Frankly Im scared as hell for this country

What you say sounds Good
But Unfortunately many politicians adapt positions according to what will get them unelected

There was a man who for 5 years was president of the union For his industry
And lead a Nationwide strike

Supported and campaigned for Roosevelt and the new deal
campaigned for Harry Truman
When he said he was going to run for the senate he went to the democratic convention
They ignored him and did not call on him to speak
Two months later he became a conservative republican
I'm talking about Ronald Reagan

Many politicians base their position on what they can win with
So a third party Would be of little help

 

What a load of crap the Republican party is feeding you nowadays.

You should be, your party has idiots like Ted Cruz, Paul Ryan, and I bet even bully Christie will throw his name into the ring, all wanting to be President. That would be the end of this country.

Yeah, and most of that debt was acquired by the idiot president George W Bush with his two worthless wars, his tax break for the rich and famous, so thank God that we didn't elect a Republican in 2008 or 2012, and hopefully never again......

 

Don't lose hope.

I am curious: What was the national debt several years before Obama entered office compared to now? I am speaking of debt that directly resulted from before he entered office compared to now.

 

There is more actual difference between Pepsi and Coke than there is between Republicans and Democrats.
If either party had 100% rule, we would still continue on 99% of the same course we're on.

We are not flying; we're falling. A little left or a little right, at this point, will have absolutely no affect upon what seems to be coming up.

 

Do you know why Tea Partiers and conservatives are against higher taxes??? Because we're the ones paying them. Of course welfare recipients, liberal college kids, etc don't care about higher taxes.

Also, if your wife has a spending addiction, and runs up astronomical credit card debt, is your 'solution' to get another job so she can continue spending at will, or do you cut up the (*)(*)(*)(*)ing card and start paying down the debt?

Why are the most simple concepts completely lost on liberals. It's absolutely astonishing.

 

Congress already has that authority under the US Constitution.

 

The left will never admit this as the gleefully pass the new Internet sales tax that ensures amazon will be crushing all new Internet retail start ups who can't comply with the 9600 tax district jurisdictions.

Or give unprecedented stacks of cash to Wall Street.

 

Don't be too scared. Insulate yourself - don't keep many US dollars. Invest your money.

 

Then why has the ole great one that we worship has stated the the deficit is immoral to pass this on the our children? He haas said in many videos how bad the deficit is. Talked many times about his main goal is to bring it down. Why doesn't he know your little secret?

 

I assume, much like his stance on gay marriage, he has 'evolved'

 

Fixed for accuracy Cap'in

 

Or lied some may say. Just depends on if he is pushing your agenda.
So it's ok I can tell my kids not to worry they won't have to pay a dime of this and won't be tax anymore to pay for it. Good thanks.

 

So why am I paying taxes on a debt we don't have to pay? So your logic would be not to pay even the interest on this debt. Why would we? We have no intent to even pay it off.

 

Can't wait to Hillary run on not paying our debt. She can use her favorite line. WHAT DOES IT MATTER?

 

That is funny because it is the Republicans and Bankers that were against requiring the spouse to use her income for the card; they have repeatedly been against requiring ability to pay and any laws to prevent too high a debt.

2004 Democratic Platform:

"Average family debt is higher than ever. And as they lose the struggle to make ends meet, one out of every seven middle class families may be bankrupt by the end of the decade...over time, fiscal discipline saves families thousands of dollars on their mortgages and credit cards.”

Please feel free to explain how federal fiscal discipline prevents too high of a debt, or is it just for bailouts?

“You have probably caught that Visa credit card commercial in which a wily wife hides her many shopping sprees under the bed and up in the attic, all out of sight from her clueless husband.
The punch line is that she could have won all that stuff she rung up on the plastic. But the reality behind such behavior is hardly a laughing matter.” (Rene a. Guzman, San Antonio Express-News Jan. 12, 2005 12:00 AM)


Neither Feeney or Kosmas responded to this:

"No creditor shall issue debt to any household which could exceed a 36% debt to income ratio, without the written knowledge and consent of both spouses or domestic partners in the household and each and every creditor the household already owes."

