The Demise of the United States is Inevitable

[John]

Alright fair enough...just grabbed it ...lets see if dyslexia doesn't choke-slam me before my head pops.

Don't blame me when, after reading this, you are ready to take up arms against the government. I know I felt that way after reading it (plus fighting off the urge to hit the wall on several occasions).

These are the people the OWS'ers and Tea Partiers should be going after.

 

[EQnoble]

I already feel that way (in a sense but less general) and have for a while...Law Enforcement, politicians, supporting agencies...these are the few people we are supposed to trust to keep our government a well oiled machine that should stay more transparent and less oppressive in nature.

These people are the supposed educated ones and we are supposed to rely on them and have faith in them...I don't have a problem with my government...in fact I love the system our government is actually intended to be run under.

I have a problem with people who have the knowledge to and take the oath to serve their country, not living up to their words.

I have a problem when a politician who is supposed to serve the people of the United States of America makes money with the same motion of his hands that cause the flock suffering.

I have a problem when police plant evidence to cover up illegal investigations or lie in official statements.

I have a problem when non-goverment entities have weight when it comes to effecting policy.

The trend as it appears in my eyes... is that people are the problem. But only the people who took an oath to serve the people and then neglect that duty for the benefit of political career or monetary gain for self.


To sum it up, the people who are making a mockery of the system need ejection...period. Otherwise one day no one not even the optimists will have faith in the system and then it WILL ultimately fail....unless that is the whole point and I didn't get the memo.

 

[Kevin]

Is this actually true?

Here's an article worth reading...

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2011/11/25/murky-signals-for-congress-on-insider-trading/

What is sad is that the Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge Act means that people knew that Congress was potentially in a position to get away with insider trading & making huge profits and tried to stop it already but it was sat on until 60 Minutes aired their segment.

 

[EQnoble]

Here's an article worth reading...

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2011/11/25/murky-signals-for-congress-on-insider-trading/

As I am reading it I am interpreting it as congress threatened/blackmailed the SEC by saying they would cut funding to them when they pressured the insider trading issue.

Am I reading this correctly?

According to congress they are saying that they are not forced to disclose congressional info or choices that are not public to anyone outside of congress...but by the same token it should be inherent that the individual with knowledge of that information should not be using it to profit...we can't use insider information to profit...congress should not be allowed to profit from govt insider info....in fact it should be a bigger crime than the norm for an inside trader...

They took the job they took and get a check just like everyone else...personally profiting off of investments by way of insider info that you receive in the capacity of a govt worker should be a VERY serious crime.


So let me ask the hypothetical, if I were to know one of these congressmen and they were to slip me the insider information and I secure 1 million dollars investment into a company that is going to turn a profit in weeks....

at what point did it become a crime...when I did it, when he provided actionable intel , or when he intended to use govt knowledge to create a gain for personal acquisition whether it be for him or me. I am just looking for a little consistency here.

 

[craigiri]

I've tried the throw them all out routine, but it's like playing checkers instead of chess. Every time..each and every time, there are legions of folks who replace them who are the same or worse.

True.

It can be fun to throw them out, but after it's done we still have the same system.

 

[EQnoble]

Forget throwing them out....people grow up, go to school and enter a system that has been getting changed by a certain group of occupants of it for centuries that is how it works...and no matter the situation one bad apple can spoil the bushel. Then again, if they will use the fact that you can't question info they get behind closed doors in a political capacity to profit in a way which is known and accepted already as securities fraud that notion carries a heavy tone...what else do you do?

Also since I am a highschool dropout and they are congressmen I don't think I need to explain why I think they should understand what the hell the are doing. They are using their position to commit a known crime assuming that federal law provides them protection from disclosing what would be the proof. First thing that comes to my mind is ( please don't mind the analogical imagery ) someone not only stealing a frozen leg of lamb out of my freezer, but then also proceeding to pummel my head in with it. Congress should be vetting congress constantly, shield them from the masses a bit yeah...but these guys are supposedly highly regarded and trustworthy educated men and women. Their actions should be transparent to each other and they should have a real mechanism in place to fix problems such as misuse of sensitive information and not a system with nothing to inhibit them from profiting grossly in a criminal way.

