Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Highest price I've ever paid for gas in my lifetime was in summer 2008. Obama wasn't president then. So shut the fuck up.
I'll ask again..how have the Bush tax cuts benefitted the economy as touted?"And the tax cuts you defend have done what...exactly??"
Allowing people to keep more of what they earn is a good thing.
Think of what folks would have done with that money. Pay off debts for starters. Purchase products, thereby increasing productivity making more jobs available. No need to "bail out" the auto industry, no "toxic" derivatives, as mortgages would have been paid off . But we can't have that, seeing that the economy grows around debt (borrowing-thus the fractional reserve banking tool comes into play)."say they had given every taxpaying adult in the US a large tax-free check, lets say $100,000"
Assuming 1 taxpayer in each of the 100 million households, that's $10 trillion.
You make Obama look like a piker.
It's a vicious circle of madness.
No perhaps Wall street would have had the opportunity to steal that too. But in sense, you're partially right, as congress loosened regulations to allow them to gamble with figures on a computer screen.Yes, Social Security was robbed. If we privatized it, the thieves, like your buddies in Congress, wouldn't have been able to waste the money.
"How much interest are we swindled into repaying, every time our government borrows from the Fed?"
How much did the Fed pay the Treasury last year?
Yup, lots of stupid people out there.Here's your sign.
And again you overlook my point. How again did the Fed create the money it paid the Treasury??
Here's an article that you might find interesting-Yeah it's kinda long (Liarbility and others with poor reading skills, comprehension, or attention disorders, that limit their processing skills are excused)
To manipulate the nations money supply, the Fed purchases and sells U.S. securities to banks. When it wishes to expand the money supply, the Fed buys securities held by member banks, providing them with the dollar value of those securities. The result of this monetary tool is that, at any given time, the Fed holds and owns a certain amount of U.S. debt.
Consequently, the Fed receives interest payments from the Treasury on that debt. The troubling element of this arrangement is that the money used by the Fed to purchase the U.S. debt or pay the Treasury, is created out of thin air. This means that the U.S. Treasury - funded, of course, by U.S. taxpayers - is making interest payments to an entity that purchased debt through the arbitrary, risk-free, and electronic creation of money.
This arrangement is incredibly costly to U.S. taxpayers.
Firstly, the U.S. Treasury has paid approximately 30 billions in debt interest to the Fed in each of the last three years. But this is only the beginning. To fully understand the cost of the Fed to U.S. taxpayers, one must consider the concept of opportunity cost: What does it cost us to have the Fed create the funds to purchase debt from the Treasury, instead of a central bank creating the funds?
In our modern central banking system, the Fed expands the money supply by expanding the bank accounts of member banks by the click of a mouse. This power is arbitrary and can therefore be exercised by any entity, including the Federal government. If the Federal Government, rather than the Fed, were to exercise the authority to create money, the fiscal and monetary policy-making of this country would be provided a higher level of coherence.
Most importantly, if the Federal government used its latent power to create money, a byproduct of increasing the monetary supply by a certain amount of dollars would be a lowering of the national debt by the same amount of dollars. (The reasoning is simple: The government could expand the money supply by purchasing and then retiring securities. This is different than the current practice which allows the Fed to buy and preserve securities/U.S. debt.)
And finally, if the United States has a central bank capable of expanding the money supply through government spending, and not through the purchasing of bank-held U.S. Securities, a host of other positive benefits could be produced. The United States is suffering from a series of under-funded initiatives, neglected deficiencies, and cash-strapped municipalities.
The billions of dollars saved through not needing to make interest payments would begin to alleviate these afflictions. And the trillions of dollars created by a true central bank in the long-term would transform the nation and place it on a previously unimaginable path of prosperity. Investments in education, infrastructure, and alternative energies could all be funded through a retooled monetary policy-making apparatus. Aside from this glaring fiscal opportunity cost, the Fed approaches the nations monetary policy with a profit-centered, private perspective.....
Congressman Wright Patman, Chairman of the House Committee on Banking and Currency served in his capacity for 16 years. He is an unimpeachable expert. I have never yet had anyone who could, through the use of logic and reason, justify the Federal Government borrowing the use of its own money I believe the time will come when people will demand that this be changed.
'US Treasury pays 30 billion debt interest to the Fed' | www.commodityonline.com | 3
In summary, when you think about it... it is an illusion the Fed paid the Treasury ....anything it ever really had. It's all debt. Debt is money, and money is debt.
"And the tax cuts you defend have done what...exactly??"
Allowing people to keep more of what they earn is a good thing.I'll ask again..how have the Bush tax cuts benefitted the economy as touted?
