I took a look at the links, and now I get it. This stuff isn't even credible enough for Fox News, which should be a pretty clear indicator of just how accurate it is.
I think it's pretty clear by now that General Wesley Clark's description of the plan to take over countries in the Middle East is plainly still being carried out. They are behind schedule, but obviously still proceeding with the plan.
I was actually surprised to learn that there is now no such thing as a private mortgage loan. ALL mortgages in the US today have government guarantees.
Because that's the only reason, right? It had nothing to do with the revolution that sprung up by LIBYA'S OWN PEOPLE that wanted him gone.
There is evidence that the protests (the so-called "revolution" was a small minority that were selected and backed by the CIA and France's DGSE that actually started the violent overthrow. They really had no chance against Qaddaffi's forces without the carpet bombing, drone attacks, and NATO air support. NATO even sent in troops in several key areas (Western troops in Libya).
Did you really buy into all those crazy stories from the MSM, it's all scripted. I would call that "naive", at best. I'd rather be thought of as "bat-shit crazy" than be led around by the nose like you.
Um, no. Fascism is far more specific than that. Any of the top five google hits for "fascism" will disabuse you of this notion.
Actually, hit #3 was this article, which is considerably longer and backs up my definition very well. At least half of that list applies to the US.
Surely any time government participates in the economy, the citizens have to participate in the government, otherwise corporate forces will enter the vacuum. On the other hand, in the absence of government intervention, business has shown itself quite capable of becoming the unlimited master of society and doing considerable damage.
That's a perceptual meme without any basis in history. It has been government support and sanction of corporate forces that make them powerful, not a lack of intervention. That's true over and over.
Your assertion that taxing antisocial behaviors (or behaviors which are antisocial when taken to excess) which we as a society wish to limit is "at best misguided interventionism" is an opinion, not a statement from evidence.
It's both, and it's supported by more evidence than the counter-argument. But the real issue is avoidance of Constitutional limits using fiscal constraints as direct regulation is prohibited. For instance the Federal government can no longer prohibit the manufacture of alcohol (after passage of the 21st amendment), so it is heavily taxed instead. They cannot legally set standards for intoxication, so states are coerced by withholding funding to pass more stringent standards. They cannot legally set standards for public education, so financial controls are used instead. While there may be some justification for a few minor taxes, it is currently completely out of control. The tax code is so complex and contradictory that even tax attorneys and IRS experts can't get the same answer to the same tax scenario. There has even been talk of raising capital gains taxes in spite of the acknowledged outcome of significantly reduced revenue, just as an issue of "fairness". And this has been considered even with deficits at record levels.
How about instead we discuss the *specific* merits of this *specific* proposal, what the risks and benefits are
If you're referring to this "financial transaction" tax, I fail to see any benefits to anyone but the Federal government itself and a few large financial institutions. It will further bleed money from the middle class, foment greater distrust and avoidance of banks, and add new complications to tax codes and enforcement. Instead, how about some real tax reform that eliminates 90% of the current code and start over with a plan to fund government without hurting those that can least afford it?
>In early 2011, the operation became controversial when it was revealed that Operation Fast and Furious and other probes under Project Gunrunner had allowed guns to "walk" into the hands of Mexican drug cartels since as early as 2006.[2][3]
Emphasis mine.
So Obama was President in 2006?
--
BMO
I don't know where you got your information (you neglected to include the references), but I can only assume you are referring to an earlier Bush Administration program called “Wide Receiver.” It was similar in that it also involved letting guns walk into Mexico. It's very different, however in the (1) the guns were actually traced the whole time, and (2) the Mexican LEO authorities knew about, were involved, and continued tracing the guns when they crossed the border.
Yea. These are problems left behind by Bush. Link me to an article that says they are building nukes because of Obama being president? That's right... you can't.
Right. Obama has all the nukes he needs. He's busy building drones instead.
I'm impressed. The first time in 3 years I've been impressed, so the bar is pretty low. But good going Obama.
Really? Getting rid of Ghadafi at very minimal cost and with 0 US lives lost didn't impress you?
