An absolutely mind blowing 3 part film that covers the history of money and banking systems throughout Europe and America. It shows how a small group of men control countries through a corrupt system of finance and central banking, to enslave and oppress humanity:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid … 9166784731
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid … 0605858947
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid … 1923167501
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid … 9166784731
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid … 0605858947
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid … 1923167501
Were not going broke in a sense. We are Giving Out more money to aid other countries than we are taking in. Do you think any of the countries we aid would give a shit if we ever needed THERE help? Hell No they wouldnt.CO05 wrote:
http://www.macleans.ca/topstories/world/article.jsp?content=20050307_101541_101541
Discuss.
Our economy is in great shape, Problem is we care to frigging much about others(countries) that we forget to take care of our own. ALL the good America does is always overlooked by the haters because its just too convienient to blame GWB!
In terms of percentage donations, the US isn't that generous (which is to say, the US isn't that generous)
Hah, thats a laugh. Our dept is so large because we spend trillions, not give it away. We spend on subsidies for farmers because the farmers can't compete with other farmers in the world, we spend more on our military than any other country in the world. We can't even give charity to our own people when things like Katrina happen, or when they are stranded in Beruit, and you honestly think our dept is money we give in good will to other nations?<[onex]>Headstone wrote:
Were not going broke in a sense. We are Giving Out more money to aid other countries than we are taking in. Do you think any of the countries we aid would give a shit if we ever needed THERE help? Hell No they wouldnt.CO05 wrote:
http://www.macleans.ca/topstories/world/article.jsp?content=20050307_101541_101541
Discuss.
Our economy is in great shape, Problem is we care to frigging much about others(countries) that we forget to take care of our own. ALL the good America does is always overlooked by the haters because its just too convienient to blame GWB!
Our economy isn't in great shape. Go take Micro econ at a local college and learn a thing or three.
Allow me to explain. The US Federal government by passing tax cuts allows the rich to keep more of their money, which in turn, they (usually) decide to invest, and as capital gains taxes (taxes on profit made in investments) are higher than income taxes, the Fed rakes in more and more Moolah. So the tax cuts are actually better for the US.Alexanderthegrape wrote:
Its the amount we spend versus what we bring in.
All the doomsayers fail to notice that with the tax cuts, the deficits are actually going down.
Economic studies have been done on this issue. Tax cuts to the rich do NOT help the median consumer. The rich spend their money on positional goods, a good or service that elevates ones position in society, for example, a bigger house or a new car. The purchasing of positional goods means that for the middle class to remain the middle class, they must purchase equivelant positional goods, or else they drop into a lower social and economic class. These investments by the rich in fact HURT the middle class by forcing them to invest more money in positional goods, but unlike the rich they do not recieve tax cuts that increase their income and they must then invest less of their income into real goods and the American market. Making the rich richer inherently makes the poor poorer while simultaneously reducing investments into American markets.|AIA| DAS wrote:
Allow me to explain. The US Federal government by passing tax cuts allows the rich to keep more of their money, which in turn, they (usually) decide to invest, and as capital gains taxes (taxes on profit made in investments) are higher than income taxes, the Fed rakes in more and more Moolah. So the tax cuts are actually better for the US.Alexanderthegrape wrote:
Its the amount we spend versus what we bring in.
All the doomsayers fail to notice that with the tax cuts, the deficits are actually going down.
The flaw in the logic the government provides behind tax cuts for the rich is that they assume the rich invest in capital gains. This is a flawed assumption and simply not true.
The logic I have presented was the conclusion of a recent economic study presented at an economics conference in Toronto a year or two ago. My father, an economics professor, attended the conference and explained to my family this interesting study.
O RLY?jonsimon wrote:
Economic studies have been done on this issue. Tax cuts to the rich do NOT help the median consumer. The rich spend their money on positional goods, a good or service that elevates ones position in society, for example, a bigger house or a new car. The purchasing of positional goods means that for the middle class to remain the middle class, they must purchase equivelant positional goods, or else they drop into a lower social and economic class. These investments by the rich in fact HURT the middle class by forcing them to invest more money in positional goods, but unlike the rich they do not recieve tax cuts that increase their income and they must then invest less of their income into real goods and the American market. Making the rich richer inherently makes the poor poorer while simultaneously reducing investments into American markets.|AIA| DAS wrote:
Allow me to explain. The US Federal government by passing tax cuts allows the rich to keep more of their money, which in turn, they (usually) decide to invest, and as capital gains taxes (taxes on profit made in investments) are higher than income taxes, the Fed rakes in more and more Moolah. So the tax cuts are actually better for the US.Alexanderthegrape wrote:
Its the amount we spend versus what we bring in.
