Leave the Tax Rates Alone

[WillowTree]

It's immoral to redistribute so much of our nation’s wealth upwards and then cut services to the poor and needy to make up for that same flow of capital to those who didn't even need it.

The soul of America is turning for the worse.

So what do you plan to replace corporations with? Be precise.

Fully liable entities and ownership.

what does this mean?

 

[8537]

Let me ask you where did the hundreds of billions for Stimulus come from? Who is collecting the interest from that money?

Through the sale of US treasury notes and bonds. The interest is being collected by the bondholders, those that bought the notes.

You are either misinformed or just wrong. The money that went to fund the Stimulus Act was not raised through the issuance of bonds, but by the monetary policies of the Federal Reserve. The FED has, and since stopped, been printing money out of thin air and buying US bonds.

The Fed did not use QE to fund the stimulus program. In a 3.6T budget with a 1.3T deficit, the money is a bit too fungible to make such an assumption.

You are simply misinformed.

 

[8537]

Bondholders like the Federal Reserve itself?

Well yes, the member banks of the Federal Reserve do buy treasuries. They also buy debt instruments from other countries. So do the central bank affiliates in many other nations.

Other purchasers include asset managers, individuals, and corporations.

No, the FED does not buy treasuries. Historically it has not been done. Not until recently. Federal Reserve to buy $600 billion in bonds as hedge against deflation - CSMonitor.com

The Fed has always had Treasuries on its balance sheet. It's the primary dealer so it obviously has them for brief periods. It's part of every central banks portfolio. They currently have far MORE on their balance sheet, but that's a matter of scope.

 

[saveliberty]

Sure leave the rates alone and just change the brackets....

 

[8537]

So what do you plan to replace corporations with? Be precise.

Fully liable entities and ownership.

what does this mean?

It means making owners fully liable.

 

[Google]

Through the sale of US treasury notes and bonds. The interest is being collected by the bondholders, those that bought the notes.

You are either misinformed or just wrong. The money that went to fund the Stimulus Act was not raised through the issuance of bonds, but by the monetary policies of the Federal Reserve. The FED has, and since stopped, been printing money out of thin air and buying US bonds.

The Fed did not use QE to fund the stimulus program. In a 3.6T budget with a 1.3T deficit, the money is a bit too fungible to make such an assumption.

You are simply misinformed.

Let me ask you this of the $14,000,000,000,000 national debt is held in US treasury bonds?

 

[Google]

Well yes, the member banks of the Federal Reserve do buy treasuries. They also buy debt instruments from other countries. So do the central bank affiliates in many other nations.

Other purchasers include asset managers, individuals, and corporations.

No, the FED does not buy treasuries. Historically it has not been done. Not until recently. Federal Reserve to buy $600 billion in bonds as hedge against deflation - CSMonitor.com

The Fed has always had Treasuries on its balance sheet. It's the primary dealer so it obviously has them for brief periods. It's part of every central banks portfolio. They currently have far MORE on their balance sheet, but that's a matter of scope.

Do you see the inherent problem with giving a private bank the unregulated power of creating money and buying our debt? And no the Quantitative Easing program is unprecedented.

Unprecedented. That is a word this administration has used over and over. Everything this administration is unprecedented.

 

[bripat9643]

Fully liable entities and ownership.

what does this mean?

It means making owners fully liable.

So every old lady living on a pension should go to jail if BP spills oil in the gulf?

 

[8537]

No, the FED does not buy treasuries. Historically it has not been done. Not until recently. Federal Reserve to buy $600 billion in bonds as hedge against deflation - CSMonitor.com

The Fed has always had Treasuries on its balance sheet. It's the primary dealer so it obviously has them for brief periods. It's part of every central banks portfolio. They currently have far MORE on their balance sheet, but that's a matter of scope.

Do you see the inherent problem with giving a private bank the unregulated power of creating money and buying our debt?