Like you said before ...flushing the bench so to speak will just always lead to someone else who may have good intentions or not who is also ambitious would be willing to jump at the opportunity to fill the void. In that group of people who qualify there would surely be some who could be compromised and if it can happen it will eventually. Like you said as well it could or would end up being the same thing at a later date and time...just with new people and hardly anyone to show the newbies to the hill the ropes. It's not about changing the system either it's about the changing some of the mechanics to it.

In a nutshell...I think the problems all boil down to the cognitive engagement in acts of greed, which is a trait that is almost unique to humans and not the well written system of our country's past which was written precisely to eliminate things like that. Since it looks like greed = money why not start fixing the problem at the root of things. Money. The money power in this country is not transparent enough. If it was...the SEC would not be able to be leaned on with cutting of appropriations because everyone would see it.

I don't really get angry about it when I think of it anymore, I just think of how what would be different if ...
I realize that government is an idea and a word...it defines the functions that control nations...those functions are carried out by people. People are fallible and also corruptible and if someone sees an instance of it can correct them to the end of making things better for all then they should if they are a good person, however if they work in government and have a shred of a moral compass then they have a duty to.


In the end it is the age old problem, good vs evil, and then of course that would include what ones definition of good and evil are.

 

[Digital Doctor]

Nothing is going to change unless the People take charge.

Occupy Whitehouse.

It's the only way. I'd love to hear about a peaceful orderly process to change the political system and the rules of governing but I doubt it exists.

The night Egypt was being taken over by the people, Obama got on TV saying the will of the people needed to be respected. The first thing I thought when I heard him say that was .... will he be so righteous when the tables are turned against him ? I think we are going to find out.

 

[Fred Sherman]

I'd love to hear about a peaceful orderly process to change the political system and the rules of governing but I doubt it exists.

Of course it exists.

US Constitution, Article V

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

The legislatures of 34 states can call for a Constitutional Convention, at which point he entire US Constitution is open to rewrite or, believe it or not, replacement with a new Constitution. If would still need to be ratified, but that is the process.

 

[Digital Doctor]

Obama is absolutely nailing the State of the Union address.

Tougher Laws on financial fraud [sure.]
All millionaires pay 30% tax ? [WIN]
Ban insider trading by politicians ? [WIN]

Hillary Clinton looking rough. [ouch]

Talked about Iran and Nukes and camera was focussed on Lieberman.
Talked about iron clad military bond with Israel.

Mentioned capturing Bin Laden.



The audio feed after the speech was painful.
Why did he still have the mic on ?

 

[craigiri]

Speaking of our imminent demise, folks may want to get a load of this and similar charts.

Translation - if I were placing bets, I'd be a lot more worried about the demise of the UK and France....and Spain, among others.
If the Banksters hadn't ripped us all off and those neo-cons hadn't spent trillions on wars, we'd be in more than fine shape.
I'm not placing any bets against the good ole USA for now...in fact, I'm heavily invested in her, and doing quite well on those investments (apple, intel, buffet, etc.).
Talk is cheap.
If Obama is allowed to institute even 1/3 of the stuff he is proposing, we'll be on a tear within 2-3 years.

 

[Fred Sherman]

Speaking of our imminent demise, folks may want to get a load of this and similar charts.View attachment 23997
Translation - if I were placing bets, I'd be a lot more worried about the demise of the UK and France....and Spain, among others.
If the Banksters hadn't ripped us all off and those neo-cons hadn't spent trillions on wars, we'd be in more than fine shape.
I'm not placing any bets against the good ole USA for now...in fact, I'm heavily invested in her, and doing quite well on those investments (apple, intel, buffet, etc.).
Talk is cheap.
If Obama is allowed to institute even 1/3 of the stuff he is proposing, we'll be on a tear within 2-3 years.

If you factored in each person's share of the unsustainable nation debt, there would be a different picture. The US government spends 1 out of every 4 GDP dollars and borrows one out of every three is spends. 4 out of 10 dollars the government spends is for debt servicing.

So how much of the GDP is BS?

