If they piss us off enough, we'll simply wipe the country off the planet.
- yes, why don't USA just do that and set the precedent for wiping out countries from the face of the earth?
How many seconds, minutes, hours, days after that happens that the rest of the world realizes what it's dealing with in face of USA and stops dealing with USA / attacks USA in a fit of self preservation?
It's just basic math - if USA is attacked by Chinese and Russian (and whoever may join in) nuclear weapons, and US strikes back, the only question is how many more Chinese would survive out of the 1.5 Billion compared to US 0.33 Billion?
US isn't paying anything, it prints currency and that's the end of that. Unless US runs out of trees (or, what's more likely, the rest of the world wises up and stop buying up US debt and 'trading' for worthless dollars), US can continue forever.
But this can't last forever, eventually reality catches up with anything.
Saudi Arabia executes hundreds of 'witches' a year, never mind other religious transgressions that are punished severely, and SA is the biggest US 'ally' or so it seems.
the implication that one has to be a left wing socialist to be against the Patriot Act offends me, but that's fine, it's a freedom of speech issue, all speech, including speech 'offensive' is protected (and any speech can be deemed offensive by somebody.)
Oh, and by the way, if you still manage to confuse the moderators on this site, artor3, who is either the biggest fool or is a shill, I am going to quote ACLU and they have lawyers who read this same bill that I am reading and that you are supposedly reading.
WASHINGTON â" President Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) into law today. The statute contains a sweeping worldwide indefinite detention provision. While President Obama issued a signing statement saying he had âoeserious reservationsâ about the provisions, the statement only applies to how his administration would use the authorities granted by the NDAA, and would not affect how the law is interpreted by subsequent administrations. The White House had threatened to veto an earlier version of the NDAA, but reversed course shortly before Congress voted on the final bill.
âoePresident Obama's action today is a blight on his legacy because he will forever be known as the president who signed indefinite detention without charge or trial into law,â said Anthony D. Romero, ACLU executive director. âoeThe statute is particularly dangerous because it has no temporal or geographic limitations, and can be used by this and future presidents to militarily detain people captured far from any battlefield. The ACLU will fight worldwide detention authority wherever we can, be it in court, in Congress, or internationally.â
Under the Bush administration, similar claims of worldwide detention authority were used to hold even a U.S. citizen detained on U.S. soil in military custody, and many in Congress now assert that the NDAA should be used in the same way again. The ACLU believes that any military detention of American citizens or others within the United States is unconstitutional and illegal, including under the NDAA. In addition, the breadth of the NDAAâ(TM)s detention authority violates international law because it is not limited to people captured in the context of an actual armed conflict as required by the laws of war.
âoeWe are incredibly disappointed that President Obama signed this new law even though his administration had already claimed overly broad detention authority in court,â said Romero. âoeAny hope that the Obama administration would roll back the constitutional excesses of George Bush in the war on terror was extinguished today. Thankfully, we have three branches of government, and the final word belongs to the Supreme Court, which has yet to rule on the scope of detention authority. But Congress and the president also have a role to play in cleaning up the mess they have created because no American citizen or anyone else should live in fear of this or any future president misusing the NDAAâ(TM)s detention authority.â
The bill also contains provisions making it difficult to transfer suspects out of military detention, which prompted FBI Director Robert Mueller to testify that it could jeopardize criminal investigations. It also restricts the transfers of cleared detainees from the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay to foreign countries for resettlement or repatriation, making it more difficult to close Guantanamo, as President Obama pledged to do in one of his first acts in office.
Anyway, artor3, I am sure you are going to have a rebuttal now not only for MY comments, but for ACLU's as well.
You are doubling down on your nonsense, the section 1028 is about transfer of existing detainees, and the section 1031 that was removed was about any new detainees, thus your idiotic argument is completely false and you are propagating the same nonsense BS as the MSM wants you to propagate.
Page 15: Sec. 1031. Definition of individual detained at Guantanamo.