A private bank whose leadership is appointed by the President and approved by Congress, who has its public funds audited by the GAO and must explain its decision making to Congress on an annual basis, a private bank with charters in 12 public locations throughout the nation? A private bank who, by statute, must return interest payments above operating expenses to the Treasury department? No, I don't really see the inherent problem there. It's not great, but it's better than the alternatives.

And no the Quantitative Easing program is unprecedented.

Unprecedented. That is a word this administration has used over and over. Everything this administration is unprecedented.

You're mixing the holding and purchasing of treasuries with QE. QE is a deliberate purchase of government debt without steps to sterilize it.

 

[Google]

The Fed has always had Treasuries on its balance sheet. It's the primary dealer so it obviously has them for brief periods. It's part of every central banks portfolio. They currently have far MORE on their balance sheet, but that's a matter of scope.

Do you see the inherent problem with giving a private bank the unregulated power of creating money and buying our debt?

A private bank whose leadership is appointed by the President and approved by Congress, who has its public funds audited by the GAO and must explain its decision making to Congress on an annual basis, a private bank with charters in 12 public locations throughout the nation? No, not really. It's not great, but it's better than the alternatives.

And no the Quantitative Easing program is unprecedented.

Unprecedented. That is a word this administration has used over and over. Everything this administration is unprecedented.

You're mixing the holding and purchasing of treasuries with QE. QE is a deliberate purchase of government debt without steps to sterilize it.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qIQTu7kOT_8&feature=related]YouTube - ‪Let Greenspan Tell You What Fed is!‬‏[/ame]

"The Federal Reserve is a independent agency...and that means there is no other agency of government which can overrule actions we take" - Alan Greenspan

Unlike the Supreme Court, the president of the United States cannot appoint anyone he wishes to the Federal Reserve. He is given a list of about 10 to choose from.

The GOA does not audit the Federal Reserve. In fact Congressman Ron Paul has introduced legislation that would audit the Federal Reserve, and received bi-partisan support but has always been prevented from a full vot.

Have you watched any of these congressional hearings? You are sorely misinformed on this issue.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCWXrMCGJT4]YouTube - ‪SEN. SANDERS GOES OFF ON BERNANKE_ 03/03/09‬‏[/ame]

 

[8537]

Do you see the inherent problem with giving a private bank the unregulated power of creating money and buying our debt?

A private bank whose leadership is appointed by the President and approved by Congress, who has its public funds audited by the GAO and must explain its decision making to Congress on an annual basis, a private bank with charters in 12 public locations throughout the nation? No, not really. It's not great, but it's better than the alternatives.

And no the Quantitative Easing program is unprecedented.

Unprecedented. That is a word this administration has used over and over. Everything this administration is unprecedented.

You're mixing the holding and purchasing of treasuries with QE. QE is a deliberate purchase of government debt without steps to sterilize it.

"The Federal Reserve is a independent agency...and that means there is no other agency of government which can overrule actions we take" - Alan Greenspan

I'm trying to figure out where you claim I said it wasn't an independent agency (agency, mind you, not firm). And I also never said it could be over-ruled. It can simply have its membership removed, its decisions questioned and its charter revoked by congress - unlike a private firm.

Unlike the Supreme Court, the president of the United States cannot appoint anyone he wishes to the Federal Reserve. He is given a list of about 10 to choose from.

The President is under no obligation to follow the recommendations of the list. He is free to reject all candidates.

The GOA does not audit the Federal Reserve. In fact Congressman Ron Paul has introduced legislation that would audit the Federal Reserve, and received bi-partisan support but has always been prevented from a full vot.

The GAO audits the Feds Public funds every year. A private firm audits the Feds balance sheet ever year. What Rep Paul and others would like is a full audit of open market operations, which the Fed has historically avoided due to concerns about counterparties and how they might respond to private financial information being made public.

I have read and studied more about this than any youtube video you can post, and I would offer that I am not the "sorely misinformed" one here.

 

[8537]

You are either misinformed or just wrong. The money that went to fund the Stimulus Act was not raised through the issuance of bonds, but by the monetary policies of the Federal Reserve. The FED has, and since stopped, been printing money out of thin air and buying US bonds.

