Huh? You think Fox created the Federal
Posted By: Reserve or deregulation? sm on 2008-09-19
In Reply to: dont waste your time on the - satinlizard
Heaven help us, I certainly hope and pray they wanted to make the government SMALL. I cannot believe you just said what you did and do not even understand the point you made, which is government is NOT SUPPOSED TO BE BIG. That is the problem!!!!!! I definitely want my government as small as possible, small enough we can drown it in the bathtub!!!!
Are you daft poster? Don't you see where BIG government has us now? They are DROWNING US!!!!!!! That's the entire point of small government, not regulating the h@ll out of me and my family.
I realize generations of people think that is what government is supposed to do....tell you how to think, what to read, how to raise our children (give them another pill if that's what the government says too),who to associate with, take away our civil rights one by one until we have nothing left of the country this was supposed to be.
Of course you want the government small. Did you think it was SUPPOSED to be big! That's what Obama wants.....MORE GOVERNMENT, BIGGER GOVERNMENT, more control of YOUR life. No thanks!!!!!!!! My life has been invaded enough by our out of control government.
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
This has created quite a conundrum.
It also may set up officially recognized causation for a war crime tribunal for members of the current administration.
As far as setting them free, in some of the instances so far where they have found a detainee to be innocent of claims that landed them in Gitmo in the first place they have not been able to send them home because the government of the country they were living in at the time will not take them back and no other country will accept them either. I read something regarding attempting to work out a deal with some European countries to take some the detainees who are to be released but only if we take a percentage of them also. (I can't remember where I read that and will have to do some searching.)
But...........he created homosexuals, too.
X
what a mess bush has created
Iraq's Fig Leaf Constitution
By Robert Scheer
The Los Angeles Times
Tuesday 30 August 2005
Who lost Iraq? Someday, as a fragmented Iraq spirals further into religious madness, terrorism and civil war, there will be a bipartisan inquiry into this blundering intrusion into another people's history.
The crucial question will be why a preemptive American invasion - which has led to the deaths of nearly 2,000 Americans, roughly 10 times as many Iraqis, the expenditure of about $200 billion and incalculable damage to the United States' global reputation - has had exactly the opposite effect predicted by its neoconservative sponsors. No amount of crowing over a fig leaf Iraqi constitution by President Bush can hide the fact that the hand of the region's autocrats, theocrats and terrorists is stronger than ever.
The U.S. now has to recognize that [it] overthrew Saddam Hussein to replace him with a pro-Iranian state, said regional expert Peter W. Galbraith, the former U.S. ambassador to Croatia and an advisor to the Iraqi Kurds. And, he could have added, a pro-Iranian state that will be repressive and unstable.
Think this is an exaggeration? Consider that arguably the most powerful Shiite political party and militia in today's Iraq, the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq and its affiliated paramilitary force, the Badr Brigade, was not only based in Iran but was set up by Washington's old arch-foe, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. It also fought on the side of Iran in the Iran-Iraq war and was recognized by Tehran as the government in exile of Iraq.
Or that former exile Ahmad Chalabi is now one of Iraq's deputy prime ministers. The consummate political operator managed to maintain ties to Iran while gaining the devoted support of Donald Rumsfeld's Pentagon, charming and manipulating Beltway policymakers and leading U.S. journalists into believing that Iraq was armed with weapons of mass destruction.
Chalabi is thrilled with the draft constitution, which, if passed, will probably exponentially increase tension and violence between Sunnis and Shiites. It is an excellent document, said Chalabi, who has been accused by U.S. intelligence of being a spy for Iran, where he keeps a vacation home.
What an absurd outcome for a war designed to create a compliant, unified and stable client state that would be pro-American, laissez-faire capitalist and unallied with the hated Iran. Of course, Bush tells us again, this is progress and an inspiration. Yet his relentless spinning of manure into silk has worn thin on the American public and sent his approval ratings tumbling.
Even supporters of the war are starting to realize that rather than strengthening the United States' position in the world, the invasion and occupation have led to abject humiliation: from the Abu Ghraib scandal, to the guerrilla insurgency exposing the limits of military power, to an election in which our guy - Iyad Allawi - was defeated by radicals and religious extremists.
In a new low, the U.S. president felt obliged to call and plead with the head of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution, Abdelaziz Hakim, to make concessions to gain Sunni support. Even worse, he was summarily rebuffed. Nevertheless, Bush had no choice but to eat crow and like it.
This is a document of which the Iraqis, and the rest of the world, can be proud, he said Sunday, through what must have been gritted teeth. After all, this document includes such democratic gems as Islam is the official religion of the state and is a basic source of legislation, and No law can be passed that contradicts the undisputed rules of Islam, as well as socialist-style pronouncements that work and a decent standard of living are a right guaranteed by the state. But the fact is, it could establish Khomeini's ghost as the patron saint of Iraq and Bush would have little choice but to endorse it.
Even many in his own party are rebelling. I think our involvement there has destabilized the Middle East. And the longer we stay there, I think the further destabilization will occur, said Nebraska Sen. Chuck Hagel last week, one of a growing number of Republicans who get that we should start figuring out how we get out of there.
Not that our what-me-worry? president is the least bit troubled by all this adverse blowback from the huge, unnecessary gamble he took in invading the heart of the Arab and Muslim worlds. What is important is that the Iraqis are now addressing these issues through debate and discussion, not at the barrel of a gun, Bush said.
