What good has Obama done for the U.S.A.?

[EasyEJL]

But my question is are they just saying that? It's much easier to say it and talk about how great it is than to make it happen. We can all talk about how we want smaler government, but the truth is it WOULD be painful for a period. To see a smaller unemployment check, to be close to retirement age and see it go up, to get less funding for college, etc. It's very easy to say you would take the cuts in programs. But in the last 30 years the size of the federal government has exploded, and look at the facts. We have had all Presidents but one serve both terms. We have career politicians in Congress. The same Presidents who let the debt explode, the same members of Congress, very little turnover. They certainly aren't supporting small government with their vote.

No, they mean it, and do support small government with their votes. The problem comes from every bill going through confess having tons of addons to buy other votes. And it will be painful for a while, but the longer we put it off, the worse it will be when we are suddenly forced to face it immediately

 

[EasyEJL]

$40,000 a year to feed another person into the prison industrial complex. Cheaper to treat them but you know this country won't go for that. Now we have private prisons to feed.

Now thats a jobs program!

And only $2 for a bullet. Put in a 3 strikes and you are dead policy for all felonies as well as illegal immigration and it would save billions as well as (in the case of deporting or executing illegals) create jobs

 

[Jessep76]

Most of the people I know are willing to see cuts in the programs they get value out of today to ensure that they continue, rather than have them go some unknown length of time forwards and then stop entirely.

Did they say they would rather have their benefits cut over closing loop holes for Exxon and GE?

 

[Rahl]

And only $2 for a bullet. Put in a 3 strikes and you are dead policy for all felonies as well as illegal immigration and it would save billions as well as (in the case of deporting or executing illegals) create jobs

Well if your solution to addiction is to kill someone then I see no sense in discussing anything. Hope none if your family ever goes down that road bro.

We let child Molesters out of prison but 3 strikes rules have junkies in for life. Thats big government in my eyes.

 

[EasyEJL]

Did they say they would rather have their benefits cut over closing loop holes for Exxon and GE?

It's funny how those are considered loopholes, but somehow the person making $25,000 a year and doesn't even pay his full social security 7.5% after all the tax breaks is carrying too much burden.

 

[EasyEJL]

Well if your solution to addiction is to kill someone then I see no sense in discussing anything. Hope none if your family ever goes down that road bro.

We let child Molesters out of prison but 3 strikes rules have junkies in for life. Thats big government in my eyes.

For all felonies. Most drug possession is a misdemeanor or gets plead to misdemeanor anyhow unless its in distribution quantities

 

[seccsi]

No, they mean it, and do support small government with their votes. The problem comes from every bill going through confess having tons of addons to buy other votes. And it will be painful for a while, but the longer we put it off, the worse it will be when we are suddenly forced to face it immediately

I just don't know if I buy a lot of people supporting small government with their votes. It's pretty obvious that since the 80's our leaders have exploded the size of government (well it started before that, but that's just been the time I've been alive). And we have largely put those same leaders back in power (only one President didn't serve both terms, numerous members in Congress serving then and now.) I'm not saying no one supports small government, but clearly the majority does not. I just don't see how else to explain the same Congress members and the same Presidents over and over. It just doesn't make sense (IMO) to say Americans are for small government when Bush 2 got two terms and quite frankly I think Obama will as well.

And your second point is spot on, but we have known it would be painful for a long time and Americans have largely ignored it. Politicians don't want to do the things that will deal with it because they aren't politically popular and will likely cost them their jobs.

 

[EasyEJL]

I just don't know if I buy a lot of people supporting small government with their votes. It's pretty obvious that since the 80's our leaders have exploded the size of government (well it started before that, but that's just been the time I've been alive). And we have largely put those same leaders back in power (only one President didn't serve both terms, numerous members in Congress serving then and now.) I'm not saying no one supports small government, but clearly the majority does not. I just don't see how else to explain the same Congress members and the same Presidents over and over. It just doesn't make sense (IMO) to say Americans are for small government when Bush 2 got two terms and quite frankly I think Obama will as well.