The 2001 Bush cuts didn't benefit the economy. They were like your suggestion and mostly sent checks to taxpayers. The 2003 cuts gave us a big boost in GDP, immediately.Think of what folks would have done with that money. Pay off debts for starters. Purchase products, thereby increasing productivity making more jobs available. No need to "bail out" the auto industry, no "toxic" derivatives, as mortgages would have been paid off . But we can't have that, seeing that the economy grows around debt (borrowing-thus the fractional reserve banking tool comes into play).
It's a vicious circle of madness.
From what orifice were you going to pull this magic $10 trillion?
The money the Fed gives the Treasury isn't money the Fed creates.No perhaps Wall street would have had the opportunity to steal that too. But in sense, you're partially right, as congress loosened regulations to allow them to gamble with figures on a computer screen.
"How much interest are we swindled into repaying, every time our government borrows from the Fed?"
How much did the Fed pay the Treasury last year?
Yup, lots of stupid people out there.Here's your sign.
And again you overlook my point. How again did the Fed create the money it paid the Treasury??Here's an article that you might find interesting-Yeah it's kinda long (Liarbility and others with poor reading skills, comprehension, or attention disorders, that limit their processing skills are excused)
To manipulate the nations money supply, the Fed purchases and sells U.S. securities to banks. When it wishes to expand the money supply, the Fed buys securities held by member banks, providing them with the dollar value of those securities. The result of this monetary tool is that, at any given time, the Fed holds and owns a certain amount of U.S. debt.
Consequently, the Fed receives interest payments from the Treasury on that debt. The troubling element of this arrangement is that the money used by the Fed to purchase the U.S. debt or pay the Treasury, is created out of thin air. This means that the U.S. Treasury - funded, of course, by U.S. taxpayers - is making interest payments to an entity that purchased debt through the arbitrary, risk-free, and electronic creation of money.
This arrangement is incredibly costly to U.S. taxpayers.
Firstly, the U.S. Treasury has paid approximately 30 billions in debt interest to the Fed in each of the last three years. But this is only the beginning. To fully understand the cost of the Fed to U.S. taxpayers, one must consider the concept of opportunity cost: What does it cost us to have the Fed create the funds to purchase debt from the Treasury, instead of a central bank creating the funds?
Ummmmmm.....the Fed is a central bank.OMG! The government should just print and spend? LOL! Thanks for playing.In our modern central banking system, the Fed expands the money supply by expanding the bank accounts of member banks by the click of a mouse. This power is arbitrary and can therefore be exercised by any entity, including the Federal government. If the Federal Government, rather than the Fed, were to exercise the authority to create money, the fiscal and monetary policy-making of this country would be provided a higher level of coherence.
Most importantly, if the Federal government used its latent power to create money, a byproduct of increasing the monetary supply by a certain amount of dollars would be a lowering of the national debt by the same amount of dollars. (The reasoning is simple: The government could expand the money supply by purchasing and then retiring securities. This is different than the current practice which allows the Fed to buy and preserve securities/U.S. debt.)
And finally, if the United States has a central bank capable of expanding the money supply through government spending, and not through the purchasing of bank-held U.S. Securities, a host of other positive benefits could be produced. The United States is suffering from a series of under-funded initiatives, neglected deficiencies, and cash-strapped municipalities.The billions of dollars saved through not needing to make interest payments would begin to alleviate these afflictions. And the trillions of dollars created by a true central bank in the long-term would transform the nation and place it on a previously unimaginable path of prosperity. Investments in education, infrastructure, and alternative energies could all be funded through a retooled monetary policy-making apparatus. Aside from this glaring fiscal opportunity cost, the Fed approaches the nations monetary policy with a profit-centered, private perspective.....
Congressman Wright Patman, Chairman of the House Committee on Banking and Currency served in his capacity for 16 years. He is an unimpeachable expert. I have never yet had anyone who could, through the use of logic and reason, justify the Federal Government borrowing the use of its own money I believe the time will come when people will demand that this be changed.
'US Treasury pays 30 billion debt interest to the Fed' | www.commodityonline.com | 3
In summary, when you think about it... it is an illusion the Fed paid the Treasury ....anything it ever really had. It's all debt. Debt is money, and money is debt.
You should avoid the moonbat sources, of course, for you, it's probably too late.
Highest price I've ever paid for gas in my lifetime was in summer 2008. Obama wasn't president then. So shut the fuck up.
Highest price I've ever paid for gas in my lifetime was in summer 2008. Obama wasn't president then. So shut the fuck up.
No matter what these libs may think through a total brainwashing, it took both parties to get this deficit. They will never admit it, and they will get it down to blaming one person.