No, hiring thugs and orchestrating a PR campaign to overthrow a government because it was making deals with the wrong country (China) doesn't impress me at all. Especially given that the new government looks to be even more brutal than the one that was replaced (but at least they are making deals with OUR corporations and Frances' instead of Chiner's - that's all the counts, right?)
Sounds like you have a local Libertarian Camp Outing to join. Don't want to miss Mr. Paul encouraging Timmy on how to create Fire and hunt with his bare hands.
I see the DNC has started allocating funds for its "social media" PR campaign.
I'm impressed. The first time in 3 years I've been impressed, so the bar is pretty low. But good going Obama.
Really? Getting rid of Ghadafi at very minimal cost and with 0 US lives lost didn't impress you?
No, hiring thugs and orchestrating a PR campaign to overthrow a government because it was making deals with the wrong country (China) doesn't impress me at all. Especially given that the new government looks to be even more brutal than the one that was replaced (but at least they are making deals with OUR corporations and Frances' instead of Chiner's - that's all the counts, right?)
Right...who cares about getting a country to overthrow it's dictatorship without using our troops to force it....
People that don't think it's okay to kill brown people with drones and carpet bombs just to have access to oil?
This is why it is so good to have a President who is also a good lawyer, instead of that barely-literate, inbred President Dunsel we had before him.
I fail to see anything better coming out of Dunsel the Second. Drones instead of troops, and the troops can announce their sexual preference before they get sent to die in the desert. Woopee he's defending "Net Neutrality" - completely worthless once PROTECTIP or E-PARASITE gets passed.
I don't live in America, but it's nice to see that some people in the government appreciate the internet for what it is.
If that were really true, somebody would be trying to stop the "PROTECT-IP" act and the similar PARASITE act. But I don't see that happening. If Obama threatened a veto on those, he would lose to much Hollywood campaign funding.
I'm impressed. The first time in 3 years I've been impressed, so the bar is pretty low. But good going Obama.
Really? Getting rid of Ghadafi at very minimal cost and with 0 US lives lost didn't impress you?
No, hiring thugs and orchestrating a PR campaign to overthrow a government because it was making deals with the wrong country (China) doesn't impress me at all. Especially given that the new government looks to be even more brutal than the one that was replaced (but at least they are making deals with OUR corporations and Frances' instead of Chiner's - that's all the counts, right?)
No it doesn't. Every time I am taxed means I have received new money, so giving a part of it will never add up to significant relative amount, and this tax won't affect you or me in any other way than making our pensions safer.
If it's taxing "financial transactions", it doesn't just mean you've received new money, it may mean you've spent some of it. Or you've transferred it to another account. Or paid a bill. Or used your credit card. Or got cash out of the ATM.
It will also tax your pension, certainly every time you make a withdrawal or deposit, but also every time your pension accrues interests, or sells a mutual fund to buy bonds, or sells bonds to buy treasury notes, etc., etc.
If you're implying that I Godwin'd the thread, you're using it wrong, for many reasons.
Fascism is the system of government that cartelizes the private sector, centrally plans the economy to subsidize producers, exalts the police state as the source of order, denies fundamental rights and liberties to individuals, and makes the executive state the unlimited master of society.
This describes mainstream politics in America today. And not just in America. It's true in Europe, too. It is so much part of the mainstream that it is hardly noticed any more.
Curunir_wolf's solution to everything: just give all our money to the rich and powerful, because they'll get it all in the end anyway. Resistance is futile, and in fact any attempt at resistance will only make things worse; just become a slave today and save yourself the trouble.
--Jeremy
That's your solution, not mine. Oh, I get it - you're demonstrating projection. Got it.
If each and every one of you reading this comment could just send me $1. It's insignificant, you won't miss it! And I promise to only do goo things with the money;)
Like every other tax. Nickel here, dime there, no single one enough to complain about..03 may not sound like much, but it all adds up. "Death by a thousand cuts".
You already pay this tax because the HFT guys are front running you. But I would agree that an exemption for some amount of trading makes sense.
And with the tax, I would pay more, and the HFT guys would still be front running me, they would just do it in larger chunks. Financial transactions like this always provide advantages to the players with the most leverage.