And your second point is spot on, but we have known it would be painful for a long time and Americans have largely ignored it. Politicians don't want to do the things that will deal with it because they aren't politically popular and will likely cost them their jobs.

The issue is that you have the choice of a Republican or Democrat. That the tea party did so well should be proof that people are showing it with their vote.

 

[Rahl]

I just don't know if I buy a lot of people supporting small government with their votes. It's pretty obvious that since the 80's our leaders have exploded the size of government (well it started before that, but that's just been the time I've been alive). And we have largely put those same leaders back in power (only one President didn't serve both terms, numerous members in Congress serving then and now.) I'm not saying no one supports small government, but clearly the majority does not. I just don't see how else to explain the same Congress members and the same Presidents over and over. It just doesn't make sense (IMO) to say Americans are for small government when Bush 2 got two terms and quite frankly I think Obama will as well.

And your second point is spot on, but we have known it would be painful for a long time and Americans have largely ignored it. Politicians don't want to do the things that will deal with it because they aren't politically popular and will likely cost them their jobs.

That won't because the longer they are there the more powerful they become. It's not just about their job it's about WINNING the majority.

 

[seccsi]

The issue is that you have the choice of a Republican or Democrat. That the tea party did so well should be proof that people are showing it with their vote.

Yes the two party system continually kills us. Sadly the tea party movement was dead before it could arise and has been absorbed by the religious right. If the tea party is small government with crazies like Michele Bachmann as a leader then I know longer support small government. These people want to outlaw a woman's right to choose, think you can pray yourself straight, think we should have prayer in schools etc. They despise America as much as they claim Obama does. They want 1950 back here again.

The tea party movement stopped being libertarian a while back. And it was a sad day when it stopped.

 

[Jessep76]

It's funny how those are considered loopholes, but somehow the person making $25,000 a year and doesn't even pay his full social security 7.5% after all the tax breaks is carrying too much burden.

Are you saying someone that makes 25k a year gets a tax break on paying SS?
And are your friends that are willing to see cuts in gov't benefits getting farm subsidies or are they in their 80s on a SS fixed income? I'm just asking because there's probably some people who could handle it more than others. (if you don't mind me asking of course)

 

[Jessep76]

Yes the two party system continually kills us. Sadly the tea party movement was dead before it could arise and has been absorbed by the religious right. If the tea party is small government with crazies like Michele Bachmann as a leader then I know longer support small government. These people want to outlaw a woman's right to choose, think you can pray yourself straight, think we should have prayer in schools etc. They despise America as much as they claim Obama does. They want 1950 back here again.

The tea party movement stopped being libertarian a while back. And it was a sad day when it stopped.

Two party system is indeed hurting us. Which is why I'm moving to Vermont

 

[Rahl]

For all felonies. Most drug possession is a misdemeanor or gets plead to misdemeanor anyhow unless its in distribution quantities

Distribution packaged makes it a felony. Possession in a school zone is a felony offense. The drug war us a crime against the people. So you want small government but believe they should be able to tell you what to put into your own body? Not very libertarian.

I'm all for executing murderers and rapist but I don't trust the government to decide what a felony offense should be. Especially if you're putting a death sentence on it.

 

[seccsi]

Distribution packaged makes it a felony. Possession in a school zone is a felony offense. The drug war us a crime against the people. So you want small government but believe they should be able to tell you what to put into your own body? Not very libertarian.

I'm all for executing murderers and rapist but I don't trust the government to decide what a felony offense should be. Especially if you're putting a death sentence on it.

Not to mention our justice system (fresh off letting Casey Anthony off) putting a lot of people to death should be enough to say no.

And if you aren't still against the absurdity of the death penalty the case of Dewey Bozella out to make you reconsider. Innocent people go to jail as well. And you can't have a retrial after that bullet goes through you.

Invalid Link Removed

 

[Rahl]

Not to mention our justice system (fresh off letting Casey Anthony off) putting a lot of people to death should be enough to say no.

And if you aren't still against the absurdity of the death penalty the case of Dewey Bozella out to make you reconsider. Innocent people go to jail as well. And you can't have a retrial after that bullet goes through you.