Here is the definition of section 1028 from the final version, which does not have 1031
SEC. 1028. REQUIREMENTS FOR CERTIFICATIONS RELATING TO THE TRANSFER OF DETAINEES AT UNITED STATES NAVAL STA- TION, GUANTANAMO BAY, CUBA, TO FOREIGN COUNTRIES AND OTHER FOREIGN ENTITIES.
So those have completely different purpose. One specifies the DEFINITION of a person contained in Gitmo, one specifies the requirements for certifications relating to TRANSFER of detainees.
Let's look at the section that is missing from the final bill, and it's taken out by the order of the Obama and his administration:
SEC. 1031. DEFINITION OF INDIVIDUAL DETAINED AT GUANTANAMO.
In this subtitle, the term `individual detained at Guantanamo' means any individual who is located at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, on or after March 7, 2011, who--
(1) is not a citizen of the United States or a member of the Armed Forces of the United States; and
(2) is in the custody or under the effective control of the Department of Defense.
you can continue with your propaganda, that somehow Obama fought the evil Republicans tooth and nail to prevent the bad things from happening to the US citizens.
But he is the one who forced that section to be taken out, he is the one running the Gitmo concentration camp (as in a prison, where individuals kidnapped by a government force are placed without any lawful recourse, without ability to challenge their confinement in a court system).
Sure, it says: terrorists, bad people, Al Qaeda.
I say: anybody who a dictatorial 'elected' official deems to be a bad person, a terrorist, Al Qaeda 'member' or 'sympathizer' (or maybe a relative).
Just a matter of fact - now POTUS kills so called Al Qaeda members and their children that are US citizens found abroad, given the new power it's just going to be possible to put people into military concentration camps without any legal recourse, including US citizens, eventually those who are in US.
And I am crazy? OK, now good night, it's very late where I am.
Senator Carl Levin, D-Michigan explains, as I mentioned in my previous comment that Obama's administration forced the Senate to remove the language from the bill that would have prevented the US citizens from being taken in by the military and held indefinitely, without access to lawyers or anything that US citizens have rights to.
That means that US citizens can be thrown into indefinite detention by the president of United States singlehandedly and US citizens have no legal recourse and they can't even be found out by anybody who is looking for them.
That is a concentration camp.
Obama becomes a dictator.
This NDAA gives power to detain civilians by military, so this is a martial law.
You are still completely confused, just as I explained the US citizens and others will be, which is ensured on purpose by the MSM.
The SOURCES are given to you, is Democrat Senator not a good enough source for you?
Obviously you are not an honest actor, otherwise I would have gotten a retraction for you here rather than this nonsense. You are not interested in the actual truth of the matter, see, you are not just a 'confused' person, you are being ideologically driven.
As to me putting quotation marks around words like 'elected' - this means that it does not matter whether you elect this dictator and whether you elect the next one, what matters is that the line of dictators is selected carefully for you to 'elect' from.
The point that parent was making was in fact nonsense. As to SCOTUS - it's actually not getting enough attention by the public, as the transgressions of SCOTUS allowed the country to descent into totalitarian nightmare, starting all the way back with it not ruling correctly against the power of Federal reserve and Treasury to monetize government debt, print money (and it's nonsense that the Fed is an 'independent bank'), and all of the other stuff, including the violation of the 5th and 13th amendments by not working to strike down the 16th, the SS and Medicare and minimum wage and Patriot Act and TSA and EPA and FDA and all the rest of the destruction of the Constitution. (SCOTUS is supposed to uphold the law, which is the Constitution, but this also must mean it must uphold the Constitution completely, which means preventing new amendments from taking rights of people away that are guaranteed by the previous amendments).
The Constitution needs to be reworked, but that's not going to happen and it's not going to achieve anything until the current power structure is changed, until people force the politicians to give up powers that they are unauthorized to hold.
Yes, it is true, Obama specifically fought to make sure that the US citizens are in fact included into the bill and are now just as much of a target for the US administration as any funny looking foreigners.