Wrong again, George. It was the barrel of your gun that midwifed the new Iraq, which threatens to combine the instability of Lebanon with the religious fanaticism of Iran.
A pile of ca-ca created by Palin! (nm)
:)
Bush Created The Deficit
You should at least give the new president the opportunity to try to change things. He has to take a radical approach as the "business-as-usual" attitude in Washington would rather sit around and watch our economy and nation crumble than come up with any real, workable solutions.
Bush was handed a surplus when he took office and look how he managed to get us deep into debt. He left this legacy to the current administration to try to straighten out.
Republicans should put partisanship behind them and do what is right for this country - not themselves. When they were elected, they were supposed to represent all the people...
Claim: US Created al-Zarqawi Myth
Claim: US Created al-Zarqawi Myth
By Jennifer Schultz
UPI
Thursday 10 November 2005
The myth of al-Zarqawi, Napoleoni believes, helped usher in al-Qaida's transformation from a small elitist vanguard to a mass movement.
 |
 |
The myth of al-Zarqawi, Napoleoni believes, helped usher in al-Qaida's transformation from a small elitist vanguard to a mass movement.
(Photo: spacewar.com) |
|
|
The United States created the myth around Iraq insurgency leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and reality followed, terrorism expert Loretta Napoleoni said.
Al-Zarqawi was born Ahmad Fadil al-Khalayleh in October 1966 in the crime and poverty-ridden Jordanian city of Zarqa. But his myth was born Feb. 5, 2003, when then-Secretary of State Colin Powell presented to the United Nations the case for war with Iraq.
Napoleoni, the author of Insurgent Iraq, told reporters last week that Powell's argument falsely exploited Zarqawi to prove a link between then-Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida. She said that through fabrications of Zarqawi's status, influence and connections the myth became the reality - a self-fulfilling prophecy.
He became what we wanted him to be. We put him there, not the jihadists, Napoleoni said.
Iraq's most notorious insurgent, Napoleoni argues, accomplished what bin Laden could not: spread the message of jihad into Iraq.
In an article of Napoleoni's in the current November/December issue of Foreign Policy, she said, In a sense, it is the very things that make Zarqawi seem most ordinary - his humble upbringing, misspent youth and early failures - that make him most frightening. Because, although he may have some gifts as a leader of men, it is also likely that there are many more 'al-Zarqawis' capable of filling his place.
The myth of al-Zarqawi, Napoleoni believes, helped usher in al-Qaida's transformation from a small elitist vanguard to a mass movement.
Al-Zarqawi became the icon of a new generation of anti-imperialist jihadists, she said.
The grand claim that al-Zarqawi provided the vital link between Saddam and al-Qaida lost its significance after it became known that al-Zarqawi and bin Laden did not forge a partnership until after the war's start. The two are believed to have met sometime in 2000, but al-Zarqawi - similar to a group of dissenting al-Qaida members -rebuffed bin Laden's anti-American brand of jihad.
He did not have a global vision like Osama, said Napoleoni, who interviewed primary and secondary sources close to al-Zarqawi and his network.
A former member of al-Zarqawi's camp in Herat told her, I never heard him praise anyone apart from the Prophet [Muhammad]; this was Abu Musab's character. He never followed anyone.
Al-Zarqawi's scope before the Iraq war, she continued, did not extend past corrupt Arab regimes, particularly Jordan's. Between 2000 and early 2002, he operated the training camp in Herat with Taliban funds; the fighters bound for Jordan. After the fall of the Taliban, he fled to Iraqi Kurdistan and set up shop.
In 2001, Kurdish officials enlightened the United States about the uninvited Jordanian, said Napoleoni. Jordanian officials, who had still unsolved terrorist attacks, were eager to implicate al-Zarqawi, she claimed. The little-known militant instantly had fingerprints on most major terrorist attacks after Sept. 11, 2001. He was depicted in Powell's speech as a key player in the al-Qaida network.
By perpetuating a terrifying myth of al-Zarqawi, the author said, The United States, Kurds, and Jordanians all won ... but jihad gained momentum, after in-group dissension and U.S. coalition operations had left the core of al-Qaida crippled.
In her article, Napoleoni says, [Zarqawi] had finally managed to grasp bin Laden's definition of the faraway enemy, the United States. Adding that, Its presence in Iraq as an occupying power made it clear to him that the United States was as important a target as any of the Arab regimes he had grown to hate.
... The myth constructed around him is at the root of his transformation into a political leader. With bin Laden trapped somewhere in Afghanistan and Pakistan, al-Zarqawi fast became the new symbolic leader in the fight against America and a manager for whoever was looking to be part of that struggle, she wrote.
The author points to letters between al-Zarqawi and bin Laden that have surfaced over the past two years, indicating the evolution in their relationship, most notably a shift in al-Zarqawi which led to his seeking additional legitimacy among Sunnis that bin Laden could help bestow.
In late December 2004 - shortly after the fall of Fallujah - the pan-Arab network Al-Jazeera aired a video of what was bin Laden's first public embrace of Zarqawi and his fight in Iraq.
... We in al-Qaida welcome your union with us ... and so that it be known, the brother mujahid Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is the emir of the al Qaida organization [in Iraq], bin Laden declared.