Invalid Link Removed

I actually do support the death penalty. Just not the expansion of it as easy suggested.

This is a place Obama has seriously come up short. The DEA has pursued even more enforcement against state legalized medical marijuana users than Bush did.

 

[seccsi]

I actually do support the death penalty. Just not the expansion of it as easy suggested.

This is a place Obama has seriously come up short. The DEA has pursued even more enforcement against state legalized medical marijuana users than Bush did.

While I think the death penalty is racist argument is not true, I think the worst possible thing a government can do is put an innocent man to death for something he did not do. Add in the fact that most criminologists don't think the death penalty deters criminals, and the higher cost for putting someone to death vs. life in prison and I can't support the death penalty.

 

[EasyEJL]

Are you saying someone that makes 25k a year gets a tax break on paying SS?
And are your friends that are willing to see cuts in gov't benefits getting farm subsidies or are they in their 80s on a SS fixed income? I'm just asking because there's probably some people who could handle it more than others. (if you don't mind me asking of course)

Yep, they get a break on it because between all the tax breaks and reliefs on their federal tax they receive a credit rather than pay anything which reduces what they pay into SS.

and nope, no farm subsidy people or over 80

 

[EasyEJL]

Distribution packaged makes it a felony. Possession in a school zone is a felony offense. The drug war us a crime against the people. So you want small government but believe they should be able to tell you what to put into your own body? Not very libertarian.

I'm all for executing murderers and rapist but I don't trust the government to decide what a felony offense should be. Especially if you're putting a death sentence on it.

I think drug possession crimes should be dropped entirely, but don't mind hard time for distribution. Grow or make your own and do what you want.

 

[EasyEJL]

Not to mention our justice system (fresh off letting Casey Anthony off) putting a lot of people to death should be enough to say no.

And if you aren't still against the absurdity of the death penalty the case of Dewey Bozella out to make you reconsider. Innocent people go to jail as well. And you can't have a retrial after that bullet goes through you.

Invalid Link Removed

The Casey Anthony case should prove quite the reverse to you, just how much evidence you'd need to convict someone of a felony even once, much less 3 times.

 

[seccsi]

The Casey Anthony case should prove quite the reverse to you, just how much evidence you'd need to convict someone of a felony even once, much less 3 times.

Well I thought she was guilty, but admittedly didn't follow it really close. Still doesn't change the fact that we have innocent people in jail and have put innocent people to death before. The system isn't perfect and never will be, so we really shouldn't increase the amount of people the state puts to death in my opinion.

But I gotta let this thread go for now. I've said my pieces

 

[Rahl]

I think drug possession crimes should be dropped entirely, but don't mind hard time for distribution. Grow or make your own and do what you want.

If you legalize possession without allowing for a legal form of distribution you leave the real criminal element in tact with full incentive to murder etc. Just look at what our drug policy has done to Mexico. Legal possession is a good first step but ultimately you still have prohibition in place. And we all know how that worked.

 

[EasyEJL]

If you legalize possession without allowing for a legal form of distribution you leave the real criminal element in tact with full incentive to murder etc. Just look at what our drug policy has done to Mexico. Legal possession is a good first step but ultimately you still have prohibition in place. And we all know how that worked.

No, you can license sales, and tax it as well. I don't see a problem with that either really, so long as we collect money on it's sale just like alcohol or tobacco who cares ?

But I'm firmly for more death penalties and less appeal time.

 

[Rahl]

No, you can license sales, and tax it as well. I don't see a problem with that either really, so long as we collect money on it's sale just like alcohol or tobacco who cares ?

But I'm firmly for more death penalties and less appeal time.

We can agree on most of that. I don't really think we need more death penalties per say. We rarely kill those convicted now. I will say, it's crazy that it cost so much to put someone to death. Bring back the rope.

