Great Depression 2009

[Freakzilla]

I filed my taxes today, Obama is going to pay my mortgage and put gas in my car for a few months!

He's even going to pay for some much needed maintenance, a few traffic tickets, a license re-instatement fee...

Maybe some hardwood floors and some paint...

wait a minute. hold the phone ....

you're not paying taxes either ?!?

isn't that ......unpatriotic ?

I did pay federal and state tax. I just work the form. They're giving it back, and then some. Which is all silly. I figure I'd better take my handout before it all collapses.

[Nekhrun]

I'd love to see all of the Right-Wingers boycott any stimulus aid and really teach us Liberals a lesson.

[Freakzilla]

I'd love to see all of the Right-Wingers boycott any stimulus aid and really teach us Liberals a lesson.

Every Reppublican and eleven democrats voted against Obama's "stimulus" package in the House of Representatives.

[SandRider]

I filed my taxes today, Obama is going to pay my mortgage and put gas in my car for a few months!

He's even going to pay for some much needed maintenance, a few traffic tickets, a license re-instatement fee...

Maybe some hardwood floors and some paint...

wait a minute. hold the phone ....
you're not paying taxes either ?!?
isn't that ......unpatriotic ?

I did pay federal and state tax. I just work the form. They're giving it back, and then some. Which is all silly. I figure I'd better take my handout before it all collapses.

I think you know where I stand on the federal income tax.
Surely I've raged long and hard on this board about it's
uncontitutionality and the Supreme Court decision of 1916 striking
down the law and being flat-out ignored by the Excecutive.

Again, folks, there is no federal statute requiring American
citizens to pay federal taxes on wages from labor; what there is
is a series of IRS codes, which fall under laws governing enforcement
of federal regulations. I went thru the whole 'tax-revolt' idea back in the
70s, and sad to say, those cocksuckers won. Sort of, I just quit the fight -
it's easier to just fill out the paperwork to stop withholding and, as Freak
say, work the form. But I did know several men who never quit, fought
the IRS lawyers all the way to Federal District Court, where they didn't
"win" so much as the IRS lawyers quit. Which is what always happens.
The IRS can't afford a Federal Court to be in a position to judge on the
acutal 'legality' of the personal income tax, and the Courts sure don't want
to hear it. Which is why such pressure is placed on the citizens at the ground
level, threats of fines for late filings, audits, etc. As long as everybody acts
like it's a legal tax, and fills out some kind of paperwork, the system is safe
enough.

Fuck, I know I've raged about this before here, but I just can't help myself.
So why then is this illegal tax so damn important ? The revenue stream ?
Been thru this before here, I know - the revenue stream from the personal
federal income tax is tiny compared to other streams - the federal government
is not dependent on this tax - the tax is earmarked strictly for payment on interest
on the national debt. And millions of Americans get refunds,
most for the full amount of withholding.

So what's the purpose ? Redistribute the wealth of the top percentage
of earners ? Sort of, but that wasn't the idea in the 1890's when the
tax was first proposed, those folks were just looking for a new tax, any
tax, social engineering wasn't on their minds. Roosevelt Democrats came
up with the sliding scale idea. (My people, too - good old fasioned socialists
the likes of which this county will never see again.)

It started out as basic government "greed" if you will - but was economically
almost pointless after WWII. Yet the 1950s saw the great increase in the
IRS in staff and budget, and lawyers. I think it's real simple and clear,
if a bit conspiritorial - the feds had found their whip.

When Joe McCarthy decided there were Russian agents under his bed,
he used the IRS to investigate his list. Alot a people he personally didn't
trust or like but couldn't charge with anything found themselves audited
and financially ruined by convictions of "infractions" of the tax "code".
(talking here about Union Leaders, opposition Democrats, journalists,
Hollywood writers who wouldn't rat on their buddie on the BlackList,
&etc)

What's the most feared Federal Agency to the average, "law-abiding"
citizen ? It ain't the ATF.

Willie Nelson had the same crappy, corrupt accountants for years - he
started making large money in 1973, by 1978 he was the biggest selling
act in American music (this is true, too, he kicked the shit outta the Stones
and Springsteen and ABBA and everybody in concert ticket sales) After
the Honeysuckle Rose movie in 1980 he was making more money than
anybody could keep track of.

And the IRS wasn't concerned with him at all, until Farm Aid. Until Willie
started using his fame & voice to talk about the corporate farming methods
that were destroying real peoples lives. Until he became political.

Then, all of a sudden, Willie Nelson was a tax-dodger.

And sad to say, it worked too. Willie paid them their blood money,
and has not been anywhere near as active or vocal as he once was.