In fact I mentioned something, but it's the exact problem that I mentioned that you are displaying - being confused by the MSM, which are on purpose make it confusing for some people to understand that in FACT it was Obama who fought...... to EXCLUDE the provisions from the bill that would LIMIT the power against being applied to US citizens (not that these powers should be applied to ANY humans on the planet, but that train left the station back when the 'Patriot' Act was signed).
Obama fought in order to ensure that the US citizens would in fact be included in the list of people that are targeted by this bill.
As to paying 'fair share' - the 1% pays its 'fair share' before it pays a single penny in income/corporate/payroll taxes, it pays much more than its fair share by creating the businesses, succeeding and running the businesses (despite the government trying hard to destroy those businesses).
The gov't is a system that allows the politicians to steal power that they are not supposed to be able to steal (power that they take that is not authorized for them to have by the Constitutional).
The politicians steal the power from individuals, so that they can then sell that power and become rich (and be reelected), that's the game. The socialist movements are used by the politicians to help them to steal that power. SS, Medicare, income taxes (the way they are collected), payroll taxes, constant wars without Congressional declaration - those are powers that government steals from individual citizens and businesses, and then those powers are sold on the market, and obviously there are some people who can buy those powers.
Those people who buy that power are not just 1%, they are more like 0.01%
Those, who are in 99% don't see that the people who are really hurt by the system are not the 0.01%, who are buying the power, but those in between 99% and 0.01%.
That 0.99% are the businesses that are actually creating all the economic growth, they hire all the employees, they pay all the wages and they create all the products.
Once US government defaulted on its money (1971), and the gov't started setting interest rates (price of money), this sent a powerful signal to people who actually run businesses - MOVE THE FUCK OUT.
And they did so, and they are right to do so. They have to move their investment capital out, they have to move their productive capacity out and they understand very well, that they can't hire US citizens.
Anything - from income and payroll taxes, to SS, Medicare, wars, minimum wage, gov't support to unions, any kind of labor laws on Federal/State level, any sort of licensing program, any idea that destroys the property rights (so called 'Civil Rights', which are entitlements and obligations, not rights, FDA, EPA, departments of energy, education, agriculture, business, etc.), all of this gives out a powerful signal - don't dare to hire Americans or you will pay for it dearly by being held responsible for anything you do, that can be brought against you with the gun put to your head by the power of the State.
Fuck government. If people want their purchasing power back, they have to work. People cannot expect to live on a dole without producing something and they can't expect other individuals to take risks in anti-business environment to build businesses and provide jobs.
So fuck government, and people have to understand that their real enemy is their government, which destroys their economy and purchasing power by destroying their money, their productivity and all the economic incentives to build businesses in the country.
There is nothing that raising of taxes can do to 'eliminate ills from society'. The exact opposite is true - the ills of society cannot be eliminated by diminishing personal investment capital of individuals and it only serves as a tool to grow government, which undermines the economic growth and destroys the economy and society.
If it was possible to tax people into a 'good economy', then the ultimate conclusion is that the government is the entity that should run the economy (because that's what increased taxation does - it grows government to do thing that government wants to do.)
Of-course we know what happens when government controls the economy - anything from USSR to Zimbabwe and North Korea or Cuba.
USA has been plagued with the huge government and cancerous growth of gov't and the gov't power since the Fed and IRS were established back in 1913. Before that moment since the end of Civil War, the US had the most economic growth in history, allowing it to pay out all of its debts and become largest creditor nation on earth, while being largest producer of cheap, high quality consumer goods. USA was the beacon of freedom, which brought people and ideas from other, less free nations, and those people innovated and competed and created the economy and society that then decided to install a large government to 'eliminate ills'.
The most terrible mistake in USA was electing Theodore Roosevelt, everything else came out of that terrible incident.
It's only a matter of time before using a foreign website will be an offense that marks a US citizen as a terrorist.
No foreign bank wants to deal with US citizens because of Patriot Act. When SOPA or something similar passes, foreigners will start avoiding online US clients and businesses.