 

[Jessep76]

Yep, they get a break on it because between all the tax breaks and reliefs on their federal tax they receive a credit rather than pay anything which reduces what they pay into SS.

and nope, no farm subsidy people or over 80

So its worse for people who live on 25k a year to get a tax break rather than a corporation like GE who made 5.1 billion? I'm not gonna argue that tax benefits all around aren't draining on the economy but some poor fellow who works at walmart that got $1000 tax break last year because he made 25k is hardly even comparable to a 3.2 billion tax credit. I'm for cutting the walmart guy's tax break if Oil companies or General Electric have to give up theirs. We don't have to raise any tax, just everyone pay what they owe.

Ok so they don't get subsidies for farming and they're not on social security. My point is that there's a number of situations that would allow one person to get benefits from the govornment and some might cut back on eating out while other Americans will cut back on blood thinner medications, or have to put off getting that mastectomy, pain medications, maybe food for the week or possibly rent.

 

[EasyEJL]

So its worse for people who live on 25k a year to get a tax break rather than a corporation like GE who made 5.1 billion? I'm not gonna argue that tax benefits all around aren't draining on the economy but some poor fellow who works at walmart that got $1000 tax break last year because he made 25k is hardly even comparable to a 3.2 billion tax credit. I'm for cutting the walmart guy's tax break if Oil companies or General Electric have to give up theirs. We don't have to raise any tax, just everyone pay what they owe.

Ok so they don't get subsidies for farming and they're not on social security. My point is that there's a number of situations that would allow one person to get benefits from the govornment and some might cut back on eating out while other Americans will cut back on blood thinner medications, or have to put off getting that mastectomy, pain medications, maybe food for the week or possibly rent.

That person that gets the $1000 tax break collects more from the government than he puts in. The large tax breaks corporations get sound big as a number but relative to what they pay, or relative to what they collect from the government it's peanuts. You are just falling prey to the same lame emotional arguments. Everyone should pay a flat percent of their income, the vast majority of the tax burden is already carried by the high income end and corporations. The fact that the Walmart employee struggles at his income is because he has no useful skills, no education, and has an expectation of a lifestyle greater than his skill and education deserves. That's not the fault of corporations, or people with skills and education.

 

[EasyEJL]

We can agree on most of that. I don't really think we need more death penalties per say. We rarely kill those convicted now. I will say, it's crazy that it cost so much to put someone to death. Bring back the rope.

I dunno, if you look at the level of repeat offenders for violent crimes, I think we could use more and faster death penalties. I was held up at gunpoint by a man doing probation concurrently for 12 prior armed robbery convictions. I don't know why he was still alive, much less walking the streets.

 

[Rahl]

I dunno, if you look at the level of repeat offenders for violent crimes, I think we could use more and faster death penalties. I was held up at gunpoint by a man doing probation concurrently for 12 prior armed robbery convictions. I don't know why he was still alive, much less walking the streets.

I can see that. Very few prisoners rehabilitate. I think that's a sentencing issue though. He shouldn't be out.

Now if he's an addict there's another reason for it. They never treated the addiction. Just like anyone whose had a problem with alcohol a drug addict always an addict. They get out they get back on. That's why it's more cost effective to treat than incarcerate.

A guy like that though might just be a non user lost cause. I'm that case judges should have the leeway to step up the punishment.

A firm supporter of the death penalty. I just don't see applying it except in the most needed cases.

 

[Jessep76]

That person that gets the $1000 tax break collects more from the government than he puts in. The large tax breaks corporations get sound big as a number but relative to what they pay, or relative to what they collect from the government it's peanuts. You are just falling prey to the same lame emotional arguments. Everyone should pay a flat percent of their income, the vast majority of the tax burden is already carried by the high income end and corporations. The fact that the Walmart employee struggles at his income is because he has no useful skills, no education, and has an expectation of a lifestyle greater than his skill and education deserves. That's not the fault of corporations, or people with skills and education.

I'm just trying to be clear on your previous comment. I mentioned tax loopholes and you brought up the guy making 25k paying no taxes so I thought maybe your point was they were the bigger offenders. " Everyone should pay a flat percent of their income" <---- I'm 100% with you. The "relative to what they pay, or relative to what they collect from the government it's peanuts" is where I'm confused again. Maybe both of us are over generalizing a bit. Some big corps do pay a lot and some don't pay a dollar. To me its not peanuts if you pay 0 in taxes when you were supposed to pay over 3 billion. I totally agree that the walmart guy (who may be uneducated and lacking in skills or he may live in an area where his master's degree doesn't afford him a better job in a weakening economy) has a responsibility to his own share like the rest of us. Ultimately the guy at walmart will most likely pay every dime next year because unlike big corporations, Joe Walmart doesn't have a lobyist in Washington.

