Why the GOP should never rule Warshington

[editec]

Foreign? You said that rich republicans owned the fed.

ARe you under the impression that:

1. Rothchild banks of London and Berlin.

2. Lazard Brothers Banks of Paris.

3. Israel Moses Seif Banks of Italy.

4. Warburg Bank of Hamburg and Amsterdam.

5. Lehman Brothers Bank of New York.

6. Kuhn, Loeb bank of New York.

7. Chase Manhattan Bank of New York, which controls all of the other 11 Federal Rwerve Banks.

8. Goldman, Sachs Bank of New York.

Are NOT rich republicans? (note the lower case R ?)

The Establishment of the privately owned bank, the FED, and our having granted it control over the currency of the USA, instead of having the government itself taking control of that task, was the formal reestablishment of the European system of classism in the USA.

The argument for giving that power to a group of privately onwed banks, rather than giving it to the government itself is evidence of the republicanism dominating the democratic government.

That argument states that any democratic government which controls the currency will inevitably print too much money in order to fund social services that the people's reresentatives will give them in order to stay in power.

Of course, it never occurs to the republican mind that individuals, who are granted that power are apt to print too much money for their own personal benefit, does it?

We have a privately owned FED for EXACTLY the same reason that we have the Electoral college, fans.

Because the master class is scared to death of a democracy.

First because democracies do not create and encourage classism, and secondly because republicans (note the small r again, please) do not believe that the PEOPLE are capable of ruling themselves.

 

[Diuretic]

Bugger! I am incapable of rep.

 

[Skull Pilot]

ARe you under the impression that:

1. Rothchild banks of London and Berlin.

2. Lazard Brothers Banks of Paris.

3. Israel Moses Seif Banks of Italy.

4. Warburg Bank of Hamburg and Amsterdam.

5. Lehman Brothers Bank of New York.

6. Kuhn, Loeb bank of New York.

7. Chase Manhattan Bank of New York, which controls all of the other 11 Federal Rwerve Banks.

8. Goldman, Sachs Bank of New York.

Are NOT rich republicans? (note the lower case R ?)

The Establishment of the privately owned bank, the FED, and our having granted it control over the currency of the USA, instead of having the government itself taking control of that task, was the formal reestablishment of the European system of classism in the USA.

The argument for giving that power to a group of privately onwed banks, rather than giving it to the government itself is evidence of the republicanism dominating the democratic government.

That argument states that any democratic government which controls the currency will inevitably print too much money in order to fund social services that the people's reresentatives will give them in order to stay in power.

Of course, it never occurs to the republican mind that individuals, who are granted that power are apt to print too much money for their own personal benefit, does it?

We have a privately owned FED for EXACTLY the same reason that we have the Electoral college, fans.

Because the master class is scared to death of a democracy.

First because democracies do not create and encourage classism, and secondly because republicans (note the small r again, please) do not believe that the PEOPLE are capable of ruling themselves.

No argument from me Ed, I was merely trying to get BoBo to give an answer as well thought out as yours. You know that when BoBo says rich republicans, he does not mean small r. Perhaps i should have capitalized in my post.

But that aside The fed should not exist and the government should be out of the banking business period.

 

[Bern80]

i saw a hearing on c-span reviewing the stimulus and it was shown that the most effective stimulus is that given to the needy...they will put a higher percentage of their stimulus back in to the economy QUICKER than any other income groups, but next in line to them was the middle class and the least stimulus group was the stimulus given to the wealthiest.....

here's an analysis that pretty much says the same thing...and some!!!

commentary- Bush's Economic Report Card: Timely Stimulus, Poor "Bang for the Buck," Disastrous Budgeting
study- http://www.economy.com/dismal/economycom_bushfiscalpolicy.pdf

just some things to ponder....

That makes sense, that the needy are going to inject it faster because, well, they NEED to get things paid for.

how so, more details please....i am not really following his tax plan, in particular...just voicing what i think or have read or heard regarding taxes or stimulus tax rebates...

As he stated in the debate, anyone who's taxes are $250k or up, including businesses would go up. $200K-$250K would stay unchanged and $200k and under would get a tax cut. The point is that regardless of demand, you have to have the money there to hire people and Obama's plan hurts that because a company is going to have less extra money than it would have without his plan in effect. Which is why I have been saying that if a company is in a position to hire, they will be put in a position that they need to overcome the decrease in revenues from their tax hike BEFORE they can consider hiring. Whereas if these businesses didn't have to deal with a tax hike or even received a tax cut it would be easier for them to generate the extra revenue needed to hire.

I think you are leaving out the MOST important part of the equation Bern...a business does not just decide out of the clear blue to add 10 more people to their business, they have sales and a sales trend that would support the new business plan and expansion...believe me, I worked for several corporations over the decades in executive or management positions and this is not something just done out of the clear blue by anyone in business....all kinds of calculations and analysis goes in to it....as i am certain you probably know as well...it just isn't as simple as you put it...

I didn't miss it. I know the factors required to allow those things to happen. I just chose to assume those factors had been met for sake of the argumet.