Geeze, nothing but Kool-Aid drinkers.
Cuts hurt people. They are not frivolous expenditures, they are programs that people need
Our upper tax rates are the lowest in history. We offered tax cut after tax cut to boost the economy....it hasn't worked
Time for everyone to sacrifice
Our top tax rate in 1988 was 28%. That's lower than now.
Yeah... For one year... Before they saw the devastating deficit resulting and promptly re-raised taxes.
Yes sir, even the gipper would raise taxes today.
So, if people agree with the basic notion that the deficit was caused by spending more than we took in...how does raising taxes HURT?
Spending cuts need to come first of course, but how are Republicans getting away with keeping tax cuts in place....when the way you cause more deficit has TWO variables...the amount brought in (taxes) and the amt spent (budge)??
Lower spending AND raise taxes.
Our top tax rate in 1988 was 28%. That's lower than now.
Yeah... For one year... Before they saw the devastating deficit resulting and promptly re-raised taxes.
Yes sir, even the gipper would raise taxes today.
You forget to mention that the capital gains rate is now at 15% and the previous post WW2 low was 20%. This is increasingly important as many have shifted thier income so it gets counted as capital gains and not income. An example would the carry compensation of hedge fund managers.
The capital gains rate is why Buffett pays a lower effective rate on his income than his secretary pays on hers.
Bottom line is, They were a miserable failure and did not produce what Bush and his people said.The 2001 Bush cuts didn't benefit the economy. They were like your suggestion and mostly sent checks to taxpayers. The 2003 cuts gave us a big boost in GDP, immediately.
100,000 was just a figure, we could make it less or equal to the total that was handed over to wall street and others if you like.From what orifice were you going to pull this magic $10 trillion?
The money the Fed gives the Treasury isn't money the Fed creates.
You don't understand how the Fed creates money, and basically just moves what it creates out of nothing around, or money creation. Debt is money in the current system, is it not?? Banks,like the Fed Banks are allowed to create money it doesn't have in the first place by loans, by creating it based on a percentage of the deposit. (see the court case below).What the heck do you think they have essentially been doing sparky?? In reality they don't print shit hardly anymore, it is all figures on a computer screen. In fact I read somewhere once that only about 10% of the money supply is in the form of hard cash anymore.!?Ummmmmm.....the Fed is a central bank. OMG! The government should just print and spend? LOL! Thanks for playing.
Get your head out of your ass dude we've been lied to and conned. It's not too late to learn what has been going on, but you must first be willing to be receptive to these possibilities, and bypass the urge to continue to think you are being cared for by benevolent entities.You should avoid the moonbat sources, of course, for you, it's probably too late.
Bottom line is, They were a miserable failure and did not produce what Bush and his people said.The 2001 Bush cuts didn't benefit the economy. They were like your suggestion and mostly sent checks to taxpayers. The 2003 cuts gave us a big boost in GDP, immediately.
He promised they would increase the prosperity of all Americans. He also vowed: "Tax relief will create new jobs. Tax relief will generate new wealth. And tax relief will open new opportunities." -
OK, a pitter-patter of applause for what the tax cuts did do effectively: Cut taxes and reduce overall payments to Uncle Sam. Low-income families benefited from the child-care credit jumping from $500 to $1,000. High-income families benefited from the top marginal rate falling. Billionaires benefited from lightly taxed dividend income. And government receipts, in turn, dropped.
But the benefits mostly accrued to the rich, according to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. The think tank reports that between 2001 and 2008, the bottom 80 percent of filers received about 35 percent of the cuts. The top 20 percent received about 65 percentand the top 1 percent alone claimed 38 percent.
What about the president's claims? Take his pledge that the cuts would spur job growth. To be fair, we'll ignore employment changes during 2008, the year the Great Recession seized the economy. During the 2001 to 2007 business cycle, America's economy enjoyed 52 straight months of job growth. But it was sluggishin fact, the slowest rate of jobs growth on record since World War II, and just one-fifth the pace of the 1990s.
....Then there's wealth. Put simply, the aughts were a decade of income stagnation: The tax cuts failed to bolster most taxpayers' earnings, even before the recession hit. Median real wages actually dropped from 2003 to 2007. Household income from business-cycle peak to business-cycle peak declined for the first time since tracking started in 1967. As documented by my colleague Timothy Noah in his series "The United States of Inequality," this did not hold true for the nation's billionaires and millionaires.
Bush tax cuts 10th anniversary: They've been a failure. - By Annie Lowrey - Slate Magazine
100,000 was just a figure, we could make it less or equal to the total that was handed over to wall street and others if you like.From what orifice were you going to pull this magic $10 trillion?