You missed a spot where I called government thieves, which they are, and inheritance taxes are death taxes, which they are.
You are free to call them what you wish, but if a person takes all of his wealth and burns it to the ground before dying, there would be no wealth and no taxes left, otherwise upon death there are taxes to those, who the person wants to leave the money to - it's a death tax, because all of the income/corporate/payroll taxes were already paid on that money.
Buffet is the owner of 1/3rd of all BH dividend paying shares, so any amount of money that BH pays in taxes is the amount of money that he does not receive as dividend payments.
When BH pays say 35% (if it does) in taxes, that's out of Buffet's pocket immediately. Then he pays 15% on his income, which is mostly dividends (he pays himself a small salary, around 100K or so, the rest is dividends).
Why is Buffet 'pro-taxes' discounting the fact that uncle Sam saved his company back in 08 by bailing out AIG, the end of which would have ruined BH (Buffet made insane leveraged bets through AIG in early 2008 for the mortgage market through AIG)?
It's because BH is in business of buying out companies and restructuring them. When death taxes are paid, to raise the money to pay off the gov't thieves via IRS, the heirs have to liquidate all sorts of assets, including income generating business holdings. That's when the vultures in form of BH descend upon the company to buy the ownership at a firesale.
The real economic growth in USA happened between 1870 and 1913 under 0 income, payroll, corporate tax.
1. What is lame is your argument that destruction of democracy in Iran had anything to do with communism rather than with Anglo Persian Oil Company (now BP) asking governments of UK an US for help with their oil drilling contracts.
2. Destroying a democratic system to install a dictatorial one and expecting no blowback, no consequences is stupid.
3. Who cares about 1953? Well then, who cares about 1979?
lastly: you are an apologist for the obviously corrupt government system.
I have lenovo w510 laptop with 16GB RAM etc., it's nice. I use it for my work and there are 2 OSs on it - Windows 7 (which it came with) and a Ubuntu 10.
Here is what I can tell you about these: I tried Windows 7 and never mind the fact that I can't stand the overall graphical interface in it, under Windows 7 I couldn't copy files from a CD that somebody gave me with a medical application onto the disk. (well, it said it would copy the disk in 55 hours, after 'calculating' or something the files for 10 minutes straight).
With Ubuntu it just copied the files. Took a couple of minutes I think, maybe less.
With Ubuntu I have various issues as well, which are all convenience problems; anything from dual monitor behaving strangely once in a while to the hang ups, when the mouse gets stuck 'between' the two monitors (it's on both at the same time and keeps jumping) and at this point nothing works, can't switch to another shell, nothing, so have to reboot. This happens once a month maybe.
But with all the problems under a GNU/Linux I can't imagine using that Windows partition, it's just sitting there, stealing 50GB of space from me, but I keep it around just in case I really need to run something Windowsy. But apparently I have to do it in some XP compatibility mode, because Win 7 didn't even run apps that I needed.
Slashdot Mirror
If they piss us off enough, we'll simply wipe the country off the planet.
- yes, why don't USA just do that and set the precedent for wiping out countries from the face of the earth?
How many seconds, minutes, hours, days after that happens that the rest of the world realizes what it's dealing with in face of USA and stops dealing with USA / attacks USA in a fit of self preservation?
It's just basic math - if USA is attacked by Chinese and Russian (and whoever may join in) nuclear weapons, and US strikes back, the only question is how many more Chinese would survive out of the 1.5 Billion compared to US 0.33 Billion?
US isn't paying anything, it prints currency and that's the end of that. Unless US runs out of trees (or, what's more likely, the rest of the world wises up and stop buying up US debt and 'trading' for worthless dollars), US can continue forever.
But this can't last forever, eventually reality catches up with anything.
Are you KIDDING me?
Saudi Arabia executes hundreds of 'witches' a year, never mind other religious transgressions that are punished severely, and SA is the biggest US 'ally' or so it seems.
Learn something about blowback and US involvement in destroying democracies around the world to install dictators starting all the way back in 1953
Imagine if it were Texas.