 

[editec]

As he stated in the debate, anyone who's taxes are $250k or up, including businesses would go up. $200K-$250K would stay unchanged and $200k and under would get a tax cut. The point is that regardless of demand, you have to have the money there to hire people and Obama's plan hurts that because a company is going to have less extra money than it would have without his plan in effect. Which is why I have been saying that if a company is in a position to hire, they will be put in a position that they need to overcome the decrease in revenues from their tax hike BEFORE they can consider hiring. Whereas if these businesses didn't have to deal with a tax hike or even received a tax cut it would be easier for them to generate the extra revenue needed to hire.

You seem to be assuming that Obama plan is to start taxing GROSS RECEIPTS of a businesses, rather than net profits.

Or have I misread your point?

For surely if a business hires new employees, the cost of these new hires will reduce the business' net profits initially until the new employees start generating profits.

The fact is the Republican orgy of tax cuts period is coming to a close.

Contrary top the mth that the tickle down system of making the rich superrich has proven (as it always does) to be nothing more than a myth.

This nation is in serious financial trouble in PART because of those foolish tax policies and Obama is gently trying to return us to those tax policies which we had in the Clinton era.

Now I am NOT suggesting that the changes in taxation policies are going to take us back to the halcyon days of the Clinton era.

Eight years of this disasterous Bush regime aren't something we're going to overcome in a few years.

But the fact is that this nation, the nation which makes it possible for our superwealthy clsss to exist (and no the superwealthy don't make this nation possible, it's quite the other way around) are going to have to accept that with greater wealth comes greater debt to the nation which makes it possible for one to make that wealth.

 

[sealybobo]

ARe you under the impression that:

1. Rothchild banks of London and Berlin.

2. Lazard Brothers Banks of Paris.

3. Israel Moses Seif Banks of Italy.

4. Warburg Bank of Hamburg and Amsterdam.

5. Lehman Brothers Bank of New York.

6. Kuhn, Loeb bank of New York.

7. Chase Manhattan Bank of New York, which controls all of the other 11 Federal Rwerve Banks.

8. Goldman, Sachs Bank of New York.

Are NOT rich republicans? (note the lower case R ?)

The Establishment of the privately owned bank, the FED, and our having granted it control over the currency of the USA, instead of having the government itself taking control of that task, was the formal reestablishment of the European system of classism in the USA.

The argument for giving that power to a group of privately onwed banks, rather than giving it to the government itself is evidence of the republicanism dominating the democratic government.

That argument states that any democratic government which controls the currency will inevitably print too much money in order to fund social services that the people's reresentatives will give them in order to stay in power.

Of course, it never occurs to the republican mind that individuals, who are granted that power are apt to print too much money for their own personal benefit, does it?

We have a privately owned FED for EXACTLY the same reason that we have the Electoral college, fans.

Because the master class is scared to death of a democracy.

First because democracies do not create and encourage classism, and secondly because republicans (note the small r again, please) do not believe that the PEOPLE are capable of ruling themselves.

Give this woman a cigar!!!

 

[sealybobo]

You got it sucker---Now let's see you and Obama do something about that Fed and their friends !!

Obama won't. If you watch the DVD Freedom to Fascism, Aaron Russo will explain both parties are in on this. And the DVD also tells us what happens to any politician that speaks up. So it was interesting to see them actually trash Ron Paul exactly the way the DVD said they would.

We aren't free. You go die in a war so the rich can get richer, you stupid fucking cattle.

I'm not talking to you specifically here Dilloduck. I'm talking to the masses.

 

[Care4all]

Give this woman a cigar!!!

woman? editech is a woman? huh? lol

 

[dilloduck]

Obama won't. If you watch the DVD Freedom to Fascism, Aaron Russo will explain both parties are in on this. And the DVD also tells us what happens to any politician that speaks up. So it was interesting to see them actually trash Ron Paul exactly the way the DVD said they would.

We aren't free. You go die in a war so the rich can get richer, you stupid fucking cattle.

I'm not talking to you specifically here Dilloduck. I'm talking to the masses.

Agreed--then why does anyone give a shit who our next president is ? It doesn't matter.

 

[sealybobo]

Agreed--then why does anyone give a shit who our next president is ? It doesn't matter.

Oh yes it does. GOP are anti labor.

That's my short answer.

 

[Bern80]

You seem to be assuming that Obama plan is to start taxing GROSS RECEIPTS of a businesses, rather than net profits.

Or have I misread your point?

For surely if a business hires new employees, the cost of these new hires will reduce the business' net profits initially until the new employees start generating profits.

I'm not sure I'm seeing your point. I'm simply going by what Obama said in the debate. He didn't get much more specific than that really. Are trying to point out the obvious that hiring people is an expense? Sure one could say that certain type of employees like salesmen directly generate revenue, but many don't like customer service employees. Regardless, salaries are an expense to the company and they need the money. If X amount of money to use towards hiring, wage increases, etc. and Obama takes a bite out of X it is obviously going to be more difficult for you to put more people to work or raise the wages of your current employees.

The fact is the Republican orgy of tax cuts period is coming to a close.

What is so god awful about tax cuts? Do you look at your check every two weeks in dissapointment that government didn't take more of it?