All the doomsayers fail to notice that with the tax cuts, the deficits are actually going down.
The flaw in the logic the government provides behind tax cuts for the rich is that they assume the rich invest in capital gains. This is a flawed assumption and simply not true.
The logic I have presented was the conclusion of a recent economic study presented at an economics conference in Toronto a year or two ago. My father, an economics professor, attended the conference and explained to my family this interesting study.
Well the deficit is now half what it was in 2004 and the economy has grown by 11 %. The US Deficit is what we were discussing BTW. Unemployment is down also, Hmmmm.
Read this...
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0, … 73,00.html
And yet nothing you presented is evidence contrary to what I said.|AIA| DAS wrote:
O RLY?jonsimon wrote:
Economic studies have been done on this issue. Tax cuts to the rich do NOT help the median consumer. The rich spend their money on positional goods, a good or service that elevates ones position in society, for example, a bigger house or a new car. The purchasing of positional goods means that for the middle class to remain the middle class, they must purchase equivelant positional goods, or else they drop into a lower social and economic class. These investments by the rich in fact HURT the middle class by forcing them to invest more money in positional goods, but unlike the rich they do not recieve tax cuts that increase their income and they must then invest less of their income into real goods and the American market. Making the rich richer inherently makes the poor poorer while simultaneously reducing investments into American markets.|AIA| DAS wrote:
Allow me to explain. The US Federal government by passing tax cuts allows the rich to keep more of their money, which in turn, they (usually) decide to invest, and as capital gains taxes (taxes on profit made in investments) are higher than income taxes, the Fed rakes in more and more Moolah. So the tax cuts are actually better for the US.
The flaw in the logic the government provides behind tax cuts for the rich is that they assume the rich invest in capital gains. This is a flawed assumption and simply not true.
The logic I have presented was the conclusion of a recent economic study presented at an economics conference in Toronto a year or two ago. My father, an economics professor, attended the conference and explained to my family this interesting study.
Well the deficit is now half what it was in 2004 and the economy has grown by 11 %. The US Deficit is what we were discussing BTW. Unemployment is down also, Hmmmm.
Read this...
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0, … 73,00.html
Oh, let's forget all about that 'freight train parable' taught in economics class, showing that it takes awhile for the economy to begin moving in any direction, and that the man in charge generally gets to take credit for whatever miracle or disaster it is during his time in office.VigilanteGandhi wrote:
You're kidding me right? We have, 9 trillion dollars of it; that is our national debt and it's not getting any better. Of course when Clinton was President we actually had a surplus but Bush has screwed that.
Has anyone seen that particular ad of Apple's, the renegade Intel employees liberating the chip from the "mundane little tasks of the PC"? As little as I could stand that rotten piece of techno propaganda, it occurs to me that something like that may just be the thing for the Democrats to pitch a moderate ticket next election with. I don't think they're ever going to get one of their ultra-liberal hopefuls in, but maybe someone "freed from the mundane confines of conservatism..." ...you never know. Apple convinced some people with it.
Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2006-07-23 10:12:11)
And your post offered absolutely Fuckall to the topic being discussed, which was, the tax cuts lowering the deficit.jonsimon wrote:
And yet nothing you presented is evidence contrary to what I said.|AIA| DAS wrote:
O RLY?jonsimon wrote:
Economic studies have been done on this issue. Tax cuts to the rich do NOT help the median consumer. The rich spend their money on positional goods, a good or service that elevates ones position in society, for example, a bigger house or a new car. The purchasing of positional goods means that for the middle class to remain the middle class, they must purchase equivelant positional goods, or else they drop into a lower social and economic class. These investments by the rich in fact HURT the middle class by forcing them to invest more money in positional goods, but unlike the rich they do not recieve tax cuts that increase their income and they must then invest less of their income into real goods and the American market. Making the rich richer inherently makes the poor poorer while simultaneously reducing investments into American markets.
The flaw in the logic the government provides behind tax cuts for the rich is that they assume the rich invest in capital gains. This is a flawed assumption and simply not true.
The logic I have presented was the conclusion of a recent economic study presented at an economics conference in Toronto a year or two ago. My father, an economics professor, attended the conference and explained to my family this interesting study.