But basically the same place it came from.
Keep in mind, this only prolongs the inevitable, but would have provided less suffering to individuals, and businesses. Yes it still prolongs the ponzi scheme but at least in a way less painful to most people....for a while longer.
Ideally though we need to eliminate the Fed Reserve, and stop paying interest on our own damned money.
If we end the Fed and get out from under the immediate debt incurred by borrowing from it, this could be done if congress did what is allowed in the Constitution, and create and coin its own money for the nation.
Obviously the print and spend tactics would then be solely in the hands of the irresponsible fucks in government /Congress, (preferably a dept just for this task) so the aware and awake American citizens would have to do their job, and mind the ones who we charge with this task, by demanding strict fiscal monetary policy. We would still owe less then we do today, and by adhering to sound practices in the first place, the US government would be a good place to continue to but T bills from and invest in (good name and credit).
What the heck do you think they have essentially been doing sparky?? In reality they don't print shit hardly anymore, it is all figures on a computer screen. In fact I read somewhere once that only about 10% of the money supply is in the form of hard cash anymore.!?Ummmmmm.....the Fed is a central bank. OMG! The government should just print and spend? LOL! Thanks for playing.
People may think that banks have a lot of cash money in their possession and that they lend only the money that has been deposited with them, but they do not.
When a bank grants you a loan, they give you absolutely nothing. Try obtaining a large sum to pay for your house in cash from a bank, and they'll look at you like you have 2 heads, and or report you.
Take that loan and give it to your creditor, who then deposits it in their bank, then that bank is allowed to create additional money based on the size of that deposit..out of thin air.
Yes, they credit your account, but not with cash. All they do is type the amount of the loan into their system. Your loan is conjured up out of mere figures on a computer screen. From the time your account is credited, you are actually charged interest on non-existent money. The real shocker here is that banks are allowed to list these non-existent amounts as assets, whereas when us ordinary minions apply for a loan, our assets are required to be of a physical nature, such as your home or business.
There was an unprecedented lawsuit initiated by a man trying to prevent his home from being foreclosed on that proves they create money from nothing.
* It appears that the Plaintiff acquired money from a bank conducting fractional reserve banking. This is prima facie evidence that the Plaintiff did not lawfully acquire all of the money lent. Unless the Plaintiff can disprove this evidence, the court is bound to admit that no valid loan was ever made to the Defendant.
Mr. Morgan admitted that all of the money or credit which was used as a consideration was created upon their books, that this was standard banking practice exercised by their bank in combination with the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, another private Bank, further that he knew of no United States Statute or Law that gave the Plaintiff the authority to do this. Plaintiff further claimed that Defendant by using the ledger book created credit and by paying on the Note and Mortgage waived any right to complain about the Consideration and that the Defendant was stopped from doing so.
At 12:15 on December 7, 1968 the Jury returned a unanimous verdict for the Defendant.
Now therefore, by virtue of the authority vested in me pursuant to the Declaration of Independence, the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, the Constitution of United States and the Constitution and the laws of the State of Minnesota not inconsistent therewith;
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED:
1.That the Plaintiff is not entitled to recover the possession of Lot 19, Fairview Beach, Scott County, Minnesota according to the Plat thereof on file in the Register of Deeds office.
2.That because of failure of a lawful consideration the Note and Mortgage dated May 8, 1964 are null and void.
Judge Mahoney Credit River Court Case, State of Minnesota, County Scott, United States of America, 9th December 1968 | Love for Life
And Ummmm... yes it is a central bank...a private, for profit one, that has usurped the American Constitution. Have you not known this?? Why do you think some want them to provide more disclosure, and open their books but they refuse??
.... in some circumstances, the Federal Reserve Bank can be considered a government "instrumentality", but cannot be considered a "federal agency", because the term carries with it the assumption that the federal government has direct oversight over what the Fed does. Of course it does not, because most people who know about this subject know that the Fed is "politically independent."
The Federal Reserve is a Private Financial Institution
Get your head out of your ass dude we've been lied to and conned. It's not too late to learn what has been going on, but you must first be willing to be receptive to these possibilities, and bypass the urge to continue to think you are being cared for by benevolent entities.You should avoid the moonbat sources, of course, for you, it's probably too late.
Why is it folks like you always resort to ridiculing the sources that are against your established way of thinking instead of addressing the actual message or information that disturbs you??
Bottom line is, They were a miserable failure and did not produce what Bush and his people said.The 2001 Bush cuts didn't benefit the economy. They were like your suggestion and mostly sent checks to taxpayers. The 2003 cuts gave us a big boost in GDP, immediately.