Well, if the government is 25% of the GDP and 25% of that is debt servicing, then 6.25% of GPD is debt servicing. of the 18.75% of government injected GDP, another 6.25% is borrowed. So 12.5% of the GDP is phony. Its either debt servicing or new debt. 1/8th of the US GDP is pure smoke and mirrors.

 

[Fred Sherman]

Obama is absolutely nailing the State of the Union address.

Because he's had a few years to practice it? Same stuff, different year, same failed leadership.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[DBA]

Mr Romney is a multi-millionaire businessman and former Massachusetts governor with three homes and lives mainly on income from his investments, for which only 15% tax is payable. Earned income is taxed at up to 35%.

Earned income taxed at 35%
Investment income taxed at 15%.

I see how the tax laws are setup to cater to wealthy Americans.

The thing you're neglecting to mention is how the original investments come to be.

For example I work my arse off to make $50,000, this $50,000 is then taxed at the 35% ($17,500), I invest the leftover $32,500 and make a 10% ($3,250) return. This 10% return is then taxed at the 15% ($487.50).

It's not like I just got $32,500 handed to me free and clear, I had to earn $50,000 (and pay 35% in taxes) to get it.

I think that a lower "investment tax" is a good thing as it encourages people to save and invest their money.


Also I'm not a "rich" person (I make less then the national average), however I get pissed when I see all this "we hate rich people" / "rich people need to pay more then me" talk. Do you think that the average "rich" person just sits on their arse and watches the money rain down? Heck no! The rich people I know worked their arse off to get were they're at now.

Also why should they pay a higher percentage then me? The more money they have in their pockets the more they spend/invest. Have you ever seen a poor person create a job? I haven't.

The less my employer has to pay in taxes the bigger my salary gets. Which is why I'm all for LOWERING taxes on the rich. (I'd vote for a 15% flat tax)

My .02

What I still don't understand and it is completely ridiculous IMO...and to be honest does not make me want to work (the whole tax and money system is criminal the way it currently operates)

guy 1 makes 800 in a 40 hr week to furnish a home for his whole family...pays over 200 in taxes out of that...

guy 2 makes 4000 a week and pays a smaller percentage in taxes...

So how did this "guy 2" come about to make $4000 a week? Did it just land in his lap or was he also at one time the "guy 1" and he worked extra hard to get where he's at right now?

 

[craigiri]

I had to earn $50,000 (and pay 35% in taxes) to get it.

I think that a lower "investment tax" is a good thing as it encourages people to save and invest their money.

So you think, for instance, that we should reward folks who have vast amounts of money...and don't sweat....MORE than we reward a person who sweats every day and night for their wages?

In other words, you think the guy that makes money from a hedge fund (betting) is more worthy of breaks than a person who fixes plumbing??

There is nothing wrong with rewarding savings - but savings are a reward unto themselves. Also, this is not about rewarding savings as much as it is about rewarding risk taking and gambling. Most anyone can avoid ALL taxes (for decades) if they invest in their IRA.

Also, you have to take into consideration that such tax breaks are skewed heavily toward those who are already very wealthy - as opposed to helping others get that way! That is, a guy like Romney benefits about 1000X as much as someone with an average net worth and investments.

Capital gains was always given a break - no problem with that! The problem is in how much of a break. Capital gains used to be taxed at 28%, which was quite a break from much higher tax brackets. In addition, they don't pay SS and Medicare and Unemployment...even more of a break.

Then they lowered it to 20%. Then they lowered it to 15%.

So the question is whether they went too far.

 

[DBA]

So you think, for instance, that we should reward folks who have vast amounts of money...and don't sweat....MORE than we reward a person who sweats every day and night for their wages?

Again we come back to how did they make all their money in the first place?

Also, so you're saying that unless my job requires me to sweat, I should pay more in taxes? Considering that I work in an office, guess I'd better pay more in taxes.

I have a buddy who owns a pretty successful business, he (usually) doesn't sweat from his job. However he isn't just sitting on his butt and watching the checks roll in, he works WAY harder/more hours then I do. Same goes for my boss, yes he does make considerably more then me. However he doesn't have a 9-5 job, it's more like 24/7. "Hard work" isn't just dependent in if you sweat or not.