Napoleoni believes that al-Zarqawi, however, is still largely driven by the romantic vision of a restored Caliphate, and that his motives still are less political than some other factions participating in the Iraq resistance.
She questions whether he has actually devised a plan for what he will do, if and when, he wins.
How The Democrats Created The Financial Crisis....sm
How the Democrats Created the Financial Crisis: Kevin Hassett
Commentary by Kevin Hassett
Sept. 22 (Bloomberg) -- The financial crisis of the past year has provided a number of surprising twists and turns, and from Bear Stearns Cos. to American International Group Inc., ambiguity has been a big part of the story.
Why did Bear Stearns fail, and how does that relate to AIG? It all seems so complex.
But really, it isn't. Enough cards on this table have been turned over that the story is now clear. The economic history books will describe this episode in simple and understandable terms: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac exploded, and many bystanders were injured in the blast, some fatally.
Fannie and Freddie did this by becoming a key enabler of the mortgage crisis. They fueled Wall Street's efforts to securitize subprime loans by becoming the primary customer of all AAA-rated subprime-mortgage pools. In addition, they held an enormous portfolio of mortgages themselves.
In the times that Fannie and Freddie couldn't make the market, they became the market. Over the years, it added up to an enormous obligation. As of last June, Fannie alone owned or guaranteed more than $388 billion in high-risk mortgage investments. Their large presence created an environment within which even mortgage-backed securities assembled by others could find a ready home.
The problem was that the trillions of dollars in play were only low-risk investments if real estate prices continued to rise. Once they began to fall, the entire house of cards came down with them.
Turning Point
Take away Fannie and Freddie, or regulate them more wisely, and it's hard to imagine how these highly liquid markets would ever have emerged. This whole mess would never have happened.
It is easy to identify the historical turning point that marked the beginning of the end.
Back in 2005, Fannie and Freddie were, after years of dominating Washington, on the ropes. They were enmeshed in accounting scandals that led to turnover at the top. At one telling moment in late 2004, captured in an article by my American Enterprise Institute colleague Peter Wallison, the Securities and Exchange Comiission's chief accountant told disgraced Fannie Mae chief Franklin Raines that Fannie's position on the relevant accounting issue was not even ``on the page'' of allowable interpretations.
Then legislative momentum emerged for an attempt to create a ``world-class regulator'' that would oversee the pair more like banks, imposing strict requirements on their ability to take excessive risks. Politicians who previously had associated themselves proudly with the two accounting miscreants were less eager to be associated with them. The time was ripe.
Greenspan's Warning
The clear gravity of the situation pushed the legislation forward. Some might say the current mess couldn't be foreseen, yet in 2005 Alan Greenspan told Congress how urgent it was for it to act in the clearest possible terms: If Fannie and Freddie ``continue to grow, continue to have the low capital that they have, continue to engage in the dynamic hedging of their portfolios, which they need to do for interest rate risk aversion, they potentially create ever-growing potential systemic risk down the road,'' he said. ``We are placing the total financial system of the future at a substantial risk.''
What happened next was extraordinary. For the first time in history, a serious Fannie and Freddie reform bill was passed by the Senate Banking Committee. The bill gave a regulator power to crack down, and would have required the companies to eliminate their investments in risky assets.
Different World
If that bill had become law, then the world today would be different. In 2005, 2006 and 2007, a blizzard of terrible mortgage paper fluttered out of the Fannie and Freddie clouds, burying many of our oldest and most venerable institutions. Without their checkbooks keeping the market liquid and buying up excess supply, the market would likely have not existed.
But the bill didn't become law, for a simple reason: Democrats opposed it on a party-line vote in the committee, signaling that this would be a partisan issue. Republicans, tied in knots by the tight Democratic opposition, couldn't even get the Senate to vote on the matter.
That such a reckless political stand could have been taken by the Democrats was obscene even then. Wallison wrote at the time: ``It is a classic case of socializing the risk while privatizing the profit. The Democrats and the few Republicans who oppose portfolio limitations could not possibly do so if their constituents understood what they were doing.''
Mounds of Materials
Now that the collapse has occurred, the roadblock built by Senate Democrats in 2005 is unforgivable. Many who opposed the bill doubtlessly did so for honorable reasons. Fannie and Freddie provided mounds of materials defending their practices. Perhaps some found their propaganda convincing.
But we now know that many of the senators who protected Fannie and Freddie, including Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Christopher Dodd, have received mind-boggling levels of financial support from them over the years.
Throughout his political career, Obama has gotten more than $125,000 in campaign contributions from employees and political action committees of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, second only to Dodd, the Senate Banking Committee chairman, who received more than $165,000.
Clinton, the 12th-ranked recipient of Fannie and Freddie PAC and employee contributions, has received more than $75,000 from the two enterprises and their employees. The private profit found its way back to the senators who killed the fix.
There has been a lot of talk about who is to blame for this crisis. A look back at the story of 2005 makes the answer pretty clear.
Oh, and there is one little footnote to the story that's worth keeping in mind while Democrats point fingers between now and Nov. 4: Senator John McCain was one of the three cosponsors of S.190, the bill that would have averted this mess.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&refer=columnist_hassett&sid=aSKSoiNbnQY0
And we bail out Wall St. who created this mess.....