He promised they would increase the prosperity of all Americans. He also vowed: "Tax relief will create new jobs. Tax relief will generate new wealth. And tax relief will open new opportunities." -
OK, a pitter-patter of applause for what the tax cuts did do effectively: Cut taxes and reduce overall payments to Uncle Sam. Low-income families benefited from the child-care credit jumping from $500 to $1,000. High-income families benefited from the top marginal rate falling. Billionaires benefited from lightly taxed dividend income. And government receipts, in turn, dropped.
But the benefits mostly accrued to the rich, according to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. The think tank reports that between 2001 and 2008, the bottom 80 percent of filers received about 35 percent of the cuts. The top 20 percent received about 65 percentand the top 1 percent alone claimed 38 percent.
What about the president's claims? Take his pledge that the cuts would spur job growth. To be fair, we'll ignore employment changes during 2008, the year the Great Recession seized the economy. During the 2001 to 2007 business cycle, America's economy enjoyed 52 straight months of job growth. But it was sluggishin fact, the slowest rate of jobs growth on record since World War II, and just one-fifth the pace of the 1990s.
....Then there's wealth. Put simply, the aughts were a decade of income stagnation: The tax cuts failed to bolster most taxpayers' earnings, even before the recession hit. Median real wages actually dropped from 2003 to 2007. Household income from business-cycle peak to business-cycle peak declined for the first time since tracking started in 1967. As documented by my colleague Timothy Noah in his series "The United States of Inequality," this did not hold true for the nation's billionaires and millionaires.
Bush tax cuts 10th anniversary: They've been a failure. - By Annie Lowrey - Slate Magazine
100,000 was just a figure, we could make it less or equal to the total that was handed over to wall street and others if you like.
But basically the same place it came from.
Keep in mind, this only prolongs the inevitable, but would have provided less suffering to individuals, and businesses. Yes it still prolongs the ponzi scheme but at least in a way less painful to most people....for a while longer.
Ideally though we need to eliminate the Fed Reserve, and stop paying interest on our own damned money.
If we end the Fed and get out from under the immediate debt incurred by borrowing from it, this could be done if congress did what is allowed in the Constitution, and create and coin its own money for the nation.
Obviously the print and spend tactics would then be solely in the hands of the irresponsible fucks in government /Congress, (preferably a dept just for this task) so the aware and awake American citizens would have to do their job, and mind the ones who we charge with this task, by demanding strict fiscal monetary policy. We would still owe less then we do today, and by adhering to sound practices in the first place, the US government would be a good place to continue to but T bills from and invest in (good name and credit).
What the heck do you think they have essentially been doing sparky?? In reality they don't print shit hardly anymore, it is all figures on a computer screen. In fact I read somewhere once that only about 10% of the money supply is in the form of hard cash anymore.!?
People may think that banks have a lot of cash money in their possession and that they lend only the money that has been deposited with them, but they do not.
When a bank grants you a loan, they give you absolutely nothing. Try obtaining a large sum to pay for your house in cash from a bank, and they'll look at you like you have 2 heads, and or report you.
Take that loan and give it to your creditor, who then deposits it in their bank, then that bank is allowed to create additional money based on the size of that deposit..out of thin air.
Yes, they credit your account, but not with cash. All they do is type the amount of the loan into their system. Your loan is conjured up out of mere figures on a computer screen. From the time your account is credited, you are actually charged interest on non-existent money. The real shocker here is that banks are allowed to list these non-existent amounts as assets, whereas when us ordinary minions apply for a loan, our assets are required to be of a physical nature, such as your home or business.
There was an unprecedented lawsuit initiated by a man trying to prevent his home from being foreclosed on that proves they create money from nothing.
* It appears that the Plaintiff acquired money from a bank conducting fractional reserve banking. This is prima facie evidence that the Plaintiff did not lawfully acquire all of the money lent. Unless the Plaintiff can disprove this evidence, the court is bound to admit that no valid loan was ever made to the Defendant.
Mr. Morgan admitted that all of the money or credit which was used as a consideration was created upon their books, that this was standard banking practice exercised by their bank in combination with the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, another private Bank, further that he knew of no United States Statute or Law that gave the Plaintiff the authority to do this. Plaintiff further claimed that Defendant by using the ledger book created credit and by paying on the Note and Mortgage waived any right to complain about the Consideration and that the Defendant was stopped from doing so.
At 12:15 on December 7, 1968 the Jury returned a unanimous verdict for the Defendant.
Now therefore, by virtue of the authority vested in me pursuant to the Declaration of Independence, the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, the Constitution of United States and the Constitution and the laws of the State of Minnesota not inconsistent therewith;
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED:
1.That the Plaintiff is not entitled to recover the possession of Lot 19, Fairview Beach, Scott County, Minnesota according to the Plat thereof on file in the Register of Deeds office.