Not to be confused with the shareholders of walmart who I'm sure actually do have lobyists

 

[seccsi]

I'm just trying to be clear on your previous comment. I mentioned tax loopholes and you brought up the guy making 25k paying no taxes so I thought maybe your point was they were the bigger offenders. " Everyone should pay a flat percent of their income" <---- I'm 100% with you. The "relative to what they pay, or relative to what they collect from the government it's peanuts" is where I'm confused again. Maybe both of us are over generalizing a bit. Some big corps do pay a lot and some don't pay a dollar. To me its not peanuts if you pay 0 in taxes when you were supposed to pay over 3 billion. I totally agree that the walmart guy (who may be uneducated and lacking in skills or he may live in an area where his master's degree doesn't afford him a better job in a weakening economy) has a responsibility to his own share like the rest of us. Ultimately the guy at walmart will most likely pay every dime next year because unlike big corporations, Joe Walmart doesn't have a lobyist in Washington.

Not to be confused with the shareholders of walmart who I'm sure actually do have lobyists

The corporations that don't pay taxes have designed the loopholes through lobbying and corruption in politics. It's a pretty slick system they have going. When you're big enough to make or change the rules people shouldn't be surprised when they don't effect the person with that power.

 

[Jessep76]

The corporations that don't pay taxes have designed the loopholes through lobbying and corruption in politics. It's a pretty slick system they have going. When you're big enough to make or change the rules people shouldn't be surprised when they don't effect the person with that power.

I just don't understand why Obama is more worried about a default that would have had a "devastating effect on our economy", when the spending cuts will likely hurt us just as much. I'm certainly not an economist, so I don't know to what level of degree we'd be fckd if we didn't raise the debt ceiling, but an immediate 1 trillion in cuts doesn't sound like fun either. If tea partiers wanted to get rid of NPR they could have done that without kicking our disabled grandparents out of their homes.

 

[EasyEJL]

I just don't understand why Obama is more worried about a default that would have had a "devastating effect on our economy", when the spending cuts will likely hurt us just as much. I'm certainly not an economist, so I don't know to what level of degree we'd be fckd if we didn't raise the debt ceiling, but an immediate 1 trillion in cuts doesn't sound like fun either. If tea partiers wanted to get rid of NPR they could have done that without kicking our disabled grandparents out of their homes.

But there isn't a $1 trillion in cuts immediately, you are hearing 2 separate things. The debt ceiling this year is being raised by 2.5 trillion in exchange for cuts over the next 10 years, much of which phase in over time. The real cuts talked about for this year are under $200 billion, which is less than we pay on interest on the debt now. And most of the "cuts" aren't cuts vs what we spend today but cuts vs how much they expected spending to grow. Freezing all spending at 2008 level for 4 years would have more effect.

 

[EasyEJL]

I'm just trying to be clear on your previous comment. I mentioned tax loopholes and you brought up the guy making 25k paying no taxes so I thought maybe your point was they were the bigger offenders. " Everyone should pay a flat percent of their income" <---- I'm 100% with you. The "relative to what they pay, or relative to what they collect from the government it's peanuts" is where I'm confused again. Maybe both of us are over generalizing a bit. Some big corps do pay a lot and some don't pay a dollar. To me its not peanuts if you pay 0 in taxes when you were supposed to pay over 3 billion. I totally agree that the walmart guy (who may be uneducated and lacking in skills or he may live in an area where his master's degree doesn't afford him a better job in a weakening economy) has a responsibility to his own share like the rest of us. Ultimately the guy at walmart will most likely pay every dime next year because unlike big corporations, Joe Walmart doesn't have a lobyist in Washington.