The Fed did not use QE to fund the stimulus program. In a 3.6T budget with a 1.3T deficit, the money is a bit too fungible to make such an assumption.

You are simply misinformed.

Let me ask you this of the $14,000,000,000,000 national debt is held in US treasury bonds?

Treasury BONDS? I don't know. I suspect it's about 70% or so of the debt.

 

[WillowTree]

Fully liable entities and ownership.

what does this mean?

It means making owners fully liable.

Liable for what?

 

[DiamondDave]

Fair is SUBJECTIVE... and of course those who earn less would readily take payment of their services from someone else, or even direct handouts at the expense of someone else... they think it is FAIR... while others will not think it is FAIR (namely the ones doing the paying)...

The key is EQUAL treatment... not only equal treatment when it benefits you... also not the acceptance of unequal treatment when it benefits you...

Oh... and nothing is stopping Gates nor Buffet nor anyone else from VOLUNTARILY giving the govt more...

Just say it then. You want to see the end of Social Security, Medicare and Unemployment benefits because you view them as unfair. The bottom line is that there are good people out there who use these programs and they are going to get screwed over if they get cut.

Nothing is stopping those 2 from giving the govt more but even if they did then it really wouldn't make a huge difference. Everybody who makes that much should be paying more and then it would make a difference.

I do not want anything eliminated on the subjective grounds of fairness... just as I do not want anything created on the subjective grounds of fairness... I want government out of things it should never have been in, I want complete equal treatment (I.E. flat tax, elimination of the government in the marriage business, etc)....

Government is not your nanny, your mommy, or your allowance giver... nor should it be

What impact the extra giving of Gates or whomever else would have is irrelevant...

Nobody should be paying any higher rate than anyone else.. PERIOD.... again, equal treatment by government.. not the subjective equal treatment championed by the likes of you in the subjective mantra of 'fairness'

 

[kiwiman127]

Well, we sure have a lot of talking points, but more and more real life economists are saying that taxes also must be raised,,,along with cutting spending.
That's what the Simpson-Bowles Commission recommended. Trouble is that the GOP is way too loyal to their benefactors. They are putting their ability to raise money for the party ahead of solving this country's financial mess. (the same goes for the Dems regarding cutting spending).
In order for this country to right it's ship, both parties must make concessions. Everyone must sacrifice, not just those who don't carry any financial weight regarding congresses decision making.
Personally, I think those who are whining about raising taxes along with budget cuts are putting their own self interest ahead of the United States of America.

 

[Steelplate]

Fair is SUBJECTIVE... and of course those who earn less would readily take payment of their services from someone else, or even direct handouts at the expense of someone else... they think it is FAIR... while others will not think it is FAIR (namely the ones doing the paying)...

The key is EQUAL treatment... not only equal treatment when it benefits you... also not the acceptance of unequal treatment when it benefits you...

Oh... and nothing is stopping Gates nor Buffet nor anyone else from VOLUNTARILY giving the govt more...

Just say it then. You want to see the end of Social Security, Medicare and Unemployment benefits because you view them as unfair. The bottom line is that there are good people out there who use these programs and they are going to get screwed over if they get cut.

Nothing is stopping those 2 from giving the govt more but even if they did then it really wouldn't make a huge difference. Everybody who makes that much should be paying more and then it would make a difference.

I do not want anything eliminated on the subjective grounds of fairness... just as I do not want anything created on the subjective grounds of fairness... I want government out of things it should never have been in, I want complete equal treatment (I.E. flat tax, elimination of the government in the marriage business, etc)....

Government is not your nanny, your mommy, or your allowance giver... nor should it be

What impact the extra giving of Gates or whomever else would have is irrelevant...