2.That because of failure of a lawful consideration the Note and Mortgage dated May 8, 1964 are null and void.
Judge Mahoney Credit River Court Case, State of Minnesota, County Scott, United States of America, 9th December 1968 | Love for Life
And Ummmm... yes it is a central bank...a private, for profit one, that has usurped the American Constitution. Have you not known this?? Why do you think some want them to provide more disclosure, and open their books but they refuse??
.... in some circumstances, the Federal Reserve Bank can be considered a government "instrumentality", but cannot be considered a "federal agency", because the term carries with it the assumption that the federal government has direct oversight over what the Fed does. Of course it does not, because most people who know about this subject know that the Fed is "politically independent."
The Federal Reserve is a Private Financial Institution
Get your head out of your ass dude we've been lied to and conned. It's not too late to learn what has been going on, but you must first be willing to be receptive to these possibilities, and bypass the urge to continue to think you are being cared for by benevolent entities.You should avoid the moonbat sources, of course, for you, it's probably too late.
Why is it folks like you always resort to ridiculing the sources that are against your established way of thinking instead of addressing the actual message or information that disturbs you??
Cuts in marginal rates encourage growth.
Cutting everyone a check just increases government debt, unless you match it with government spending cuts.
"But the benefits mostly accrued to the rich, according to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. The think tank reports that between 2001 and 2008, the bottom 80 percent of filers received about 35 percent of the cuts. The top 20 percent received about 65 percentand the top 1 percent alone claimed 38 percent"
OMG! The people who pay more, get more of a cut when all rates are cut!
Alert the media!
And you think the Tax Policy Center is nonpartisan? That's funny too.
"100,000 was just a figure, we could make it less or equal to the total that was handed over to wall street and others if you like"
Wall Street and the banks paid back their loans.
Is this magic $100,000 going to be a loan?
"Ideally though we need to eliminate the Fed Reserve, and stop paying interest on our own damned money"
I have $20s in my wallet and I'm not paying interest to anyone.
Who do you pay for the money in your wallet?
"There was an unprecedented lawsuit initiated"
Wow! Morons on a jury, shocking!
"And Ummmm... yes it is a central bank...a private, for profit one"
For profit? Is that why they gave the Treasury $80 billion last year? How much of their profit did they keep?
If you want to have a more productive discussion, cut your posts by 50%, or better yet, 66%.
Plowing thru pages of this shit gets old.
Try one silly point at a time, instead of 12.
Thanks.
Bottom line is, They were a miserable failure and did not produce what Bush and his people said.
He promised they would increase the prosperity of all Americans. He also vowed: "Tax relief will create new jobs. Tax relief will generate new wealth. And tax relief will open new opportunities." -
OK, a pitter-patter of applause for what the tax cuts did do effectively: Cut taxes and reduce overall payments to Uncle Sam. Low-income families benefited from the child-care credit jumping from $500 to $1,000. High-income families benefited from the top marginal rate falling. Billionaires benefited from lightly taxed dividend income. And government receipts, in turn, dropped.
But the benefits mostly accrued to the rich, according to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. The think tank reports that between 2001 and 2008, the bottom 80 percent of filers received about 35 percent of the cuts. The top 20 percent received about 65 percentand the top 1 percent alone claimed 38 percent.
What about the president's claims? Take his pledge that the cuts would spur job growth. To be fair, we'll ignore employment changes during 2008, the year the Great Recession seized the economy. During the 2001 to 2007 business cycle, America's economy enjoyed 52 straight months of job growth. But it was sluggishin fact, the slowest rate of jobs growth on record since World War II, and just one-fifth the pace of the 1990s.
....Then there's wealth. Put simply, the aughts were a decade of income stagnation: The tax cuts failed to bolster most taxpayers' earnings, even before the recession hit. Median real wages actually dropped from 2003 to 2007. Household income from business-cycle peak to business-cycle peak declined for the first time since tracking started in 1967. As documented by my colleague Timothy Noah in his series "The United States of Inequality," this did not hold true for the nation's billionaires and millionaires.
Bush tax cuts 10th anniversary: They've been a failure. - By Annie Lowrey - Slate Magazine
100,000 was just a figure, we could make it less or equal to the total that was handed over to wall street and others if you like.
But basically the same place it came from.
Keep in mind, this only prolongs the inevitable, but would have provided less suffering to individuals, and businesses. Yes it still prolongs the ponzi scheme but at least in a way less painful to most people....for a while longer.