Well the deficit is now half what it was in 2004 and the economy has grown by 11 %. The US Deficit is what we were discussing BTW. Unemployment is down also, Hmmmm.
Read this...
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0, … 73,00.html
It wasn't a tax cut for the rich only, the larger percentage cuts were to the middle class.
Well you're a moron considering that this debt issue has been going on for years now. I'm not sayin that Bush isn't fueling the fire with his insane budget.. but its certainly not solely his fault. It's not like the Dems are budget-friendly either.. you might mention Clinton's budget surplus... but that was only temporary and would have quickly disappeared.JohnnyBlanco wrote:
If, by 2041, the US is paying more interest on its loans then it earns in tax revenue then your all fooked but i doubt it will get that bad. Bush sucks ass, why the fuck did you give him a second term? Duh!!!
And the people wanting to tax Bill Gates.. even his wealth is only a fraction of the debt.
Why did I support Bush for a second term? Because Kerry is a moron - consider that he lost an election to a President who started an unpopular war... You would think it would've been the easiest election since Roosevelt's third term.
lmao... I love your wording "enslave and oppress humanity".. you sound like an ultra left-wing socialist moronthanks_champ wrote:
An absolutely mind blowing 3 part film that covers the history of money and banking systems throughout Europe and America. It shows how a small group of men control countries through a corrupt system of finance and central banking, to enslave and oppress humanity:
Last edited by USAFDude_1988 (2006-07-23 16:32:51)
the US has been in debt for just a little over 230 years now. It's never going away, and we've gotten this far with debt, it's not gonna take us down anytime soon.
I have an interesting article somewhere explaining why it is in fact a good thing that the US is in debt, and why we have never tried to pay it off all the way. Once I find it I will post it. will make you think a little.
I have an interesting article somewhere explaining why it is in fact a good thing that the US is in debt, and why we have never tried to pay it off all the way. Once I find it I will post it. will make you think a little.
EVERY industrialized country, as far as I know, is in debt.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
First of all, it's not my wording, it's the description of the video on Google. Secondly, did you actually watch the film? or were you quite content simply pulling a Fox News style denigration.USAFDude_1988 wrote:
lmao... I love your wording "enslave and oppress humanity".. you sound like an ultra left-wing socialist moronthanks_champ wrote:
An absolutely mind blowing 3 part film that covers the history of money and banking systems throughout Europe and America. It shows how a small group of men control countries through a corrupt system of finance and central banking, to enslave and oppress humanity:
Last edited by thanks_champ (2006-07-23 20:44:39)
Besides, banking does try to enslave and oppress humanity.thanks_champ wrote:
First of all, it's not my wording, it's the description of the video on Google. Secondly, did you actually watch the film? or were you quite content simply pulling a Fox News style denigration.USAFDude_1988 wrote:
lmao... I love your wording "enslave and oppress humanity".. you sound like an ultra left-wing socialist moronthanks_champ wrote:
An absolutely mind blowing 3 part film that covers the history of money and banking systems throughout Europe and America. It shows how a small group of men control countries through a corrupt system of finance and central banking, to enslave and oppress humanity:
LMFAO, while I agree that Bush has screwed a couple of things up, the economy is certainly NOT one of them. You are obviously ill informed and too dogmatic to realize the truth. The economy is by far much stronger than it was in the 90's. The Clinton economy (which was only a success because of Bush I, and Reagan) started to drop in the late 90's. The economy as of today has been boosted by tax cuts and other conservative spending stratagies. While some hikes in different places may make it look gloomy, you really have to look at our GDP, our defense bill is a little high, but the U.S. is in certainly not that worse of a situation than all of the countries in Europe. You think OUR economy is bad. Ha, you really spend too much time on moveon.org than established economic and financial news sites. As for the web site the OP linked. Its a year old. Yawn. Do some research.JohnnyBlanco wrote:
Bush sucks ass, why the fuck did you give him a second term? Duh!!!
Well my favorite thing about how they calculate the unemployment is they only count the people on unemployment so once your checks run out your technically not "unemployed' anymore. Also you have to be in the job market before you can be counted, so majority of the kids getting out of school who can't find a job aren't counted. The 4.6 unemployment rate is based off a system that this administration put into effect in Bush's first term. It's easier to change the way you cauculate the numbers then it is to positivly influance the numbers.