Nobody should be paying any higher rate than anyone else.. PERIOD.... again, equal treatment by government.. not the subjective equal treatment championed by the likes of you in the subjective mantra of 'fairness'

Yeah.... after the country has been raped by the corporate elite... now you call for a flat tax. Now that they have every damned advantage imaginable, you want things flat. **** that. Make them give the money they stole off the backs of Americans through Lobbying and outsourcing.... then we'll talk about flat taxes.

 

[Jarhead]

Just say it then. You want to see the end of Social Security, Medicare and Unemployment benefits because you view them as unfair. The bottom line is that there are good people out there who use these programs and they are going to get screwed over if they get cut.

Nothing is stopping those 2 from giving the govt more but even if they did then it really wouldn't make a huge difference. Everybody who makes that much should be paying more and then it would make a difference.

I do not want anything eliminated on the subjective grounds of fairness... just as I do not want anything created on the subjective grounds of fairness... I want government out of things it should never have been in, I want complete equal treatment (I.E. flat tax, elimination of the government in the marriage business, etc)....

Government is not your nanny, your mommy, or your allowance giver... nor should it be

What impact the extra giving of Gates or whomever else would have is irrelevant...

Nobody should be paying any higher rate than anyone else.. PERIOD.... again, equal treatment by government.. not the subjective equal treatment championed by the likes of you in the subjective mantra of 'fairness'

Yeah.... after the country has been raped by the corporate elite... now you call for a flat tax. Now that they have every damned advantage imaginable, you want things flat. **** that. Make them give the money they stole off the backs of Americans through Lobbying and outsourcing.... then we'll talk about flat taxes.

Please giove me an example of a company that stole off the backs of Americans.
Just one company.
Thanks.

 

[DiamondDave]

Just say it then. You want to see the end of Social Security, Medicare and Unemployment benefits because you view them as unfair. The bottom line is that there are good people out there who use these programs and they are going to get screwed over if they get cut.

Nothing is stopping those 2 from giving the govt more but even if they did then it really wouldn't make a huge difference. Everybody who makes that much should be paying more and then it would make a difference.

I do not want anything eliminated on the subjective grounds of fairness... just as I do not want anything created on the subjective grounds of fairness... I want government out of things it should never have been in, I want complete equal treatment (I.E. flat tax, elimination of the government in the marriage business, etc)....

Government is not your nanny, your mommy, or your allowance giver... nor should it be

What impact the extra giving of Gates or whomever else would have is irrelevant...

Nobody should be paying any higher rate than anyone else.. PERIOD.... again, equal treatment by government.. not the subjective equal treatment championed by the likes of you in the subjective mantra of 'fairness'

Yeah.... after the country has been raped by the corporate elite... now you call for a flat tax. Now that they have every damned advantage imaginable, you want things flat. **** that. Make them give the money they stole off the backs of Americans through Lobbying and outsourcing.... then we'll talk about flat taxes.

Stole??... please cite the crime, press charges, or something of the sort

You have the freedom to succeed that goes hand in hand with the freedom to fail

You don't get to confiscate, or have confiscated for you for some equalized outcome bullshit

And show what legal or governmental advantage a person with 1MIL has over someone with 1K

 

[Steelplate]

Please giove me an example of a company that stole off the backs of Americans.
Just one company.
Thanks.

well....let's see... Apple and any other cell phone manufacturer... in fact, just about any American electronics Company... Caterpillar.... that's just off the top of my head. I'll do some research and get back to you.

I actually have shit to do. It's my one day off, so other than earlier this morning.. I'll just be checking in.

 

[Steelplate]

Stole??... please cite the crime, press charges, or something of the sort

You have the freedom to succeed that goes hand in hand with the freedom to fail

You don't get to confiscate, or have confiscated for you for some equalized outcome bullshit

And show what legal or governmental advantage a person with 1MIL has over someone with 1K

Just the fact that you actually believe those first two sentences(and the last) speaks volumes about your third.

You still believe in Trickle Down economics, which died a horrible death a long time ago. Yet you continue to believe that there is a Free Market that wants competition.

Why should I bother to try to "Show" you anything? You are a true believer and there is nothing I can "Show" that would sway your opinion.