Nobody cares about the NK dictator because he is just a tyrant that enslaves and kills and rapes his people, but he has nothing that US wants - OIL.
the implication that one has to be a left wing socialist to be against the Patriot Act offends me, but that's fine, it's a freedom of speech issue, all speech, including speech 'offensive' is protected (and any speech can be deemed offensive by somebody.)
good luck with that.
Oh, and by the way, if you still manage to confuse the moderators on this site, artor3, who is either the biggest fool or is a shill, I am going to quote ACLU and they have lawyers who read this same bill that I am reading and that you are supposedly reading.
Let's see what ACLU says
WASHINGTON â" President Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) into law today. The statute contains a sweeping worldwide indefinite detention provision. While President Obama issued a signing statement saying he had âoeserious reservationsâ about the provisions, the statement only applies to how his administration would use the authorities granted by the NDAA, and would not affect how the law is interpreted by subsequent administrations. The White House had threatened to veto an earlier version of the NDAA, but reversed course shortly before Congress voted on the final bill.
âoePresident Obama's action today is a blight on his legacy because he will forever be known as the president who signed indefinite detention without charge or trial into law,â said Anthony D. Romero, ACLU executive director. âoeThe statute is particularly dangerous because it has no temporal or geographic limitations, and can be used by this and future presidents to militarily detain people captured far from any battlefield. The ACLU will fight worldwide detention authority wherever we can, be it in court, in Congress, or internationally.â
Under the Bush administration, similar claims of worldwide detention authority were used to hold even a U.S. citizen detained on U.S. soil in military custody, and many in Congress now assert that the NDAA should be used in the same way again. The ACLU believes that any military detention of American citizens or others within the United States is unconstitutional and illegal, including under the NDAA. In addition, the breadth of the NDAAâ(TM)s detention authority violates international law because it is not limited to people captured in the context of an actual armed conflict as required by the laws of war.
âoeWe are incredibly disappointed that President Obama signed this new law even though his administration had already claimed overly broad detention authority in court,â said Romero. âoeAny hope that the Obama administration would roll back the constitutional excesses of George Bush in the war on terror was extinguished today. Thankfully, we have three branches of government, and the final word belongs to the Supreme Court, which has yet to rule on the scope of detention authority. But Congress and the president also have a role to play in cleaning up the mess they have created because no American citizen or anyone else should live in fear of this or any future president misusing the NDAAâ(TM)s detention authority.â
The bill also contains provisions making it difficult to transfer suspects out of military detention, which prompted FBI Director Robert Mueller to testify that it could jeopardize criminal investigations. It also restricts the transfers of cleared detainees from the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay to foreign countries for resettlement or repatriation, making it more difficult to close Guantanamo, as President Obama pledged to do in one of his first acts in office.
Anyway, artor3, I am sure you are going to have a rebuttal now not only for MY comments, but for ACLU's as well.
Do it, you shill or idiot or both.
You are doubling down on your nonsense, the section 1028 is about transfer of existing detainees, and the section 1031 that was removed was about any new detainees, thus your idiotic argument is completely false and you are propagating the same nonsense BS as the MSM wants you to propagate.
The section 1031 that was removed was not about transfer of existing detainees, here is the PDF that still contained that section
Page 15: Sec. 1031. Definition of individual detained at Guantanamo.
Here is the definition of section 1028 from the final version, which does not have 1031
SEC. 1028. REQUIREMENTS FOR CERTIFICATIONS RELATING TO THE
TRANSFER OF DETAINEES AT UNITED STATES NAVAL STA-
TION, GUANTANAMO BAY, CUBA, TO FOREIGN COUNTRIES
AND OTHER FOREIGN ENTITIES.
So those have completely different purpose. One specifies the DEFINITION of a person contained in Gitmo, one specifies the requirements for certifications relating to TRANSFER of detainees.
Good day.
and here is a complete rebuttal of your nonsense, but I am no longer waiting for a retraction from you, as you are not an honest actor in this conversation.