Ideally though we need to eliminate the Fed Reserve, and stop paying interest on our own damned money.
If we end the Fed and get out from under the immediate debt incurred by borrowing from it, this could be done if congress did what is allowed in the Constitution, and create and coin its own money for the nation.
Obviously the print and spend tactics would then be solely in the hands of the irresponsible fucks in government /Congress, (preferably a dept just for this task) so the aware and awake American citizens would have to do their job, and mind the ones who we charge with this task, by demanding strict fiscal monetary policy. We would still owe less then we do today, and by adhering to sound practices in the first place, the US government would be a good place to continue to but T bills from and invest in (good name and credit).
What the heck do you think they have essentially been doing sparky?? In reality they don't print shit hardly anymore, it is all figures on a computer screen. In fact I read somewhere once that only about 10% of the money supply is in the form of hard cash anymore.!?
People may think that banks have a lot of cash money in their possession and that they lend only the money that has been deposited with them, but they do not.
When a bank grants you a loan, they give you absolutely nothing. Try obtaining a large sum to pay for your house in cash from a bank, and they'll look at you like you have 2 heads, and or report you.
Take that loan and give it to your creditor, who then deposits it in their bank, then that bank is allowed to create additional money based on the size of that deposit..out of thin air.
Yes, they credit your account, but not with cash. All they do is type the amount of the loan into their system. Your loan is conjured up out of mere figures on a computer screen. From the time your account is credited, you are actually charged interest on non-existent money. The real shocker here is that banks are allowed to list these non-existent amounts as assets, whereas when us ordinary minions apply for a loan, our assets are required to be of a physical nature, such as your home or business.
There was an unprecedented lawsuit initiated by a man trying to prevent his home from being foreclosed on that proves they create money from nothing.
* It appears that the Plaintiff acquired money from a bank conducting fractional reserve banking. This is prima facie evidence that the Plaintiff did not lawfully acquire all of the money lent. Unless the Plaintiff can disprove this evidence, the court is bound to admit that no valid loan was ever made to the Defendant.
Mr. Morgan admitted that all of the money or credit which was used as a consideration was created upon their books, that this was standard banking practice exercised by their bank in combination with the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, another private Bank, further that he knew of no United States Statute or Law that gave the Plaintiff the authority to do this. Plaintiff further claimed that Defendant by using the ledger book created credit and by paying on the Note and Mortgage waived any right to complain about the Consideration and that the Defendant was stopped from doing so.
At 12:15 on December 7, 1968 the Jury returned a unanimous verdict for the Defendant.
Now therefore, by virtue of the authority vested in me pursuant to the Declaration of Independence, the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, the Constitution of United States and the Constitution and the laws of the State of Minnesota not inconsistent therewith;
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED:
1.That the Plaintiff is not entitled to recover the possession of Lot 19, Fairview Beach, Scott County, Minnesota according to the Plat thereof on file in the Register of Deeds office.
2.That because of failure of a lawful consideration the Note and Mortgage dated May 8, 1964 are null and void.
Judge Mahoney Credit River Court Case, State of Minnesota, County Scott, United States of America, 9th December 1968 | Love for Life
And Ummmm... yes it is a central bank...a private, for profit one, that has usurped the American Constitution. Have you not known this?? Why do you think some want them to provide more disclosure, and open their books but they refuse??
.... in some circumstances, the Federal Reserve Bank can be considered a government "instrumentality", but cannot be considered a "federal agency", because the term carries with it the assumption that the federal government has direct oversight over what the Fed does. Of course it does not, because most people who know about this subject know that the Fed is "politically independent."
The Federal Reserve is a Private Financial Institution
Get your head out of your ass dude we've been lied to and conned. It's not too late to learn what has been going on, but you must first be willing to be receptive to these possibilities, and bypass the urge to continue to think you are being cared for by benevolent entities.
Why is it folks like you always resort to ridiculing the sources that are against your established way of thinking instead of addressing the actual message or information that disturbs you??
Cuts in marginal rates encourage growth.
Cutting everyone a check just increases government debt, unless you match it with government spending cuts.
"But the benefits mostly accrued to the rich, according to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. The think tank reports that between 2001 and 2008, the bottom 80 percent of filers received about 35 percent of the cuts. The top 20 percent received about 65 percentand the top 1 percent alone claimed 38 percent"
OMG! The people who pay more, get more of a cut when all rates are cut!
Alert the media!
And you think the Tax Policy Center is nonpartisan? That's funny too.
"100,000 was just a figure, we could make it less or equal to the total that was handed over to wall street and others if you like"
Wall Street and the banks paid back their loans.
Is this magic $100,000 going to be a loan?