I think you missing the point of transaction tax. In this particular case, the goal is not so much to create new source of revenue, but to make most dangerous (for the world economy as a whole point of view) trading practices unaffordable. High Frequency Trading makes tons of money out of thin air. No one gets any better except select few trading houses which have enough muscle to participate in this. The transaction tax may have many consequences, but at the very least it will make stock market little bit less rigged.
So... more rigging makes the market... less rigged? I don't think so.
Taxes are for generating the revenue required to run government. Creating taxes for any other purpose is at best misguided interventionism, and taken to the extreme is nothing but fascism.
This is a tax that will be paid almost entirely by the middle class. The wealthy have ways to avoid it, and low income folks will mostly not see any impact. But for the vast majority of the middle class, either working for an employer that practically requires pay to be made direct deposit, with loans that are direct draft, with lots of reliance on banking transactions, most of which are entirely unavoidable, will find their accounts draining even faster. Isn't the gouging by the banks of their small customers enough for people to deal with, now the government is going to dig in and make the account drain even faster?
In 2008, it became in vogue to keep all profits private, but then socialize the debt.
2008? Let me guess, you've been asleep for the last 30 years or so, right?
Maybe so. Or longer. FDR created the FDIC, but I don't remember anything close to the $700 billion handed out to cover bank debts in 2008, not to mention the $5 trillion in liabilities through Fannie and Freddie, or the $16 trillion dollars printed up by the Federal Reserve in the months following. So there may have been taxpayer-funded bailouts of private debt before (the student loan debacle in the 1990's comes to mind), but nothing anywhere near the scale of the latest failures, which fully institutionalized the policy.
Slashdot Mirror
I took a look at the links, and now I get it. This stuff isn't even credible enough for Fox News, which should be a pretty clear indicator of just how accurate it is.
I think it's pretty clear by now that General Wesley Clark's description of the plan to take over countries in the Middle East is plainly still being carried out. They are behind schedule, but obviously still proceeding with the plan.
I was actually surprised to learn that there is now no such thing as a private mortgage loan. ALL mortgages in the US today have government guarantees.
After the corporation is already dissolved, the IRS will trackdown the LLC partners and make them pay the back SS and medicare payments?
Yes, in fact failure to pay payroll taxes is considered tax fraud and a criminal act.
Because that's the only reason, right? It had nothing to do with the revolution that sprung up by LIBYA'S OWN PEOPLE that wanted him gone.
There is evidence that the protests (the so-called "revolution" was a small minority that were selected and backed by the CIA and France's DGSE that actually started the violent overthrow. They really had no chance against Qaddaffi's forces without the carpet bombing, drone attacks, and NATO air support. NATO even sent in troops in several key areas (Western troops in Libya).
Did you really buy into all those crazy stories from the MSM, it's all scripted. I would call that "naive", at best. I'd rather be thought of as "bat-shit crazy" than be led around by the nose like you.
Um, no. Fascism is far more specific than that. Any of the top five google hits for "fascism" will disabuse you of this notion.
Actually, hit #3 was this article, which is considerably longer and backs up my definition very well. At least half of that list applies to the US.
Surely any time government participates in the economy, the citizens have to participate in the government, otherwise corporate forces will enter the vacuum. On the other hand, in the absence of government intervention, business has shown itself quite capable of becoming the unlimited master of society and doing considerable damage.
That's a perceptual meme without any basis in history. It has been government support and sanction of corporate forces that make them powerful, not a lack of intervention. That's true over and over.
Your assertion that taxing antisocial behaviors (or behaviors which are antisocial when taken to excess) which we as a society wish to limit is "at best misguided interventionism" is an opinion, not a statement from evidence.
It's both, and it's supported by more evidence than the counter-argument. But the real issue is avoidance of Constitutional limits using fiscal constraints as direct regulation is prohibited. For instance the Federal government can no longer prohibit the manufacture of alcohol (after passage of the 21st amendment), so it is heavily taxed instead. They cannot legally set standards for intoxication, so states are coerced by withholding funding to pass more stringent standards. They cannot legally set standards for public education, so financial controls are used instead. While there may be some justification for a few minor taxes, it is currently completely out of control. The tax code is so complex and contradictory that even tax attorneys and IRS experts can't get the same answer to the same tax scenario. There has even been talk of raising capital gains taxes in spite of the acknowledged outcome of significantly reduced revenue, just as an issue of "fairness". And this has been considered even with deficits at record levels.