Contrary top the mth that the tickle down system of making the rich superrich has proven (as it always does) to be nothing more than a myth.

Then show me the proof. My guess is, like most sheep, you simply believe what is on the news and that what they report for one company like Enron must be true of all of them.

This nation is in serious financial trouble in PART because of those foolish tax policies and Obama is gently trying to return us to those tax policies which we had in the Clinton era.

Dude think about what you're saying for one fucking second. By extension one would have to conclude that a good tax policy according to you is one where the rich pay all the taxes and the middle class and poor pay none and that government should be trying to collect as much taxes as humanly possible. You constantly completely ignore the human behavior component in wealth accumulation and think it just happens to people, or that the only people that become rich are back stabbers. A system like yours encourages apathy because the message from you is that as a middle class worker I owe nothing to anyone and if I'm smart I'll just sit around and wait for the money taken from the rich to be given to me because I deserve it from them.

But the fact is that this nation, the nation which makes it possible for our superwealthy clsss to exist (and no the superwealthy don't make this nation possible, it's quite the other way around) are going to have to accept that with greater wealth comes greater debt to the nation which makes it possible for one to make that wealth.

That's a fairly ass backwards way of thinking. If the country is what allows people to become wealthy then everyone should be wealthy, seems to me.

 

[sealybobo]

woman? editech is a woman? huh? lol

Really? Not a woman? Sorry Editech! Don't know why I thought that.

 

[sealybobo]

Either the Bush administration (and republicans) were completely oblivious to the impending financial crisis, or were simply lying to the public. Watch and reach your own conclusion.

Bush 2007: Economy is great!, Bush 2008: Economy is about to implode! | Crooks and Liars

This from an administration that for years said the economy was vibrant, the financial system strong, profits & wages were up.

And this was last year, when democrats and economists were screaming that the economy was in trouble, wages were down, companies were going overseas.

McCain and the rest of the GOP spent seven-and-a-half of the past eight years expressing satisfaction with the Bush economy:
John McCain quotes (and what you republicans were saying until recently)
I think we are better off overall if you look at the entire eight-year period, when you look at the millions of jobs that have been created, the improvement in the economy, et cetera. - January 2008
[George Bush] should be judged very, very well as far as the economy is concerned. We’re in a long sustained period of economic growth. - March 2007
I still believe the fundamentals of our economy are strong. - August 2008

 

[Andrew2382]

lol yeah, it's not like the bush admin tried to put in place the biggest housing reform this nation ever saw only to get blocked

The dems did a great job seeing what was coming also

Please read my signature

 

[sealybobo]

lol yeah, it's not like the bush admin tried to put in place the biggest housing reform this nation ever saw only to get blocked

The dems did a great job seeing what was coming also

Please read my signature

I blocked signatures. What does it say?

And I saw what was coming since 2004 Andrew. I know my party did too because we ran on those issues in 2004 and instead you voted because you thought Bush would keep you safe and you could drink a beer with him, remember?

Now we have a President that is smarter than you finally. You should be happy.

 

[sealybobo]

lol yeah, it's not like the bush admin tried to put in place the biggest housing reform this nation ever saw only to get blocked

The dems did a great job seeing what was coming also

Please read my signature

Why didn't you care that jobs were going overseas anyways?

Or why didn't you care to fix what was wrong with NAFTA. It doesn't protect American workers at all.

And are you one of those people who approves of illegal employers and employees?

Are you for or against tariffs when trade isn't fair?

Why would I let an American company move jobs to China, give them a tax break to help with the move, and then let them ship their products back to the USA to sell? The chinese worker makes 50 cents an hour. As an American middle class person, which I'm sure you are, how is that right?

Yea, cheap goods and services. But at what cost? I think you choose to ignore the costs. Or maybe you don't care about American wages. What do you do for a living?

Probably like Allie, you are a hypocrite and actually work for the government, so you make money on tax payers. Socialist. A cop or something like that.

Certainly not union. A manager? You make a little more than everyone else so you feel Republicany? Republicanish?

 

[sealybobo]

Morgan Stanley, Lehman Brothers. and other Wall Street giants helped foreign investors dodge billions of dollars in U.S. taxes on stock dividends while the IRS looked the other way, a Senate investigation found.

The firms worked with shell hedge funds that had little more than offshore mailing addresses in the Cayman Islands and elsewhere. The funds arranged complex equity swaps and stock loans aimed at circumventing U.S. tax laws, a staff report by the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations said.

For 10 years, the IRS has neither enforced existing rules prohibiting the transactions nor tried to draft new standards, the 77-page report said.

“These are gimmicks peddled by American financial institutions to deny Uncle Sam taxes owed under our law,” Senator Carl Levin, who heads the panel, told reporters. “The IRS has pussyfooted on this.”

Morgan Stanley enabled foreign clients to avoid payment of more than $300 million in U.S. dividend taxes from 2000 to 2007, the report said. Lehman estimated its customers eluded payment of as much $115 million in 2004. UBS helped clients escape payment of $62 million from 2004 to 2007.

http://www.financialweek.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080911/REG/809119995/-1/TOC

Iceweasel