So you call me 'crazy person' instead of taking back all of the nonsense that you've been spewing here.
Fact - this section, that was in version 4 of the bill is not in the final version (7) of the bill, it's skipped.
Let's look at the section that is missing from the final bill, and it's taken out by the order of the Obama and his administration:
SEC. 1031. DEFINITION OF INDIVIDUAL DETAINED AT GUANTANAMO.
In this subtitle, the term `individual detained at Guantanamo' means any individual who is located at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, on or after March 7, 2011, who--
(1) is not a citizen of the United States or a member of the Armed Forces of the United States; and
(2) is in the custody or under the effective control of the Department of Defense.
you can continue with your propaganda, that somehow Obama fought the evil Republicans tooth and nail to prevent the bad things from happening to the US citizens.
But he is the one who forced that section to be taken out, he is the one running the Gitmo concentration camp (as in a prison, where individuals kidnapped by a government force are placed without any lawful recourse, without ability to challenge their confinement in a court system).
Sure, it says: terrorists, bad people, Al Qaeda.
I say: anybody who a dictatorial 'elected' official deems to be a bad person, a terrorist, Al Qaeda 'member' or 'sympathizer' (or maybe a relative).
Just a matter of fact - now POTUS kills so called Al Qaeda members and their children that are US citizens found abroad, given the new power it's just going to be possible to put people into military concentration camps without any legal recourse, including US citizens, eventually those who are in US.
And I am crazy? OK, now good night, it's very late where I am.
Senator Carl Levin, D-Michigan explains, as I mentioned in my previous comment that Obama's administration forced the Senate to remove the language from the bill that would have prevented the US citizens from being taken in by the military and held indefinitely, without access to lawyers or anything that US citizens have rights to.
That means that US citizens can be thrown into indefinite detention by the president of United States singlehandedly and US citizens have no legal recourse and they can't even be found out by anybody who is looking for them.
That is a concentration camp.
Obama becomes a dictator.
This NDAA gives power to detain civilians by military, so this is a martial law.
You are still completely confused, just as I explained the US citizens and others will be, which is ensured on purpose by the MSM.
The SOURCES are given to you, is Democrat Senator not a good enough source for you?
Obviously you are not an honest actor, otherwise I would have gotten a retraction for you here rather than this nonsense. You are not interested in the actual truth of the matter, see, you are not just a 'confused' person, you are being ideologically driven.
As to me putting quotation marks around words like 'elected' - this means that it does not matter whether you elect this dictator and whether you elect the next one, what matters is that the line of dictators is selected carefully for you to 'elect' from.
Good night.
The point that parent was making was in fact nonsense. As to SCOTUS - it's actually not getting enough attention by the public, as the transgressions of SCOTUS allowed the country to descent into totalitarian nightmare, starting all the way back with it not ruling correctly against the power of Federal reserve and Treasury to monetize government debt, print money (and it's nonsense that the Fed is an 'independent bank'), and all of the other stuff, including the violation of the 5th and 13th amendments by not working to strike down the 16th, the SS and Medicare and minimum wage and Patriot Act and TSA and EPA and FDA and all the rest of the destruction of the Constitution. (SCOTUS is supposed to uphold the law, which is the Constitution, but this also must mean it must uphold the Constitution completely, which means preventing new amendments from taking rights of people away that are guaranteed by the previous amendments).
The Constitution needs to be reworked, but that's not going to happen and it's not going to achieve anything until the current power structure is changed, until people force the politicians to give up powers that they are unauthorized to hold.
I don't understand why it follows that you have to be a 'left wing socialist' if you are against Patriot Act?
As I explained, and as people immediately showed that I was correct in assessing that MSM confused the public on this issue, I bring towards you this information, no matter how confusing it all seems.
Yes, it is true, Obama specifically fought to make sure that the US citizens are in fact included into the bill and are now just as much of a target for the US administration as any funny looking foreigners.
