Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
Bush Asking For Increased Military Powers?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="wkmac" data-source="post: 58944"><p>Susie,</p><p>Looks like no one is interested in the question(s). As for the dual citizenship this has been going on for so long in Washington with both parties it's not even funny nor an issue anymore unless someone from one political side tries to get some mileage with it over the other guys. Most cases it makes it a few hours and then we focus on the latest celebrity news from Hollywood.</p><p></p><p>As for the China, National debt and owning American businesses there are numerous ways to look at this. As for the negative, debt itself and especially the enormous federal debt we have is not good and there's not argument the Bush adminstration and the Republican Congress has done nothing to curtail excessive spending. However, it does appear to me that many of us get confused and point back to the Clinton years with the belief that debt was on the way to disappearing. I beg to differ. The media hounds that protect the political players of both sides do a good job of keeping us off balance with understanding the difference between balnce budgets and national debt. We all assume Clinton had balanced the budget but had he? Were the republican control Congress of the day willing partners in a big lie? </p><p></p><p>In 1983' FICA taxes were increased 25% in part it was said at the time to meet future obligations. During the Clinton years this FICA tax presented a surplus in the $400bil range but I would ask what happened to it? Take the time to look closely at the federal budgets of those years and then close reference to $400 bil plus FICA annual surpluses and their transfers into the general fund. Fact is all FICA taxes we pay go into the general fund and that's the problem to start with but at the time Social Security came into law the gov't had to argue that Social Security wasn't a insurance/retirement plan but was an excise tax on employment with funds collected place into general revenue. Supreme Court had already struck down an identical system the gov't tried to do with the railroad concerning a retirement plan so when Social Security went before SCOTUS in cases like Helvering verse Davis the gov't had the Constitutional authority to impose taxation under Art.1 Sec 8 but it had no authority to impose a centralized insurance/retirement plan. They now have that authority in that our Senate has passed numerous international treaties and treaties by law can be codified into public policy regardless what the Constitution sez. </p><p></p><p>As for the national debt it continued to grow at it's horrid pace even during the Clinton years and this too is easy to plot out if one so chooses to do. Here is also the other ugly truth. In order to pay the national debt off over time the debt is actually twice as much as they say it is. Proof? Take any current debt you have, home, car, whatever and tell me what the current payoff is. That is your personal debt at that moment if you paid it off at that moment but how much will it really cost you if you paid that debt off over time according to the payment schedule. So you see folks, again these bastards are lying to us as the real debt is far worse as we have no means to pay it all off at this very moment. The interest is also accumulating so fast that many believe that we aren't even servicing the interest at the present moment. </p><p></p><p>As for gov't acting outside the bounds of Constitutional provisions your time would be well spent researching Treaty law and you can guarantee there's an international agreement somewhere that gives them the power to do what they are doing. NAFTA, GAT and others were not the first by any stretch and won't be the last either. I contend the most damaging treaties to our nation we actually never hear or get wind off. We've been had by Washington and both sides are equally guilty IMO.</p><p></p><p>As for China, on the one hand the true definition of slavery is when another owns your property and the means of your pursuit of happiness because when both of these elements are owned they own you as they can then dicate your every move. Debt is the very vehicle that can be used to do this and is more effective than bombs and guns. On the other hand there are those that argue that China's investment in America helps to guarantee there won't be war as to attack would deminish the value of the asset and their investment. Most of this thinking comes from folks who are focused on a global community where we are all one under the UN and they themselves stand to make a lot of money from the whole deal. As a libertarian I believe in totally open borders with free movement for all and I also believe that you should be able to work and own business anywhere you want. Yes, it's utopian and would work on the premise that the entire global were a free, open and for lack of better word a libertarian culture but human nature gets in the way and therefore unlikely to happen. Even God has been unable to get us hardheaded humans to live with each other just using the most basics concepts of decency so I can't see us ever doing something like this on our own. In the meantime we can keep placing our trust in big gov't which is owned and controlled by big business and the very thing we want gov't to protect us from we will keep seeing more and more of. We live in a world of Hegelian Dialectics and I see nothing that will change this.