Didja watch House of Cards? That spelled it out pretty succinctly. People were sucked into mortgages they couldn't afford, they were told they could refinance in 1-5 years and keep the mortgage payments they could afford - THEY WERE LIED TO. The bankers and Wall St. had to keep that Ponzi scheme going.......pizza delivery drivers were selling mortgages!! The more they sold, the more money they made - upwards $20,000 per month - they sucked people into refinancing to put cash in their pockets because housing values were skyrocketing.......and it all crashed down. So who did we bail out first? The banks and Wall St.............not the people who got screwed by con men. And these people were not POOR - they just got sucked into buying more house than they could afford. So, stick that in your pipe and smoke it.
It is an agency created by Congress, but is privately owned. sm
The stocks are owned by member banks, and they are private corporations. Every penny of income tax collected goes to private lenders for interest only on the national debt.
Quote from the Grace Commission report: "100% of what is collected is absorbed
solely by interest on the Federal Debt ...
all individual income tax revenues are gone
before one nickel is spent on the services
taxpayers expect from government."
He has never produced the original, just one that he created on a computer and is not the real COLB
It has been found out that the document he created and submitted is not the actual birth record. The original is a typewritten birth certificate. The ones we type on a typewriter to submit to the state office (and back in 1961 there were not computers like there are today to create documents like the one Obama's camp created and put on display). Even so, at the hospital it is still a requirement this COLB be typewritten. They did find the actual typewritten birth certificate and the Obama camp has had it sealed so that nobody can see it. Has to make you wonder. And that is what the law suit is about (there is more than one lawsuit trying to get this document released).
Question that is on a lot of people's mind is - If you are a legal American born citizen, then just show the blooming original birth certificate and get on with it. Why have you taken legal measures to hide it and then create a false one and posted it on your website. Then on top of that a group (Annenberg foundation) who is supporting and doing everything they can to get Obama elected are the ones Obama chose to come out and say its real. Give me a break! Anyone with sense can see this is a cover up. An independent judge needs to sign an order that the original birth certificate to released. If we the people are voting for him then we the people have the right to see what his original type written birth certificate says. I'll give you a hint - the birth place is not going to be Hawaii.
Nazi Germany was created during a long cold winter
when unemployment was high. People was literally starving and freezing. Leadership had failed to keep the citizens fed and sheltered. Rogue leadership, Hitler, arrives announcing he will bring an end to the suffering. War employs. When there are no jobs, war is the alternative for a country. And pillaging, which is what basically happened, and the attempt at extinctousing an undesirable (to Hitler) nationality. Desperation in a country is a ticket to the empowerment of leadership which could potentially change the course of history. Or maybe we know that as it has just happened to us.
Interesting to read the promises Roosevelt made when SS was created.
It's just like farm subsidies and so many other things that government gets into and then makes a mess out of.
The promises, incidentally, were basically "our older citizens will not have to live in poverty". Now, SS is nothing more than institutionalized poverty for anyone who has nothing else.
And, incidentally, some of the rhetoric around the time SS was created dealt with the objections some had to the withholding by saying "This way, you won't have to put money into risky stocks because this is guaranteed". In other words, the implication was that you didn't have to provide otherwise for your retirement. The message was very powerful for a generation that had seen the Crash of 29 and the market's performance throughout the Great Depression. Stocks risky! Social Security safe!
I've forgotten the exact age, but I think when SS was formed the average life expectancy was 60 or less. In other words, it counted on most recipients dying off before they collected much if anything!
Well...you can add it up for yourself. We have people living much longer than SS had ever anticipated. We have a climate where you can't reduce benefits and you can't increase withholdings. And we have not allowed people (other than federal employees!) to opt out of SS so they could invest the withholdings in things that might have performed much better. (Notice how right this minute YOU are probably thinking about our own crash, but the fact is that SS has not even done that well).
I agree that it sounds good to introduce means-testing so wealthy people aren't receiving benefits, but on other grounds I can't go along with what would just be another example of treating some people differently than others.
but that's the right way to do it, not federal
xx
Looks we all need Federal
Or start taking birth control if you are already not on them.
http://beltwayblips.dailyradar.com/video/nancy_pelosi_birth_control_will_stimulate_the_economy/
cut what federal programs??
So the Federal govt is gonna cut back in entitlement programs to fund the rebuilding of NO? Not gonna cease his tax cuts for the rich, just gonna cut back on programs for.....the disadvantaged, of course, the ones whose voices will not be heard..Whose fault was NO? Bush and his administration. I say Bush should donate some of his millions to the rebuilding of NO, let some of the unfortunate ones camp on his 1700 acres that he boasts about..He got us into this awful mess. His speech the other night was a joke..Just another press moment, trying to pull on Americans heart strings but it aint working, LOL..**Long live equality**..Three more years? Oh gee, can we survive? What will be the next catastrophe under this fool? 9/11, Iraq and now NO..**America where are you**?
Federal Reserve
The world central banks are printing money like crazy to try and free up the markets. E-mail congress and tell them the Federal Reserve is not elected by the people and should not be allowed to devalue our currency by printing it out of thin air until it is worthless. This is way past republicans and democrats now. Call or flood them with e-mails and get Congress to protect us.
