Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
...find politicians who support your ways and have a backbone to carry out the radical idea of taking away social security and medicare. I will sit back and watch the good show.
?? Why are you concerned with this? So far, I haven't need to demand to change those policies as #1 there is not popular support for that change and #2 although I have my doubts we can continue it to when I retire, it hasn't reached 'critical mass' either. You worry about your politics - I manage mine just fine without your advice, thank you.
Then instead of making excuses and blaming others, find politicians who support your ways and have a backbone to carry out the radical idea of taking away social security and medicare. I will sit back and watch the good show.
Who is making excuses or assigning blame here? I'm merely stating inevitabilities. Why do you feel the need to tell me what I should be doing? Worry about yourself, not me, k?
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost
No, that is why we need to get our head out of the sand and start working to reform what is missing. But, selling out to corporate interests is easier, as is sticking to ideologies.
I'm way beyond starting to question your reading comprehension abilities at this point. Try to follow the conversation. What's missing is $90 trillion we do not have. What on Earth does any of this have to do with corporate interests?
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost
To repeat self... talk less, walk more. Ask your congressmen and/or presidential candidate(s) to act along the lines.
Again, follow along please. You asked why someone would be opposed to expanding social security benefits to family, I gave you the answer why, and now you're blabbing about talking and walking why?
Since 1935, and the socialist revolution, the United Socialist States of America have been incrementally transforming into the People's Democratic Socialist Republic of America.
The "Socialist Safety Net" is an illusion, peddled to those who believe that "taxing the rich" for the benefit of the poor, is going to make everyone 'rich'. It's not.
Americans have been victims of the world's greatest propaganda machine, and have been thoroughly indoctrinated to be ignorant of their own history, law, and philosophical principles that founded this nation in 1776.
The partisan political parties, are but rivals of the same collectivist wing - seeking to expand the power of government at the expense of freedom and liberty.
Virginia Constitution, 1776
SEC. 6. That elections of members to serve as representatives of the people, in assembly, ought to be free; and that all men, having sufficient evidence of permanent common interest with, and attachment to, the community, have the right of suffrage, and cannot be taxed or deprived of their property for public uses, without their own consent, or that of their representatives so elected, nor bound by any law to which they have not, in like manner, assembled, for the public good.
All men ... cannot be taxed without their own consent.
All men ... cannot be deprived of their property for public uses without their own consent.
All men ... cannot be bound by any law that is not for the public good.
What changed?
In 1933, the Congress went bankrupt, and was re-organized to prosecute the bankruptcy for the benefit of the creditor.
How did it change?
In 1935, Americans were tricked into enrolling into national socialism (aka Social Security Act / FICA). They were told that this "entitlement" was not charity, but the law says otherwise. If you inquire with the Congressional Research Service, they admit that entitlements are synonymous with charity from the public treasury, and they are at the discretion of Congress. You have NO RIGHT TO THEM AT ALL.
Why was it necessary?
The Federal Reserve note (dollar bill) was repudiated in 1933. Congress would no longer redeem them with constitutional money. But thanks to FICA, every enumerated "contributor" was equally liable for paying the public debt. Thus making each FRN into 'legal tender' for debts to the public (government) and private (numbered masses).
Since March 9, 1933, the United States has been in a state of declared national emergency. In fact, there are now in effect four presidentially-proclaimed states of national emergency: In addition to the national emergency declared by President Roosevelt in 1933, there are also the national emergency proclaimed by President Truman on December 16, 1950, during the Korean conflict, and the states of national emergency declared by President Nixon on March 23, 1970, and August 15, 1971. These proclamations give force to 470 provisions of Federal law. These hundreds of statutes delegate to the President extraordinary powers, ordinarily exercised by the Congress, which affect the lives of American citizens in a host of all-encompassing manners. This vast range of powers, taken together, confer enough authority to rule the country without reference to normal Constitutional processes. Under the powers delegated by these statutes, the President may: seize property; organize and control the means of production; seize commodities; assign military forces abroad; institute martial law; seize and control all transportation and communication; regulate the operation of private enterprise; restrict travel; and, in a plethora of particular ways, control the lives of all American citizens.
A majority of the people of the United States have lived all of their lives under emergency rule. For 40 years**, freedoms and governmental procedures guaranteed by the Constitution have, in varying degrees, been abridged by laws brought into force by states of national emergency.