"Ideally though we need to eliminate the Fed Reserve, and stop paying interest on our own damned money"
I have $20s in my wallet and I'm not paying interest to anyone.
Who do you pay for the money in your wallet?
"There was an unprecedented lawsuit initiated"
Wow! Morons on a jury, shocking!
"And Ummmm... yes it is a central bank...a private, for profit one"
For profit? Is that why they gave the Treasury $80 billion last year? How much of their profit did they keep?
If you want to have a more productive discussion, cut your posts by 50%, or better yet, 66%.
Plowing thru pages of this shit gets old.
Try one silly point at a time, instead of 12.
Thanks.
Forget it, it's obvious you have no clue where or how those twentys in your wallet were created, nor do you have the will to take the time to check, you are happy with your perception of reality, and you and people like you is why this nation is in deep shit.If you ever get around to it, try asking yourself, and devote some serious time finding out how your money was created.
You argue from a starting point of either ignorance, or denial about how your money is created, I'm simply just trying to get you to think, beyond your 20 dollar bills and look at the big overall picture.
Just remember that, every single cash note created by the Fed Reserve banks you ever came across, and ever will in the foreseeable future, is a note with automatic debt attached to it, it is the only way it was created in accordance with the monetary system in place all of our lives.
Awareness and being able to accept reality is something I hope you will attain someday-Later.
Forget it, it's obvious you have no clue where or how those twentys in your wallet were created, nor do you have the will to take the time to check, you are happy with your perception of reality, and you and people like you is why this nation is in deep shit.If you ever get around to it, try asking yourself, and devote some serious time finding out how your money was created.
You argue from a starting point of either ignorance, or denial about how your money is created, I'm simply just trying to get you to think, beyond your 20 dollar bills and look at the big overall picture.
Just remember that, every single cash note created by the Fed Reserve banks you ever came across, and ever will in the foreseeable future, is a note with automatic debt attached to it, it is the only way it was created in accordance with the monetary system in place all of our lives.
Awareness and being able to accept reality is something I hope you will attain someday-Later.
What caused the national debt? 6 culprits - The Week
1. The Bush tax cuts
The biggest culprit? The 2001 and 2003 tax cuts under then-president George W. Bush, says the Associated Press. They have added an estimated $1.6 trillion to the national debt. It's pretty clear, says Brian Beutler at Talking Points Memo, that Bush-era policies, "particularly debt-financed tax cuts," make up "the lion's share of the problem." And they're ongoing, so the tab for them builds every year.
2. Health care entitlements
Democrats "constantly harp" about the Bush tax cuts, says Peter Morici at Seeking Alpha, but those rates were in place in 2007, and the deficit that year was one-tenth this year's budget shortfall of $1.6 trillion. So what has changed since then? Added "federal regulation, bureaucracy, and new Medicaid and other entitlements have pushed up federal spending by $1.1 trillion $900 billion more than required by inflation." And down the road, says Yuval Levin at National Review, our "health-entitlement explosion" will account for "basically 100 percent" of our debt problem.
3. Medicare prescription drug benefit
Another piece of the pie: George W. Bush's addition of Medicare's prescription drug benefit. That has added $300 billion to the debt, according to the AP. Expanding entitlements like Medicare, or last year's health-care reform package, is a particularly tempting way for Congress to run up debt, says Jagadeesh Gokhale at The Daily Caller. Since lawmakers don't typically map out a revenue strategy to fund those benefits, they are "shielded from the political costs of actually paying for the new programs."
4. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan
The tab for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan comes to $1.3 trillion, another major chunk of new, unexpected spending over the last decade. "These wars cost us plenty," says Nake M. Kamrany at The Huffington Post, and they "have to be financed with borrowing, which adds up to national debt."
5. Obama's economic stimulus
The 2009 stimulus package enacted by President Obama cost $800 billion. And the 2010 tax-cut compromise between Obama and Republicans, which extended jobless benefits and reduced payroll taxes, added another $400 billion to the debt. Add another $200 billion for the 2008 bailout of the financial industry, and the government's efforts to soften the blow of the Great Recession amount to one of the largest chunks of the debt build-up. The "federal budget was one good year away from balancing" after 2007, says Tom Blumer at News Busters. But in the years since, Obama and Democrats in Congress put that goal out of reach.
6. The Great Recession
Some of the spending gap came from factors outside the control of Congress and the White House. As the government spent heavily to boost the economy, says the AP, it took in hundreds of billions less in tax revenue than expected, because the Great Recession eroded Americans' income and spending.
The National Debt was caused by Reagan and the two Bushes cutting taxes for the rich.
Go here to see the numbers... ReaganBushDebt.org