Oh please.......that's now the Federal Reserve
I said last night these were very old families, especially the Rothschild who have very deep deep filthy rich pockets and contribute greatly to the Federal Reserve and that this goes all the way back to England and British rule in the early 1900s. You act as if you found something no one else could find.
This is not news, maybe just to you or those who don't have a clue about the Federal REserve and I can guarantee you most liberal dems running their mouth on here didn't have a clue about the Fed Res....probably thought it was part of their government. And I hope this litle chart has clarified everything for you, which wouldn't surprise me, because you should already know the Rothschild family is part of this....it's who the others are that are kept quiet. They are listed as the Bank of England. You really need to understand where the Fed Res comes from, the fact that we have never really broken free from England. Someone asked last night about JP Morgan and why he was the beloved son or something, well, gee, get a clue. Look where his family comes from, their contributions to this country alone, and their very deep pockets. Those you will never know the names of put out little pawns in this country, i.e., JP Morgan and let them do their bidding. Unfortunately, they got greedy but don't think for a minute the Feds didn't know this was going on...they had to have known. The bigger question is what are they planning in order to continue to lower rates, allow these institutions to offer such fraudulent loans in the first place, taking advantage of anyone and everyone who walked through their doors.
If you knew half as much as you think you do, you would have realized a long time why Ron Paul has begged to abolish the Federal Reserve in this country, to disallow it to ever rule this country again, as it has done for soooo long. We are being ruled by an elite few, who pull the strings of every government they have their hands in.....is that what you want? That isn't a free country my friend...that is British rule.
I believe that a federal sales tax........sm
REPLACING the current income tax system would be a fairer, more equitable way of collecting taxes from the US citizens. The more you spend, the more you would pay in taxes. The rich who buy nicer cars and top of the line merchandise would pay more, reflecting their ability to be able to do so, while the poorer would pay less based on their ability to afford less. I also believe a system such as this, in place for a number of years, would tremendously cut the waste in America drastically by causing the American people, especially those in the middle class and lower class to consider their purchases more carefully. However, I doubt it would have as much of an affect on the higher income class in terms of wastefulness.
Most of these are federal prisons and
military bases that do have prisons for military personnel plus the barracks.
Don't get so upset. I think most of that link is just to fire up people's imagination. What do you think they would do with the prisoners in these federal prisons???? Turn them loose? Don't think so. It's scare tactics.
Look at your bills. There are federal
"excise" taxes on just about everything you mentioned.
a federal prison where we pay taxes
to feed her, clothe her and provide her with medical care. She ought to be extricated to her own country. I wonder what the Mexican feds would do with her. I don't feel sorry for these people. They were in the wrong in the first place by sneaking into this country. They deserve whatever they get. As for the unborn child, if the mother wasn't so selfish, she would put the child up for adoption in the US where people who could afford to love and raise that child right would have the opportunity to.
She's committing a federal crime
Nofify the Federal Marshalls and they'll bust her. I lived down the street from a girl doing that and she went to federal prison!
I agree. I think those federal dollars could be used...
for other things. It is not like the news is not out there. Kids know more today at 10 or 11 than I knew at 15 or 16. It is discussed on TV ad nauseam, all of the shows aimed at kids have discussed every aspect of sex you can imagine including STDs, AIDS, homosexuality, abortion, keeping a child rather than aborting, birth control, the whole 9 yards. And I figure most parents have had "the talk" with kids. The culture has been created that sex is an expression, it is no longer saved for marriage, multiple partners don't matter and you don't even have to like each other...that is the culture that has been created. No amount of birth control programs, sex ed programs, is going to put that horse back in the barn. We reap what we sow.
So why spend even more federal dollars on this? It makes no sense to me. You do the best you can to talk to your kids and explain the consequences of choices...but in the end, you cannot force them not to engage in premarital sex. It is ultimately their choice, and federally funded programs at this stage in our culture...waste of money in my view, because it is only repeating what is already out there.
Just my two cents.
Federal Reserve folks......
Stop throwing accusations at one another and blaming whatever party on Capitol Hill you hate!!!!!!!!! All this blame game crap is absolutely nauseating..... all parties have been part of the government since way back when. The parties in Washington at this moment had absolutely NOTHING to do with the situation at hand......the problem started decades ago with an absolutely desperate president who started up the Federal Reserve program, trying to coax people into believing their money was safe to put in the banks after the banks collapsed. They were lulled into a false sense of security in hopes they would start putting their money back in the bank and being told their government would guarantee it.........nothing to do with rep or dem, just a desperate president at the helm at the time and all those idiots who should have known better but let it continue nonetheless.
The corrupt companies in this fix now have been allowed to go this route because of an institution that was started up a looooong time ago, this just didn't happen overnight or a few years.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-466210540567002553
You really need to google Federal Reserve
Sorry you're that drawn in by Fox news or think everyone else is, but you probably need to understand that just because posters may be more educated than you on some things, i.e., the Federal Reserve, doesn't mean you can't educate yourself. Now, granted, it will take more than 5 seconds of scant reading because this institution goes back a long ways, but more than likely you will hear those words "Federal Reserve" mentioned time and time again. They are the reason we are in this mess.
You will probably hear a LOT of economists preaching this....they should know; this is what our economy leans on instead of our own two feet. You need to understand who has been running the show behind the scenes for decades.....it ain't rep or dem; it's the Federal Reserve and it should never have happened!!!!