In other words, you think the guy that makes money from a hedge fund (betting) is more worthy of breaks than a person who fixes plumbing??.

You think that the only "rich" people out there are the "hedge fund" guys?

 

[Fred Sherman]

guy 1 makes 800 in a 40 hr week to furnish a home for his whole family...pays over 200 in taxes out of that...

guy 2 makes 4000 a week and pays a smaller percentage in taxes...

In what world does this exist? I am "Guy 2" and I guaran-DAMNED-tee I pay a higher percentage. I don't get deductions the other guy gets. I pay over $50K/yr in tuition, but can't deduct a dime. I can't deduct mortgage interest. The is a whole list of deductions that I am excluded from using because of my income level.

So yeah, I hear all these stories, but they don't mesh well with reality.

Here's what has really happened under the class-warfare regime. The upper middle class has been redefined as "the rich". Why? Because we are well off enough to tax more, but not so rich as to be able to use the loop holes and shelters the real rich use.

And you think it doesn't kill business? Think again. I had to let half my employees go since 2009 and finally sold the business at much less than its value along with a six figure drop in my own salary, not counting the six months where I didn't pay myself at all to try to keep as many people on as I could.

So spare me the hope and change. Balack Insane O'Bammy (Black Irish, don't you know), took a recession and turned it into the worst economy since the Great Depression. And in that economic climate, he has the audacity to run this country for the last 1000 days with no budget, just a series of continuing resolutions.

As the CEO, he has failed and I have complete confidence that this time next year will find him unemployed.

 

[craigiri]

Again we come back to how did they make all their money in the first place?
You think that the only "rich" people out there are the "hedge fund" guys?

In the case of Romney and venture capitalists, they didn't make their money by sweating. Nor fixing pipes.

The big savings from these tax breaks DO go to wall street and the big hedge fund managers.

The excuse that money was taxed already just doesn't hold water. ALL money is taxed every time it goes through the system. Sell you car. The buyer pays sales tax. If he sells it next year, the new buyer pays...and so on.

The more reasonable argument I can give you is this. We are not bringing in enough to fund our government. ALL tax breaks giving in the last decade have been given by borrowing money. These are not break at all, but rather put the burden on future generations.

It costs about 25%, more or less, to run the Government. If you are allowing some people to pay 15%, then others have to make up the difference...or you have to borrow.

Heck, I'd be into lowering any taxes if we had a surplus! But we don't. So those who pay less make it so other pay for and our deficits and debt grow. That's simple economics.

 

[craigiri]

In what world does this exist? I am "Guy 2" and I guaran-DAMNED-tee I pay a higher percentage. I don't get deductions the other guy gets. I pay over $50K/yr in tuition, but can't deduct a dime. I can't deduct mortgage interest. The is a whole list of deductions that I am excluded from using because of my income level.

So yeah, I hear all these stories, but they don't mesh well with reality.

Fred, you made the point for me!

Folks who work for a living like you and I typically pay 25% of more. Sometimes much more, especially when SS (matching), unemployment and other taxes are taken into account.

The discussion is more centered on people making a million per year and up...AND on the usual tax breaks that such people get.

Romney is paying 13.9%.
Warren Buffet is paying 17%

You and I and Newt are paying much more. That's not fair, IMHO.

I think we should roll capital gains taxes back to 20% and also remove the Bush cuts for those making north of a million. I don't say this so I make more - I won't. In fact, I'll pay a little bit more. But our budget will be in better shape.

 

[DBA]

The more reasonable argument I can give you is this. We are not bringing in enough to fund our government. ALL tax breaks giving in the last decade have been given by borrowing money. These are not break at all, but rather put the burden on future generations.

It costs about 25%, more or less, to run the Government. If you are allowing some people to pay 15%, then others have to make up the difference...or you have to borrow.

Heck, I'd be into lowering any taxes if we had a surplus! But we don't. So those who pay less make it so other pay for and our deficits and debt grow. That's simple economics.

Or how about we just shrink the government?

 

[DBA]

The discussion is more centered on people making a million per year and up...

That's more inline with what I think should be considered "rich". The problem is a lot of people think that anyone making over $100k is rich, while that isn't true.