: 383
Loc: Ontario County
I'm not disputing what your friend told you, but some of the numbers don't make much sense. For example, she says she travels only in NY state, and travels 150,000 miles a year. There are only 252 work days in a year (52 weeks x 5 days/week, minus 8 holidays). So even if she never took a day off, she'd have to travel an average of 595 miles a day (any time off and the average would be higher). Averaging 55 miles an hour, that's over ten hours a day driving (I hope she's not averaging 55mph in any cities). When does she audit anything?
_________________________
Who let the dogs out

Top
Page 4 of 9 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 >