The replacement for Kosmas, the Tea Party, said debt in a marriage is a state matter. So any laws to prevent the following FED (too little too late) reaction are illegal, as one Tea Party put it, “The FED does not set DTI.”

"Your debt-to-income ratio
36% or less: This is a healthy debt load to carry for most people.

37%-42%: Not bad, but start paring debt now before you get in real trouble.

43%-49%: Financial difficulties are probably imminent unless you take immediate action.

50% or more: Get professional help to aggressively reduce debt.

Source: Gerri Detweiler, author of The Ultimate Credit Handbook"
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/biztech/tools/modebtratio.htm

"BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM DivisIoN OF BANKING SUPERVISION AND REGULATION Date: September 30, 2005:"
"Another parameter that could be combined with LTV ratios to determine capital requirements might be a capacity measure such as a debt-to-income ratio." http://www.federalreserve.gov/BOARDDOCS/PRESS/BCREG/2005/20051006/Basel1Amemo.pdf

"The Charles Schwab Corporation ("Schwab,,)l appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking ("ANPR") issued by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and the Office of Thrift Supervision (together, the "Agencies") regarding proposed revisions to the Agencies' existing domestic risk-based capital rules...

...P. 14 Another parameter that could be combined with LTV ratios to determine capital requirements might be a capacity measure such as a debt-to-income (DTI) ratio. The Agencies seek comment on (1) the use of an assessment mechanism based on LTV ratios in combination with credit assessments, debt-to-income ratios, or other relevant measures of credit quality; (2) the impact of the use of credit scores on the availability of credit orprices for lower income borrowers, and (3) whether LTVs and other measures of credit worthiness should be updated annually or quarterly and how theseparameters might be updated to accurately reflect the changing risk of a mortgage loan as it matures and asproperty values and borrower's credit assessmentsfluctuate. While we do support the use of combining LTV and industry standard FICO type credit scores in a risk-weighted capital guideline, as noted above, we do not support the inclusion of a capacity measure such as debt-to-income ratio (DTI). Our concern regarding the inclusion of such a measure is two-fold: (1) DTI is a much more subjective measurement than LTV or FICO score, and is not consistently calculated and applied by all lenders. Different lenders will calculate both income and debts using various guidelines. Additionally, some lenders will base DTI calculations only on verified income, while others may rely on stated income. There is too much variability in how this measurement is calculated and applied for it to be a meaningful guide to risk-based capital guidelines. And, (2) statistics have shown that DTI is a much less robust predictor of probability of default, or loss given default, than FICO scores and LTVs.

We do not believe that the use of credit scores in the risk-based capital guidelines will have a negative impact on the availability or price of credit to lower income borrowers. While the cost of capital can generally affect loan availability and price, we do not believe that applicant income is necessarily correlated with credit score. Many applicants with lower incomes have acceptable credit scores, while many applicants with high incomes have unacceptable credit scores. Banks are motivated to grant loans to generate revenue and profit, and most banks have very progressive mortgage programs for lower-income and fIrst-time homebuyers. The Community Reinvestment Act provides additional motivation for banks to reach out to meet the credit needs of the low-to-moderate income borrowers in their assessment areas" (January 17,2006, http://files.ots.treas.gov/comments/3173270d-dbd0-4b64-b398-487753ad9f27.pdf )

"Fed to discuss max 50% debt-to-income ratio for borrowers, prohibition on 'stated-income' loans to subprime borrowers, and other new rules" (May 29th, 2007, 3:38 pm) http://mortgage.freedomblogging.com...ns-to-subprime-borrowers-and-other-new-rules/

Now that was 50% front ratio and not including back ratio. The Democrats had to pass a law before the FED could require the spouse, those over 21, to have the ability pay; the sponsors of the law then joined with bankers and opposed the FED action, and their own law, because they claimed it would hurt an abused spouse who wanted to run up a debt on her husband’s income she couldn’t pay and prevent her from being able to leave the abusive relationship. Go look it up. The Tea Party supports vampire usury starting a National Treasure sweepstakes blood bank in the attic on the invite of one, without the knowledge and consent of the other spouse whose neck is then sucked.