Federal Reserve....... I have done my homework
The Federal Reserve is not a bank...it has absolutely nothing to do with government, though it does run our government as well as many governments throughout the world. The Federal Reserve is made up of very deep filthy rich pocket individuals. Just try to find the names of those that make up the Federal Reserve....you can't. You can only find their board of governors. Our President does elect the chairman, in this case Bernanke. Fed Res is a private central bank that decides everybody's interest rates. The history on that is a good read and sickens me frankly, because it is a deceitful organization with a corrupt history. NOBODY owns the Federal Reserve except those you will never know of.....these families go back to the days of British rule, though by carefully reading, you will get the picture of who those families are.
Paulson worked for Goldman Sachs among being elected to other high boards (and has very close ties with China which scares the crap out of me); don't know what he really has going with them, so everyone should be concerned there, as half of the billions they have taken from us are now going to foreign investors/countries....why? No foreign country is going to pay us if we invest and their country fails to profit.
JP Morgan was a very powerful banker and during his time alive, he helped combine GE and actually financed steel companies in this country which created a huge economic boom for this country when it really needed it, so he basically is considered a man who saved the US economy and more imporantly, the US government on at least two occasions. This is a man who dates back to England, where his dad was also a wealthy banker, so like I said, we have always had strong ties with British banking since we tried to break from the British rule. Morgan's contributions to this country go way back and are really good ones, so he has handed down quite a good legacy. He even helped our railroads succeed. He is responsible for establishing U.S. Steel, so you can see why this company is basically gold to many. Matter of fact, he helped sell push gold to keep this country afloat. His life is a good read as well.
Now, common sense dictates why Citigroup is fighting with Wells Fargo, even though Wachovia did agree to sell to Citigroup to begin with. That's the behind-the-scenes deals that you will never know the truth about. As far as FDIC, the Federal Reserve was pushing for it, but our government did NOT want to make any financial guarantees of funds. THere is a block on that buyout for a good reason; if this took place, with a sell to either Wells Fargo or Citigroup, this would put the US citizens' money in the hands of three banks, Bank of American, JP Morgan, and whoever bought Wachovia. Whoever buys Wachovia would literally own 30% of the banking industries profits (bad, bad, bad). If only these three banks exist, they would dominate the banking industry and would have so much power that they could set their own prices for loans and services. I'm sure then stricter federal regulations would be placed on them but no doubt then the smaller banks would be so squeezed, they would have to look for buyers as well and guess who would buy them then? Wah lah....a monopoly will be formed......
So, in answer to your question, the banks don't own the governement, the Federal Reserve owns the government and always has since Roosevelt's days back in 1913. That is why those of us who understand how wrong it is for the fed res to even exist, want it abolished. Ron Paul has brought this before the floor on many occasions, to many deaf ears. Now, ask yourself why that is. Mostly, because most those nitwits don't have a clue what the federal reserve is, where it came from, and what it does.
So when you end up with just three banks, look out folks!! This has happened before with three central banks in our history and they all participated in fractional banking...creating money out of thin air.....sound familiar?
So if you want to solve this problem, blame the Federal Reserve and petition your government to abolish it NOW. I beg everyone to please do your homework on the Federal Reserve and when you think you could puke knowing the corruption of it all, then here is a site for a petition to sign to abolish it. Ron Paul has been all over this for years. President Andrew Jackson abolished the first version of a centralized governing bank. Thomas Jefferson could see this coming.....
Thomas Jefferson said, "If the America people ever allow private banks to control the issuance of their currencies, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all their prosperity until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered." This is serious business folks!!
http://www.petitiononline.com/fedres/petition.html
all that means is doing away with the federal part -
He says that states should be able to mandate it on their own. He does not intend to overturn Roe v. Wade
I would favor a federal sales tax if
there were no exemptions whatsoever. If, say you earned a dollar, you owed a dime. No exceptions regarding where the money comes from. Tax welfare benefits too. Social Security is already taxed for some recipients. Those of us who receive Social Security and have enough income to pay taxes on 85% (maximum) of it ALL had the opportunity for a better life. Some took advantage of that and some didn't. Young people today have little hope of receiving Social Security and they also have little hope of being able to live while saving for their future.
In my usual long-winded way, t hat's what I think.
I am not in favor of a federal sales tax....
as much as I am in favor of a flat percentage income tax. For the sake of argument...let's say 10%. No deductions, no nothing. Flat 10%. I don't care if you make a dollar or 10 million dollars. Everyone pays the same amount. Cut back the IRS because if you pay a flat tax you don't need them and the incessant forms and reams of laws. Cutting back on the IRS would save millions in and of itself. Then every American pays the same tax. THAT is equality. Everyone gets the same shake. You make less, you pay less. You make more, you pay more. They should also abolish the death tax. IF the feds have already taxed all your money, they should not tax it AGAIN just because you die. That is unfair to the heirs you worked to provide for. Just my opinion.
Federal and State tax refunds
Have you heard that some states are issuing IOUs for tax refunds this year? Yep. I have also heard, don't know how true but at this point I think anything is possible, that the gov may be doing the same thing the later a person files or quite possibly not paying them at all. I have heard that we should file quickly because the longer we wait, the harder it might be to get our refund. Any truth to any of this anyone?