I don't see why you would fail to mention this, unless you were intentionally trying to mislead people about who exactly was behind these new laws.
- maybe you should actually READ what I linked to, which is my journal entry?
In fact I mentioned something, but it's the exact problem that I mentioned that you are displaying - being confused by the MSM, which are on purpose make it confusing for some people to understand that in FACT it was Obama who fought...... to EXCLUDE the provisions from the bill that would LIMIT the power against being applied to US citizens (not that these powers should be applied to ANY humans on the planet, but that train left the station back when the 'Patriot' Act was signed).
Obama fought in order to ensure that the US citizens would in fact be included in the list of people that are targeted by this bill.
You see, you got screwed by your MSM as I explained in my journal entry. Here is what you should know.
So, I expect some form of a retraction from you for your false accusations here.
As to paying 'fair share' - the 1% pays its 'fair share' before it pays a single penny in income/corporate/payroll taxes, it pays much more than its fair share by creating the businesses, succeeding and running the businesses (despite the government trying hard to destroy those businesses).
The gov't is a system that allows the politicians to steal power that they are not supposed to be able to steal (power that they take that is not authorized for them to have by the Constitutional).
The politicians steal the power from individuals, so that they can then sell that power and become rich (and be reelected), that's the game. The socialist movements are used by the politicians to help them to steal that power. SS, Medicare, income taxes (the way they are collected), payroll taxes, constant wars without Congressional declaration - those are powers that government steals from individual citizens and businesses, and then those powers are sold on the market, and obviously there are some people who can buy those powers.
Those people who buy that power are not just 1%, they are more like 0.01%
Those, who are in 99% don't see that the people who are really hurt by the system are not the 0.01%, who are buying the power, but those in between 99% and 0.01%.
That 0.99% are the businesses that are actually creating all the economic growth, they hire all the employees, they pay all the wages and they create all the products.
Once US government defaulted on its money (1971), and the gov't started setting interest rates (price of money), this sent a powerful signal to people who actually run businesses - MOVE THE FUCK OUT.
And they did so, and they are right to do so. They have to move their investment capital out, they have to move their productive capacity out and they understand very well, that they can't hire US citizens.
Anything - from income and payroll taxes, to SS, Medicare, wars, minimum wage, gov't support to unions, any kind of labor laws on Federal/State level, any sort of licensing program, any idea that destroys the property rights (so called 'Civil Rights', which are entitlements and obligations, not rights, FDA, EPA, departments of energy, education, agriculture, business, etc.), all of this gives out a powerful signal - don't dare to hire Americans or you will pay for it dearly by being held responsible for anything you do, that can be brought against you with the gun put to your head by the power of the State.
Fuck government. If people want their purchasing power back, they have to work. People cannot expect to live on a dole without producing something and they can't expect other individuals to take risks in anti-business environment to build businesses and provide jobs.
So fuck government, and people have to understand that their real enemy is their government, which destroys their economy and purchasing power by destroying their money, their productivity and all the economic incentives to build businesses in the country.
There is nothing that raising of taxes can do to 'eliminate ills from society'. The exact opposite is true - the ills of society cannot be eliminated by diminishing personal investment capital of individuals and it only serves as a tool to grow government, which undermines the economic growth and destroys the economy and society.
If it was possible to tax people into a 'good economy', then the ultimate conclusion is that the government is the entity that should run the economy (because that's what increased taxation does - it grows government to do thing that government wants to do.)
Of-course we know what happens when government controls the economy - anything from USSR to Zimbabwe and North Korea or Cuba.
USA has been plagued with the huge government and cancerous growth of gov't and the gov't power since the Fed and IRS were established back in 1913. Before that moment since the end of Civil War, the US had the most economic growth in history, allowing it to pay out all of its debts and become largest creditor nation on earth, while being largest producer of cheap, high quality consumer goods. USA was the beacon of freedom, which brought people and ideas from other, less free nations, and those people innovated and competed and created the economy and society that then decided to install a large government to 'eliminate ills'.