 

So you are telling me my beloved government signed me on to a debt and have been taxing me the interest of this debt that we shouldn't even worry about paying? Tell me again why I should pay more taxes? Why not just paying the interest in the debt. We have no intention on paying it anyhow. That's like buying a house and only paying the interest on the house with never paying a dime on the principal.

 

Explain the drones that politics and elections (a mass organized fight) do not lead to the end of their problems, but only to more political fight and to stronger organisation.

Large amounts propaganda works on people's emotion (it causes fear, uncertainty) That's the problem of a supercapitalistic system as the current one. It is used for political gain, power.

A revolution is the major problem in history, it causes fight (emotions) in more poeple and mass organisation of the fighting citizen (they fight because of politics (deception) and propaganda, and also fear.
There is only one way to prevent a revolution, by not buying into politics and propaganda (but million do it, and keep doing it)
Propaganda leads to raised emotions (fear, crisis, euphorism as well), and politics leads to more fight, bureaucracy also leads to more fight.
It's always the same old story in history (a ritual), organisation of a population and the end of their freedom, once again another empire or dictatorship and another great war.

 

OP your not the only one scared right now. The government is also. All across the country they are train local, state and federal police in riot control. Arming them for such a thing. Guns, ammo, riot gear, road blocks, check point booths, pepper ball riot guns, antibiotics, radiation pills, thirty year storable foods, anti road side mine transporters, internet kills switch, sniper rounds, radiation detectors , etc. I'm sure I'm missing a few.
Now with the NDAA, drones over America, NSA , cameras everywhere, license plate tracking , wanting to monitor the news channels, gun registering, etc.
oh and then there is this.
Forty yard dumpsters. Not one but but dumpsters. Removed daily for medical waste. What kind of scene rio would require medical forty yard dumpsters and be replaced daily for bio medical https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportu...42b4814c03ad0799376f0287350&tab=core&_cview=0

 

Everyone cares about higher taxes including welfare recipients, liberal (and conservative) college kids, etc. If the state sales tax goes up, or if fuel taxes increase, or if the FICA/Payroll taxes are increased of course they would care. It's coming out of their pockets. The lowest income people in America are more adversely effected by taxation than anyone else in America so they should and do care more than those with multi-million dollar incomes that don't even spend the income they have already. Tax increases for the "poor and middle class" can literally take food off the table but for the wealthy a tax increase doesn't even effect them. A person with $100 milllion in income probably spends less than $20 million on an extravagant life-style and whether they pay $20 million in taxes or $40 million in taxes doesn't effect them at all. It doesn't take one new Ferrari out of the garage or prevent them from purchasing a new beach front home in Malibu.

The fact is "we're not paying the taxes" because as much as 40% of expenditures aren't being funded. I'm also the first one to admit that even though we're "not paying the taxes" necessary the bottom 80% of Americans are paying more in taxes than they can afford and the lower the income of the person the worse off they are. The bottom 10% of income earners have the highest tax burden relative to income in the United States while the top 1% has the lowest tax burden relative to income in the United States. Our "tax burden relative to income" is upside down in the United States.

The "Tea Party" likes to blame the poor for "not paying their fair share" but they are dishonest in making this claim. The tax burder of the person is the percentage of gross income that is paid to the government, both state and federal, in all fees and taxes and the "poor" have the highest burder. A minumum wage worker pays 15.3% in FICA/Payroll taxes (payroll taxes are just unreported compensation to the worker paid directly to the government) which is more than Mitt Romney paid in taxes in 2011 (he paid under 14% on over $22 million in income).

The "Tea Party" also misrepesents the taxes the wealthy pay because they refer to it in dollars or percentage of general federal income tax revenues but don't address it as a percentage of personal income. This is the same problem "liberals" have when they condemn the oil companies citing the tens or hundreds of billions of dollars in sales while ignoring the fact that they're only earning less than 10% on sales which is not an extreme amount of profit.