[**1933-1973]
It's about time SOMEONE did something about the impossible to pay public debt, and end this EMERGENCY excrement.
Oh, right, the 14th amendment forbids questioning the validity of the debt.
[head smack]
Voters may say that they oppose big government, but the programs that actually dominate federal spending — Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security — are very popular. So how can the public be persuaded to accept large spending cuts?
The conservative answer, which evolved in the late 1970s, would be dubbed "starving the beast" during the Reagan years. The idea — propounded by many members of the conservative intelligentsia, from Alan Greenspan to Irving Kristol — was basically that sympathetic politicians should engage in a game of bait-and-switch. Rather than proposing unpopular spending cuts, Republicans would push through popular tax cuts, with the deliberate intention of worsening the government's fiscal position. Spending cuts could then be sold as a necessity rather than a choice, the only way to eliminate an unsustainable budget deficit.
The only times Republicans try to block government spending is when they are not in control of governemnt. How do citizens continue to believe their rhetoric when their deeds have consistently been the opposite of that rhetoric for many, many years?
Imagine if the Republicans hadn't squandered the Clinton balanced budgets when they had control in 2000-2006. When this Great Recession hit, we'd be in such better position fiscally to reinvigorate this economy.
Let's see, there Art. That is some pretty creative recreationist history. Here is the sad news- there was no budget "surplus" in the Clinton years. That was estimated and never came to fruition.
EVERY PRESIDENT since FDR has added to the national debt. EVERY PARTY has added to the debt.
If one wants to throw a percentage blame, the increase in the debt over the last three years (DEMOCRATIC SENATE AND CONGRESS) has been the largest in the history of the US.
The bottom line- we're broke. Now is the time to markedly cut federal spending and stop the insane bleeding of the nation. Ironically, now is exactly when Obama throws a jobs bill and a health care bill on the back of a nation already buckling under debt. CUT SPENDING!!! If you want "stimulus", cut taxes!
The bottom line- we're broke. Now is the time to markedly cut federal spending and stop the insane bleeding of the nation. Ironically, now is exactly when Obama throws a jobs bill and a health care bill on the back of a nation already buckling under debt. CUT SPENDING!!! If you want "stimulus", cut taxes!
In 1922 the top rate dropped from 73% to 56% Then in 1924 it dropped from 46% to 25%. What happened after the tax cuts was the top tax bracket people invested the “new” income they had.
They ran out of good quality investments. So they made lower quality investments. And the total debt in the US blew a credit bubble. This reached a peek in the 1930's and then crashed. Total debt was going up in the great depression for about 3~4 years. Then it popped.
Fast forward to 1981 the top tax rate went from 70% to 50% Then in 1987 it dropped from 50% to 38.5% then in 1988 28%. Then it moved back up a bit. Take a look at the total debt in America. This graph doesn't show it but we are at 350% of GDP. Cutting the top tax rate causes debt bubbles.
We are looking at the popping of the debt bubble. What will do it is the collapse of the international banking system.
“The bottom line- we're broke. Now is the time to markedly cut federal spending and stop the insane bleeding of the nation.”
Yes I agree with you there but unless you replace the government spending with something else then we loose.
While American politicians and intellectuals have not reached the depths of tyrants such as Lenin, Stalin, Mao and Hitler, they share a common vision. Tyrants denounce free markets and voluntary exchange. They are the chief supporters of reduced private property rights, reduced rights to profits, and they are anti-competition and pro-monopoly. They are pro-control and coercion, by the state. These Americans who run Washington, and their intellectual supporters, believe they have superior wisdom and greater intelligence than the masses. They believe they have been ordained to forcibly impose that wisdom on the rest of us. Like any other tyrant, they have what they consider good reasons for restricting the freedom of others. A tyrant's primary agenda calls for the elimination or attenuation of the market. Why? Markets imply voluntary exchange and tyrants do trust that people behaving voluntarily will do what the tyrant thinks they should do. Therefore, they seek to replace the market with economic planning and regulation, which is little more than the forcible superseding of other people's plans by the powerful elite.
I call what went on in Florida "stealing the election"
Gore attempting to get select, cherry-picked counties recounted while excluding others was the only attempt to steal the election.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