How about instead we discuss the *specific* merits of this *specific* proposal, what the risks and benefits are
If you're referring to this "financial transaction" tax, I fail to see any benefits to anyone but the Federal government itself and a few large financial institutions. It will further bleed money from the middle class, foment greater distrust and avoidance of banks, and add new complications to tax codes and enforcement. Instead, how about some real tax reform that eliminates 90% of the current code and start over with a plan to fund government without hurting those that can least afford it?
>In early 2011, the operation became controversial when it was revealed that Operation Fast and Furious and other probes under Project Gunrunner had allowed guns to "walk" into the hands of Mexican drug cartels since as early as 2006.[2][3]
Emphasis mine.
So Obama was President in 2006?
-- BMO
I don't know where you got your information (you neglected to include the references), but I can only assume you are referring to an earlier Bush Administration program called “Wide Receiver.” It was similar in that it also involved letting guns walk into Mexico. It's very different, however in the (1) the guns were actually traced the whole time, and (2) the Mexican LEO authorities knew about, were involved, and continued tracing the guns when they crossed the border.
Yea. These are problems left behind by Bush. Link me to an article that says they are building nukes because of Obama being president? That's right... you can't.
Right. Obama has all the nukes he needs. He's busy building drones instead.
I'm impressed. The first time in 3 years I've been impressed, so the bar is pretty low. But good going Obama.
Really? Getting rid of Ghadafi at very minimal cost and with 0 US lives lost didn't impress you?
No, hiring thugs and orchestrating a PR campaign to overthrow a government because it was making deals with the wrong country (China) doesn't impress me at all. Especially given that the new government looks to be even more brutal than the one that was replaced (but at least they are making deals with OUR corporations and Frances' instead of Chiner's - that's all the counts, right?)
Sounds like you have a local Libertarian Camp Outing to join. Don't want to miss Mr. Paul encouraging Timmy on how to create Fire and hunt with his bare hands.
I see the DNC has started allocating funds for its "social media" PR campaign.
I wasn't aware that Fox News was reporting any of this. Or this or this.
No, hiring thugs and orchestrating a PR campaign
As a Libyan I think you need to get your head checked. And then wash your mouth out with soap.
Yea, right, sure. Must be a lot of cheap Viagra floating around there these days as military surplus, amirite?
I'm impressed. The first time in 3 years I've been impressed, so the bar is pretty low. But good going Obama.
Really? Getting rid of Ghadafi at very minimal cost and with 0 US lives lost didn't impress you?
No, hiring thugs and orchestrating a PR campaign to overthrow a government because it was making deals with the wrong country (China) doesn't impress me at all. Especially given that the new government looks to be even more brutal than the one that was replaced (but at least they are making deals with OUR corporations and Frances' instead of Chiner's - that's all the counts, right?)
Right...who cares about getting a country to overthrow it's dictatorship without using our troops to force it....
People that don't think it's okay to kill brown people with drones and carpet bombs just to have access to oil?
This is why it is so good to have a President who is also a good lawyer, instead of that barely-literate, inbred President Dunsel we had before him.
I fail to see anything better coming out of Dunsel the Second. Drones instead of troops, and the troops can announce their sexual preference before they get sent to die in the desert. Woopee he's defending "Net Neutrality" - completely worthless once PROTECTIP or E-PARASITE gets passed.
I don't live in America, but it's nice to see that some people in the government appreciate the internet for what it is.
If that were really true, somebody would be trying to stop the "PROTECT-IP" act and the similar PARASITE act. But I don't see that happening. If Obama threatened a veto on those, he would lose to much Hollywood campaign funding.
I'm impressed. The first time in 3 years I've been impressed, so the bar is pretty low. But good going Obama.
Really? Getting rid of Ghadafi at very minimal cost and with 0 US lives lost didn't impress you?