Then your state is in violation of federal
federal funding for their welfare programs. I was not aware that any states had refused federal funds designated for this purpose. Interesting.
Bye..Bye..Scooter Enjoy Your Time in the Federal Pen
Happy days are here again..**Waiting for the next indictment**..
10 federal employees and 1 w/ criminal charges
over improper relationships between interior dept officials who oversee offshore drilling and oil executives...............Big oil? Offshore drilling? Run afoul of the law?Nahhhhh
One more reason why I favor federal sales tax....sm
Our retirees are being taxed on money on which they have already paid taxes.
And yes, there should be no exemptions. People are going to buy cars, appliances, take vacations, remodel their homes, etc., so the federal sales tax should apply to everything. Food.....I'm still not too sure about that as I believe that food is a basic necessity of life.
Here is a site that shows the federal budget
over the past 3 years, including charts. This is by the National Debt Awareness Center. There are lots of other links on there to check out too but, again, I am short on time today.
http://www.federalbudget.com/
This is an article from U.S. News about the budget outlook:
http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/2009/02/25/hot-docs-bleak-and-uncertain-federal-budget-outlook-as-deficit-climbs.html
I saw today where they passed a budget to take us through the next couple months to the tune of $896B. Filled with pork. Hopefully, I'll get a chance to look it up tomorrow.
Federal government is an agent of the state
--
You confuse federal and local govt
Each state is supposed to govern themselves, not the federal government. Actually, it is unconstitutional for the federal government to even dictate laws to any state, which is why many states have now declared sovereignty from the federal government; they see the writing on the wall.
Taxes taken in by the states are supposed to be decided upon by the state how to use that money, including schools, law enforcement, etc..... NOT the federal government.
And yes, you would be able to defend yourself from foreign invaders because that is ALL the federal government is supposed to oversee in the first place, a strong military to defend our country against foreign invasion, which is a joke, considering they can't even defend our Mexico/US border!!!
You don't seem to understand that your government was NEVER to dictate to states what they do with their money, even if given money by the federal government; states are supposed to decide themselves how to best use the money..... federal government only says we'll give you the money but YOU have to do with it what we tell you to.
That is BIG brother mentality and it was never to be.......unfortunately, it is now worse than ever!!!
Is Anyone Minding the Store at the Federal Reserve?
05/08/09 Rep. Alan Grayson asks the Federal Reserve Inspector General about the trillions of dollars lent or spent by the Federal Reserve and where it went, and the trillions of off balance sheet obligations. Inspector General Elizabeth Coleman responds that the IG does not know and is not tracking where this money is.
The Federal Reserve is not government related....
nm
Bush didn't create the federal reserve......
xx
Two-Thirds of US Corps pay no federal income taxes
Most Companies Pay No Federal Income Tax
GAO Study Also Finds 68% Of Foreign Companies In U.S. Avoid Corporate Taxes
WASHINGTON, Aug. 12, 2008
(AP) Two-thirds of U.S. corporations paid no federal income taxes between 1998 and 2005, according to a new report from Congress.
The study by the Government Accountability Office, expected to be released Tuesday, said about 68 percent of foreign companies doing business in the U.S. avoided corporate taxes over the same period.
Collectively, the companies reported trillions of dollars in sales, according to GAO's estimate.
"It's shameful that so many corporations make big profits and pay nothing to support our country," said Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., who asked for the GAO study with Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich.
An outside tax expert, Chris Edwards of the libertarian Cato Institute in Washington, said increasing numbers of limited liability corporations and so-called "S" corporations pay taxes under individual tax codes.
"Half of all business income in the United States now ends up going through the individual tax code," Edwards said.
The GAO study did not investigate why corporations weren't paying federal income taxes or corporate taxes and it did not identify any corporations by name. It said companies may escape paying such taxes due to operating losses or because of tax credits.
More than 38,000 foreign corporations had no tax liability in 2005 and 1.2 million U.S. companies paid no income tax, the GAO said. Combined, the companies had $2.5 trillion in sales. About 25 percent of the U.S. corporations not paying corporate taxes were considered large corporations, meaning they had at least $250 million in assets or $50 million in receipts.
The GAO said it analyzed data from the Internal Revenue Service, examining samples of corporate returns for the years 1998 through 2005. For 2005, for example, it reviewed 110,003 tax returns from among more than 1.2 million corporations doing business in the U.S.
Dorgan and Levin have complained about companies abusing transfer prices - amounts charged on transactions between companies in a group, such as a parent and subsidiary. In some cases, multinational companies can manipulate transfer prices to shift income from higher to lower tax jurisdictions, cutting their tax liabilities. The GAO did not suggest which companies might be doing this.
"It's time for the big corporations to pay their fair share," Dorgan said.
Wow! You'd better go back to school. The Federal Reserve System is definitely
Perhaps you're thinking of Freddie Mac or Sallie Mae...or the Post Office, maybe?
At Wounded Knee, two federal agents were shot to death. sm
One was killed while going for his gun after being shot at. The gun was so high powered, it severed his hand. He was married and a father. I don't think Wounded Knee is anything to be proud of.
Answer this question PLEASE. If the incompetence of the federal, state, and local
governments (especially federal because this is a national disaster) has nothing to do with race why was the response so slow?