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="wkmac, post: 58944"] Susie, Looks like no one is interested in the question(s). As for the dual citizenship this has been going on for so long in Washington with both parties it's not even funny nor an issue anymore unless someone from one political side tries to get some mileage with it over the other guys. Most cases it makes it a few hours and then we focus on the latest celebrity news from Hollywood. As for the China, National debt and owning American businesses there are numerous ways to look at this. As for the negative, debt itself and especially the enormous federal debt we have is not good and there's not argument the Bush adminstration and the Republican Congress has done nothing to curtail excessive spending. However, it does appear to me that many of us get confused and point back to the Clinton years with the belief that debt was on the way to disappearing. I beg to differ. The media hounds that protect the political players of both sides do a good job of keeping us off balance with understanding the difference between balnce budgets and national debt. We all assume Clinton had balanced the budget but had he? Were the republican control Congress of the day willing partners in a big lie? In 1983' FICA taxes were increased 25% in part it was said at the time to meet future obligations. During the Clinton years this FICA tax presented a surplus in the $400bil range but I would ask what happened to it? Take the time to look closely at the federal budgets of those years and then close reference to $400 bil plus FICA annual surpluses and their transfers into the general fund. Fact is all FICA taxes we pay go into the general fund and that's the problem to start with but at the time Social Security came into law the gov't had to argue that Social Security wasn't a insurance/retirement plan but was an excise tax on employment with funds collected place into general revenue. Supreme Court had already struck down an identical system the gov't tried to do with the railroad concerning a retirement plan so when Social Security went before SCOTUS in cases like Helvering verse Davis the gov't had the Constitutional authority to impose taxation under Art.1 Sec 8 but it had no authority to impose a centralized insurance/retirement plan. They now have that authority in that our Senate has passed numerous international treaties and treaties by law can be codified into public policy regardless what the Constitution sez. As for the national debt it continued to grow at it's horrid pace even during the Clinton years and this too is easy to plot out if one so chooses to do. Here is also the other ugly truth. In order to pay the national debt off over time the debt is actually twice as much as they say it is. Proof? Take any current debt you have, home, car, whatever and tell me what the current payoff is. That is your personal debt at that moment if you paid it off at that moment but how much will it really cost you if you paid that debt off over time according to the payment schedule. So you see folks, again these bastards are lying to us as the real debt is far worse as we have no means to pay it all off at this very moment. The interest is also accumulating so fast that many believe that we aren't even servicing the interest at the present moment. As for gov't acting outside the bounds of Constitutional provisions your time would be well spent researching Treaty law and you can guarantee there's an international agreement somewhere that gives them the power to do what they are doing. NAFTA, GAT and others were not the first by any stretch and won't be the last either. I contend the most damaging treaties to our nation we actually never hear or get wind off. We've been had by Washington and both sides are equally guilty IMO. As for China, on the one hand the true definition of slavery is when another owns your property and the means of your pursuit of happiness because when both of these elements are owned they own you as they can then dicate your every move. Debt is the very vehicle that can be used to do this and is more effective than bombs and guns. On the other hand there are those that argue that China's investment in America helps to guarantee there won't be war as to attack would deminish the value of the asset and their investment. Most of this thinking comes from folks who are focused on a global community where we are all one under the UN and they themselves stand to make a lot of money from the whole deal. As a libertarian I believe in totally open borders with free movement for all and I also believe that you should be able to work and own business anywhere you want. Yes, it's utopian and would work on the premise that the entire global were a free, open and for lack of better word a libertarian culture but human nature gets in the way and therefore unlikely to happen. Even God has been unable to get us hardheaded humans to live with each other just using the most basics concepts of decency so I can't see us ever doing something like this on our own. In the meantime we can keep placing our trust in big gov't which is owned and controlled by big business and the very thing we want gov't to protect us from we will keep seeing more and more of. We live in a world of Hegelian Dialectics and I see nothing that will change this. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
Bush Asking For Increased Military Powers?
Top