No, hiring thugs and orchestrating a PR campaign to overthrow a government because it was making deals with the wrong country (China) doesn't impress me at all. Especially given that the new government looks to be even more brutal than the one that was replaced (but at least they are making deals with OUR corporations and Frances' instead of Chiner's - that's all the counts, right?)
Well you made a point, there. But you still failed to defend your original description of "unintelligent".
No it doesn't. Every time I am taxed means I have received new money, so giving a part of it will never add up to significant relative amount, and this tax won't affect you or me in any other way than making our pensions safer.
If it's taxing "financial transactions", it doesn't just mean you've received new money, it may mean you've spent some of it. Or you've transferred it to another account. Or paid a bill. Or used your credit card. Or got cash out of the ATM.
It will also tax your pension, certainly every time you make a withdrawal or deposit, but also every time your pension accrues interests, or sells a mutual fund to buy bonds, or sells bonds to buy treasury notes, etc., etc.
If you're implying that I Godwin'd the thread, you're using it wrong, for many reasons.
Fascism is the system of government that cartelizes the private sector, centrally plans the economy to subsidize producers, exalts the police state as the source of order, denies fundamental rights and liberties to individuals, and makes the executive state the unlimited master of society.
This describes mainstream politics in America today. And not just in America. It's true in Europe, too. It is so much part of the mainstream that it is hardly noticed any more.
Curunir_wolf's solution to everything: just give all our money to the rich and powerful, because they'll get it all in the end anyway. Resistance is futile, and in fact any attempt at resistance will only make things worse; just become a slave today and save yourself the trouble.
--Jeremy
That's your solution, not mine. Oh, I get it - you're demonstrating projection. Got it.
this tax won't affect you or me in any other way than making our pensions safer.
LOL! Dream on ...
If each and every one of you reading this comment could just send me $1. It's insignificant, you won't miss it! And I promise to only do goo things with the money ;)
Like every other tax. Nickel here, dime there, no single one enough to complain about. .03 may not sound like much, but it all adds up. "Death by a thousand cuts".
You already pay this tax because the HFT guys are front running you. But I would agree that an exemption for some amount of trading makes sense.
And with the tax, I would pay more, and the HFT guys would still be front running me, they would just do it in larger chunks. Financial transactions like this always provide advantages to the players with the most leverage.
I think you missing the point of transaction tax. In this particular case, the goal is not so much to create new source of revenue, but to make most dangerous (for the world economy as a whole point of view) trading practices unaffordable. High Frequency Trading makes tons of money out of thin air. No one gets any better except select few trading houses which have enough muscle to participate in this. The transaction tax may have many consequences, but at the very least it will make stock market little bit less rigged.
So... more rigging makes the market ... less rigged? I don't think so.
Taxes are for generating the revenue required to run government. Creating taxes for any other purpose is at best misguided interventionism, and taken to the extreme is nothing but fascism.
Until this minute, I never knew that someone could be as unintelligent as you. If you're trolling, try harder.
He seems pissed, not unintelligent. Can't say I blame him.
This is a tax that will be paid almost entirely by the middle class. The wealthy have ways to avoid it, and low income folks will mostly not see any impact. But for the vast majority of the middle class, either working for an employer that practically requires pay to be made direct deposit, with loans that are direct draft, with lots of reliance on banking transactions, most of which are entirely unavoidable, will find their accounts draining even faster. Isn't the gouging by the banks of their small customers enough for people to deal with, now the government is going to dig in and make the account drain even faster?
In 2008, it became in vogue to keep all profits private, but then socialize the debt.
2008? Let me guess, you've been asleep for the last 30 years or so, right?
Maybe so. Or longer. FDR created the FDIC, but I don't remember anything close to the $700 billion handed out to cover bank debts in 2008, not to mention the $5 trillion in liabilities through Fannie and Freddie, or the $16 trillion dollars printed up by the Federal Reserve in the months following. So there may have been taxpayer-funded bailouts of private debt before (the student loan debacle in the 1990's comes to mind), but nothing anywhere near the scale of the latest failures, which fully institutionalized the policy.