Why is it that Bush is on the TV in the middle of hurricaines in Florida making appropriations for relief funds and when he DID not respond so abruptly even as New Orleans drowned in front of our eyes. I urge you to read the article I posted below A DIFFERENT AMERICA.
I think Bush and his office, the governor of Louisianna and the mayor of Louisianna (though I think he for one had good intentions) NO ONE, should have to wait on a permission slip to rush to the aid of Americas people.
I'm sorry, but the the govenor told us he didn't need the guard, story does not get anywhere with me because any competent president after hearing that NO was drowning with a good number of it's people in it would have immediately made it a national disaster. So again, if race didn't have anything to do with it, what is the reason?
I'm open minded and waiting for a good answer to this question.
Federal Grand Jury Digging Deep into Bush Crimes
PRESIDENT INDICTEDFEDERAL GRAND JURY DIGGING DEEP INTO BUSH CRIMES
By Greg SzymanskiA federal whistleblower close to the Chicago federal grand jury probe into perjury and obstruction charges against President Bush and others said indictments of top officials were handed down this week. A spokesman for the U.S. Attorney’s Office of the Northern District of Illinois, however, refused to confirm or deny the source’s account.
“We are not talking about any aspect of this case, and our office is not commenting on anything regarding the investigation at this time,” said Randall Sanborn from the office of U.S. federal prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, the attorney conducting the grand jury probe into whether Bush and others in his administration violated federal law in a number of sensitive areas, including leaking the name of a CIA operative to the media.
In December 2003, Fitzgerald was named special counsel to investigate the alleged disclosure of Valerie Plame’s name to several mainstream columnists, but the present grand jury probe has expanded to include widereaching allegations of criminal activity as new information has surfaced.
Although the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Chicago is staying silent, it is well known that Fitzgerald is digging deep into an assortment of serious improprieties among many Bush administration figures, based, in part, on subpoenaed testimony provided by former Secretary of State Colin Powell.
According to whistleblower Tom Heneghen, who recently reported on truthradio.com, Powell testified before the citizen grand jury that Bush had taken the United States to war based on lies, which is a capital crime involving treason under the U.S. Code. “Regarding the Powell testimony, there is no comment,” said Sanborn.
However, sources close to the federal grade jury probe also allegedly told Heneghen a host of administration figures under Bush were indicted, including Vice President Richard Cheney, Chief of Staff Andrew Card, Cheney Chief of Staff I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez, former Attorney General John Ashcroft, imprisoned New York Times reporter Judith Miller and former Cheney advisor Mary Matalin. Heneghen, unavailable for comment, also allegedly told sources White House advisor Karl Rove was indicted for perjury in a major document shredding operation cover-up.
In recent weeks, there has been much controversy over Fitzgerald’s wide-reaching probe, which is extending far beyond the Bush administration to include what some have called “a wholesale cleansing” of a crimeladen White House and Congress.
Fitzgerald’s investigation is said to be also centered on members of the 9-11 Commission, members on both sides of the aisle in the House and Senate and also select high-powered members of the media.
Needless to say, administration officials are “fighting mad” with Fitzgerald. Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Pat Roberts is trying to derail Fitzgerald’s probe by calling him to testify before the Senate regarding his true motives behind the investigation.
Political observers are now wondering whether administration-friendly Republican legislators, some under investigation themselves, are conspiring like President Nixon did in Watergate with Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox in an attempt to shield the Bush administration from prosecution.
In late July, reports about the recent bomb scare in the subway under the congressional offices at the Dirksen Building—coincidently near where Fitzgerald was holding his grand jury hearings—raised questions as to whether government operatives were sending the zealous prosecutor a “warning message” that he was entering dangerous waters with his investigation.
The bomb scare was reported to local police late Monday afternoon, July 18, causing the subway to be evacuated for approximately 45 minutes while bomb sniffing dogs and SWAT team members searched for what was reported to be “a suspicious package” left on one of the subway cars.
Fitzgerald began serving as the U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Illinois in September 2001. He was initially appointed on an interim basis by former Attorney General Ashcroft before being nominated by Bush.
The Senate confirmed his nomination by unanimous consent in October 2001. In December 2003, he was named special counsel to investigate the Plame case. Based on the testimony of ABC sources in late July, it appears that at least two close associates of Rove testified before the grand jury. One was Susan Ralston, a longtime associate of Rove and considered to be his right hand.
The other was “Izzy” Hernandez, regarded as Rove’s left hand and now a top official in the Commerce Department.(Issue #33, August 15, 2005)
My husband does just that. He is on the phone weekly with our sens and reps. state and federal. sm
Our congressment and senators et AL are on speed dial. If my husband has a beef or a question, he is on the phone letting them know (nicely of course) that they screwed up. But on the other hand he does call and tell them thank you when they do something right. One of the congressmen from Michigan voted no on the bailout. So he got a call from both of us. Same with the senator from Michigan who voted FOR the bailout. He got a call saying he has just lost 2 votes. We may be a minority, but the aides in those offices know who my husband is..and all he has to say is his first name. If you keep the heat on, hopefully things can change. Maybe not right away, but hopefully at some time. Just not in my lifetime I am afraid.
You can have our federal money along with a new state motto: "Michigan - The Slave State". n
NM
|