The most terrible mistake in USA was electing Theodore Roosevelt, everything else came out of that terrible incident.
On Decembe 31, 2011, Obama gave a black eye to the citizens of USA by signing NDAA with provisions that basically establish martial law and turn Obama into a dictator.
It's only a matter of time before using a foreign website will be an offense that marks a US citizen as a terrorist.
No foreign bank wants to deal with US citizens because of Patriot Act. When SOPA or something similar passes, foreigners will start avoiding online US clients and businesses.
You missed a spot where I called government thieves, which they are, and inheritance taxes are death taxes, which they are.
You are free to call them what you wish, but if a person takes all of his wealth and burns it to the ground before dying, there would be no wealth and no taxes left, otherwise upon death there are taxes to those, who the person wants to leave the money to - it's a death tax, because all of the income/corporate/payroll taxes were already paid on that money.
No, THAT is the real bullshit.
Buffet is the owner of 1/3rd of all BH dividend paying shares, so any amount of money that BH pays in taxes is the amount of money that he does not receive as dividend payments.
When BH pays say 35% (if it does) in taxes, that's out of Buffet's pocket immediately. Then he pays 15% on his income, which is mostly dividends (he pays himself a small salary, around 100K or so, the rest is dividends).
Why is Buffet 'pro-taxes' discounting the fact that uncle Sam saved his company back in 08 by bailing out AIG, the end of which would have ruined BH (Buffet made insane leveraged bets through AIG in early 2008 for the mortgage market through AIG)?
It's because BH is in business of buying out companies and restructuring them. When death taxes are paid, to raise the money to pay off the gov't thieves via IRS, the heirs have to liquidate all sorts of assets, including income generating business holdings. That's when the vultures in form of BH descend upon the company to buy the ownership at a firesale.
The real economic growth in USA happened between 1870 and 1913 under 0 income, payroll, corporate tax.
Here is an explanation.
1. What is lame is your argument that destruction of democracy in Iran had anything to do with communism rather than with Anglo Persian Oil Company (now BP) asking governments of UK an US for help with their oil drilling contracts.
2. Destroying a democratic system to install a dictatorial one and expecting no blowback, no consequences is stupid.
3. Who cares about 1953? Well then, who cares about 1979?
lastly: you are an apologist for the obviously corrupt government system.
I really liked that video until I got to the end and realized it was an ad for Insane Clown Posse's developmentally-challenged racist cousin.
- I don't know who you are talking about.
However if your bigoted statement is about Ron Paul , then you are a real ignoramus.
Learn something about blowback and US involvement in destroying democracies around the world to install dictators starting all the way back in 1953
Imagine if it were Texas.
I have lenovo w510 laptop with 16GB RAM etc., it's nice. I use it for my work and there are 2 OSs on it - Windows 7 (which it came with) and a Ubuntu 10.
Here is what I can tell you about these: I tried Windows 7 and never mind the fact that I can't stand the overall graphical interface in it, under Windows 7 I couldn't copy files from a CD that somebody gave me with a medical application onto the disk. (well, it said it would copy the disk in 55 hours, after 'calculating' or something the files for 10 minutes straight).
With Ubuntu it just copied the files. Took a couple of minutes I think, maybe less.
With Ubuntu I have various issues as well, which are all convenience problems; anything from dual monitor behaving strangely once in a while to the hang ups, when the mouse gets stuck 'between' the two monitors (it's on both at the same time and keeps jumping) and at this point nothing works, can't switch to another shell, nothing, so have to reboot. This happens once a month maybe.
But with all the problems under a GNU/Linux I can't imagine using that Windows partition, it's just sitting there, stealing 50GB of space from me, but I keep it around just in case I really need to run something Windowsy. But apparently I have to do it in some XP compatibility mode, because Win 7 didn't even run apps that I needed.
As to Apple - yeah, next life maybe.
What about going after the very very root cause of terrorism?
The government?
Abolish that and all of a sudden there is no longer terrorism.
Government is root cause and the main generator of 99% of terrorism.