Not to be confused with the shareholders of walmart who I'm sure actually do have lobyists

But again, that Guy at Walmart wont even pay in his 7.5% to social security, a forced retirement savings plan which he will expect to collect from. Even if there are some corporations that pay no taxes, they also have no expectations of collecting money from the government or using government services

 

[ax1]

But there isn't a $1 trillion in cuts immediately,

wars? wwII military bases? yeah I know they wont do whats right, they will just keep adding wars. Cut 1 trillion tomorrow we expand 2 trillion more in wars then screw vets out of health care.

 

[Jessep76]

But there isn't a $1 trillion in cuts immediately, you are hearing 2 separate things. The debt ceiling this year is being raised by 2.5 trillion in exchange for cuts over the next 10 years, much of which phase in over time. The real cuts talked about for this year are under $200 billion, which is less than we pay on interest on the debt now. And most of the "cuts" aren't cuts vs what we spend today but cuts vs how much they expected spending to grow. Freezing all spending at 2008 level for 4 years would have more effect.

What it (yahoo) stated in the news was the new proposal would cut 3.4 trillion over a decade with 1 trillion being cut immediately. Oddly enough going back to look for the statement it appears they've already changed numbers lol. I most certainly didn't see only 200 bil in immediate cuts, but I'm optomistic that you're right.

 

[ax1]

What it (yahoo) stated in the news was the new proposal would cut 3.4 trillion over a decade with 1 trillion being cut immediately. Oddly enough going back to look for the statement it appears they've already changed numbers lol. I most certainly didn't see only 200 bil in immediate cuts, but I'm optomistic that you're right.

That aint going to do crap unless you start changing policy. I dont care if they cut 3.4 trillion today, its not going to solve anything.

 

[Jessep76]

That aint going to do crap unless you start changing policy. I dont care if they cut 3.4 trillion today, its not going to solve anything.

Yes its not going to do much in the way of progress, but I'm more concerned with damage control at this point. Doing crap is exactly my point. I'm wondering how much of the lower class is going to be taking more of the burden than the domestic and multinational corporations.

 

[ax1]

Yes its not going to do much in the way of progress, but I'm more concerned with damage control at this point. Doing crap is exactly my point. I'm wondering how much of the lower class is going to be taking more of the burden than the domestic and multinational corporations.

Nobody wants the government to do crap, I certainly dont. What they are doing is adding cover up a pimple with makeup, not treating it with benzoil peroxide, lol

 

[Jessep76]

Nobody wants the government to do crap, I certainly dont. What they are doing is adding cover up a pimple with makeup, not treating it with benzoil peroxide, lol

Nice analogy Ok npr just reiterated an immediate 1 trillion. Something about defense might have been in there somewhere, but might not all be benefits for people. I'm sure we'll get all the low down today and tomorrow.

 

[EasyEJL]

What it (yahoo) stated in the news was the new proposal would cut 3.4 trillion over a decade with 1 trillion being cut immediately. Oddly enough going back to look for the statement it appears they've already changed numbers lol. I most certainly didn't see only 200 bil in immediate cuts, but I'm optomistic that you're right.

even so, its basically stated as cuts vs the projected budget for next year, which was higher than the budget this year. So for many areas it may be not cut at all, just a smaller rise which is a joke. Its just like with statistics, you can make it sound like anything you want depending on what you start with for assumptions. If the current federal pension layout called for going from 900 billion this year to 980 billion next year then holding next year to 930 billion is a 50 billion "cut" to them.

Yes its not going to do much in the way of progress, but I'm more concerned with damage control at this point. Doing crap is exactly my point. I'm wondering how much of the lower class is going to be taking more of the burden than the domestic and multinational corporations.

None, the lower class already doesn't pay its fair share

 

[Rahl]

even so, its basically stated as cuts vs the projected budget for next year, which was higher than the budget this year. So for many areas it may be not cut at all, just a smaller rise which is a joke. Its just like with statistics, you can make it sound like anything you want depending on what you start with for assumptions. If the current federal pension layout called for going from 900 billion this year to 980 billion next year then holding next year to 930 billion is a 50 billion "cut" to them.