A simple fact. Those with the most income are most able to afford to pay taxes but the "Tea Party" not only doesn't want to require them to pay the taxes necessary. Worse still they continue to endorse the status quo where the wealthy typically have less than 1/2 the tax burden relative to income than the lowest income workers that can't afford to pay anything in taxes but have a huge tax burden relative to income.

Two facts.

Even though she "runs up astronomical credit card debt" you still pay the bill every month even while reducing future expendatures. You don't just refuse to pay the credit card bill. Instead you cut up the credit card and pay for expenditures as incurred while also paying down past debt incurred. The "Tea Party" refuses to pay the expenditures "as incurred" today and have no plans of ever paying down the "credit card" debt. While it's too late for 2014 a fiscally responsible person would demand that the revenues met the authorized expenditures as incurred in 2015. We have enough personal income in the United States to do that so we don't need "another" job to pay for the expenditures.

Next is that expenditures need to be prioritized. In the case of changing from "credit card" to "pay as you go" you don't stop buying food but that's one place the "Tea Party" want to cut the budget. They want to "stop buying food" literally as they've just cut SNAP benefits by $5 billion this year (while continuing farm subsidies). You don't stop paying for a roof over your head by cutting welfare assistance that ensures a "roof over the head" of Americans is where the Tea Party proposes cuts. Instead you probably wouldn't buy a new car (like the Navy purchasing three new "Ford" class carriers at a pricetag of over $11.3 billion each). Want to reduce the necessity for "food" and "housing" assistance then reduce the povery that creates the necessity for it.

The "Tea Party" wants to cut necessary spending that directly benefits the American People while not cutting unnecessary spending that really doesn't benefit us at all. We really don't need to play "World Cop" and the simple fact is that the American People can't afford to pay the costs of playing "World Cop" anymore in either dollars or lives.

We played "World Cop" with our involvement in the Gulf War and in attempting to impose sanctions on Iraq after the Gulf War. Playing that role of "World Cop" resulted in terrorist attacks against us in 1993, 1998, 2000, and 2001 leading us into War Against Afghanistan and Iraq that cost us thousands of American lives and trillions of dollars both already paid out and in future expenditures. The lives of hundreds of thousands US military members and their families have been adversely effected because of the US playing "World Cop" as a result of just the Gulf War in 1991 and the subsequent results of that US involvement.

Liberals (and libertarians like myself) are not lost on the concepts. We need to pay for expenditures as incurred and we need to have "fair taxation" where those most able to pay predominately carry the tax burden. "Liberals" have called for increasing the tax revenues not by increasing taxation on those that are already over-taxed but instead by those that are under-taxes. Liberals have called for cutting unnecessary spending from the budget so that the budget can be balanced with a combination of tax increases and eliminating unnecesary spending.

The problem, from my perspective as a Libertarian, is that "liberals" don't go far enough in balancing the budget and reducing taxation on those that have the highest tax burden relative to income while "Tea Party" Republicans don't propose balancing the budget at all and want to cut "necessary" expenditures instead of "unnecessary" expenditures.

I've gone much further than both with a federal tax proposal that would dramatically reduce taxation on those least able to afford it (the bottom 50%) and would also result in the pragmatic privatization of Social Security with a "safety net" four-times greater than what Social Security pays today and elimination of about 1/3rd of government at the end ot the transition period.

http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=306610

While much harder to do, because each state would have to do it, I also advocate the States all going to a "consumption tax" based upon the principles of the FairTax.org proposal that would be based upon a sales tax with a prebate to eliminate the highly regressive nature of a sales tax.