None, the lower class already doesn't pay its fair share

No they don't. But the middle class is beginning to take on More of the burden.

You're right about not raising being a cut in Washington speak too. Lol. Wish that worked in reality.

 

[ax1]

Donald Rumsfeld on 9/10/2001 announced to the public that they lost 2.3 trillion dollars. What happened to that?

If we need a couple trillion why dont we start putting people responsible for the missing 2.3 trillion dolllars on the stand and start focusing on real issues and putting some crooks away.

 

[ax1]

At the same time then we can water board Ben Bernanke (Thats what Dick Cheney would do when he want information right?) and find out where another 2.3 trillion dollars that we have no idea where it went. That right along with my previous post is 4.6 trillion dollars. This is just a start.

Senator Sanders asks Bernanke WHERE IS THE MONEY!!!

 

[EasyEJL]

No they don't. But the middle class is beginning to take on More of the burden.

Once I did the math, realizing that I make 2x as much as you (generically) but pay 4-5x as much in tax dollars as you really pisses me off

 

[EasyEJL]

At the same time then we can water board Ben Bernanke (Thats what Dick Cheney would do when he want information right?) and find out where another 2.3 trillion dollars that we have no idea where it went. That right along with my previous post is 4.6 trillion dollars. This is just a start.

Senator Sanders asks Bernanke WHERE IS THE MONEY!!!

How about asking why the fed has put an extra $700 billion in circulation in the last year and a half with nobody noticing? (and no inflation from raising the monetary base by 30% amazingly)

 

[ax1]

How about asking why the fed has put an extra $700 billion in circulation in the last year and a half with nobody noticing? (and no inflation from raising the monetary base by 30% amazingly)

Thats exactly what people need to understand...the debate should be many other bigger issues, simple cutting a trillion here a trillion there is meaningless.

The Fed is one thing that Thomas Jefferson warned us about.

Actually Thomas posted this quote on another board the other day. Why is it relevent? The Fed is a private bank.

I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs.

 

[EasyEJL]

Thats exactly what people need to understand...the debate should be many other bigger issues, simple cutting a trillion here a trillion there is meaningless.

The Fed is one thing that Thomas Jefferson warned us about.

Actually Thomas posted this quote on another board the other day. Why is it relevent? The Fed is a private bank.

Its just an amazing sign of how bad the rest of the world is doing that we could print that much more with no inflation.

Comically, that was one economist's answer if congress couldn't come to a decision to raise the debt ceiling, Obama could just order the fed to print $2 trillion in bills.

 

[EasyEJL]

[video=youtube;44igxBBtXpA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44igxBBtXpA[/video]

 

[seccsi]

Ha, couldn't help but see one of my favorite George Carlin bits at the bottom of that youtube link Easy. Greatest comedian ever!

[video=youtube;xIraCchPDhk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIraCchPDhk&feature=pl ayer_embedded#at=175[/video]

(Though I do vote )

 

[Jessep76]

[video=youtube;O1uQVR2Xl3c]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1uQVR2Xl3c[/video]

 

[omni]

I recently had to do some work in a "privately owned" mental hospital funded by the government. There are some people there for rehab and others that will never be out on the streets. I also know someone who adopted 4 very retarded children and has had them for over 15 years. The government has paid her OVER 250k per year tax free. That doesn't include the free medical benefits and meds like Ritalin. They pay for a drug to give them at night so they're all asleep by 6.00pm. The kids also go to a psychiatrist once a week for counseling. One counselor convinced one of the kids that he should have been born a girl and is going through gender counseling to prepare him for Hormone therapy and to decide when/if there going to give him a sex change operation. Would anyone here do this to a kid with Down Syndrome? The more messed up a kid is, the more the government pays. Look at how much money in care, psychiatry and drugs the Government is spending on this one kid who will never contribute anything to society! It sounds cruel, but cut out all this spending for this program. I don't like the "idea" of abortion, or the way lepers were treated but, most of these kids and the people in mental hospitals shouldn't be here. I think the lives they live are cruel to watch. Ever see a baby grow up in a bed with tubes all over? Its a terrible way to be kept alive and worse when its done to collect a check.