To summarize taxation I propose:

A Federal income tax with an exemption (to replace deductions and tax credits) where the rate is based upon the expenditures to balance the budget. Everyone gets the same exemption and everyone pays the same tax rate on income above the exemption. All "income" would be taxed the same regardless of source or regardless of who receives the income (i.e. corporations are fundamentally taxed just like individuals)

Privatization of Social Security (that will eliminate Medicare) with a safety net and everyone would pay the 15.3% either as FICA/Payroll taxes or Self-Employment taxes on all income (for enterprises this would be on gross profit)

Revise all States to taxation based upon a "consumption tax with prebates" to remove the regressive nature of sales taxes.

I do understand the concepts very well and I offer positive and responsible ways of addressing taxation and expenditures as well as reducing the size of government over time. I'm not myopic and understand the realities of taxation and how they effect the person. I am fiscally responsible unlike "Tea Party" Republicans and I demand "fairer" taxation than the "liberals" that don't go nearly far enough in their tax proposals.

 

A well thought out response. However, history proves most of it incorrect. You're right, maybe the rich can and should pay more. But we both know full well how things really work. The poor fight to take from the rich. The rich fight to keep what they have. And the middle class pays the price for it all.

If you have no income, you will likely vote to tax the rich 90% in order to get some more free stuff for yourself. Which, is why Obama got elected, twice. But since a 90% tax rate isn't going to happen, and everyone has a different definition of 'rich', the middle class gets squeezed.

If you're rich, you will likely vote for lower tax rates. And let's be real honest here, there is absolutely nothing illegal or immoral about wanting to keep what you have earned, despite what liberals believe. So if/when taxes are increased, the rich aren't going to go quietly into the night. They either remove their money from the economy or raise the cost of the goods and services. Since the middle class are the largest consumers of goods and services (since they get nothing 'given' to them like the poor), they get screwed.

I'm not telling you anything you and every other liberal already know. However, you just choose to ignore it. You simply cannot have such a large group of people being fully supported by others. That has never worked in the history of civilization, and it isn't working now despite liberals best intentions.

Conservatives want spending cuts in all areas of government. All areas. The only thing that liberals are EVER willing to cut is the military. Why is that BTW? It's no wonder why the military hates liberals, but that's a discussion for another day. Can you name a budget cut anywhere else that liberals have ever proposed or endorsed? I believe the military budget should be cut. Can you and liberals say the same about welfare, education, EPA, or any of the countless other bloated government agencies? Or are you share Pelosi's opinion that there just isn't anything at all to cut? Remember Obama's promise to go 'line by line' through the budget to make cuts? How's that going?

When you're heading towards a cliffs edge at 60mph, you don't gradually slow down, you slam on the brakes. When your wife spends you into oblivion, you don't say 'honey, instead of spending $2000 next month on clothes, just spend $1980'. We already know that you can take 100% of the 1%'s income, and it would fund the government for what, a month or two? So obviously higher taxes isn't the answer. What is the answer? Well according to liberals, it's to make 8 million illegal immigrants citizens, so we can support them as well. It's to give healthcare to 13 million people, while screwing 250 million other people. It's to give free birth control and abortions to everyone. Now, no offense to you personally, cause I do like and respect you, but you'd have to be mentally retarded not to see the problem with this.

 

.... and to have employers you must have consumers and not investors. No matter how much money is "invested" if the enterprise cannot sell it's goods or services (i.e. consumption) it goes out of business and there is neither an employer or employees. If an enterpise has consumers purchasing it goods or services it doesn't actually require outside investment because it expands using the profits from sales. 99% of all enterpise expansion that creates jobs is based upon consumption where profits are re-invested and not by outside investments.

The "conservative" belief that "(external) investments creates jobs" (the foundation of Reaganomics "supply-side" economics) and has always been a myth.

 

Yes, but fiat currencies work a little different than taking out a loan and then paying it back. Has our debt EVER been paid off? Only once and I believe that was 200 years ago.

 

So why am I paying taxes on a debt the doesn't have to be paid? Or is this just the governments way of forever locking us into taxation.

 

http://youtu.be/o66FUc61MvU

 

My point wasn't about taxes, my point was that the debt doesn't have to be paid off. Can you prove that it does since its only been paid off once in our several hundred year history?