And the reward ? American Icon Status. Closed out that 9/11 live TV
show that was on all the broadcast networks right after the attack.
Throws his huge, influential voice into endorsements of fringe candidates
who couldn't win, anyway, even if Jesus Christ endorsed them (Hi Dennis !)

and a thousand more examples .....


dang. that made me tired.
granpa needs him a nap now ....

[Nekhrun]

I'd love to see all of the Right-Wingers boycott any stimulus aid and really teach us Liberals a lesson.

Every Reppublican and eleven democrats voted against Obama's "stimulus" package in the House of Representatives.

Yes, but so what I'm saying now is that when that thing passes, I'd like to see those same House members refuse the aid to their districts on principle.

[SandRider]

hey, Nekrun, I missed some stuff while in the hospital this last
go around, and can't seem to google what I'm looking for ....

Al Franken got seated, right ?

Did he wear a gorilla suit to the swearing in ?

[Nekhrun]

hey, Nekrun, I missed some stuff while in the hospital this last
go around, and can't seem to google what I'm looking for ....

Al Franken got seated, right ?

Did he wear a gorilla suit to the swearing in ?

Nope. Norm Coleman is still fighting it in the Courts. I guess the advice he gave Franken in November doesn't apply to him. He's now fighting for things that he was adamantly against a few weeks ago. He's also pretending to be spending time with his wife again. So as it stands now, we in MN are short on representation when it is needed most.

[SandRider]

yeah, I'm confused - need to look at more news sites, but I got me a good
case of election fatigue and disinterest - I thought I heard that the Senate
was filled up after the NY appointment ....

y'all tell Franken what he needs to do is just go on to Washington and
act like he's the sitting Senator, have press conferences, act like
it's just a matter of time and it's all just bullshit - basically dismiss Coleman
and the arguments with a wave of the hand. (And wear a gorilla suit)

Somebody, and it seems like Lyndon Johnson in the early 50s, did this -
not sure, but I think it was after a Congressional re-election - votes were
counted and recounted down in South Texas, and Johnson just went on
back into his office and went back to work. Of course, he had an office
to go to, and things were much different then.

[MICAH]

-Rider this is for you and anyone else interested :http://www.sprword.com/videos/moneymasters/
it's 3 hrs long but check out the rest of the sight. there are some really good documentaries on there

[Freakzilla]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/200 ... long-haul/

President Obama's economic recovery package will actually hurt the economy more in the long run than if he were to do nothing, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said Wednesday.

CBO, the official scorekeepers for legislation, said the House and Senate bills will help in the short term but result in so much government debt that within a few years they would crowd out private investment, actually leading to a lower Gross Domestic Product over the next 10 years than if the government had done nothing.

CBO estimates that by 2019 the Senate legislation would reduce GDP by 0.1 percent to 0.3 percent on net. [The House bill] would have similar long-run effects, CBO said in a letter to Sen. Judd Gregg, New Hampshire Republican, who was tapped by Mr. Obama on Tuesday to be Commerce Secretary.

The House last week passed a bill totaling about $820 billion while the Senate is working on a proposal reaching about $900 billion in spending increases and tax cuts.

But Republicans and some moderate Democrats have balked at the size of the bill and at some of the spending items included in it, arguing they won't produce immediate jobs, which is the stated goal of the bill.

The budget office had previously estimated service the debt due to the new spending could add hundreds of millions of dollars to the cost of the bill -- forcing the crowd-out.

CBOs basic assumption is that, in the long run, each dollar of additional debt crowds out about a third of a dollars worth of private domestic capital, CBO said in its letter.

CBO said there is no crowding out in the short term, so the plan would succeed in boosting growth in 2009 and 2010.

The agency projected the Senate bill would produce between 1.4 percent and 4.1 percent higher growth in 2009 than if there was no action. For 2010, the plan would boost growth by 1.2 percent to 3.6 percent.

CBO did project the bill would create jobs, though by 2011 the effects would be minuscule.

Hurray!

[Crysknife]

If he does nothing? Yeah, let's see what the markets do upon THAT announcement.

[Freakzilla]

If he does nothing? Yeah, let's see what the markets do upon THAT announcement.

Increasing government spending is no way to help a recession and that's all his "stimulus" bill is. It's a Democratic wish list. The free market will recover on it's own. If we go further in debt, which this bill WILL do, it will take longer for the market to recover.

[Omphalos]

If he does nothing? Yeah, let's see what the markets do upon THAT announcement.

Increasing government spending is no way to help a recession and that's all his "stimulus" bill is. It's a Democratic wish list. The free market will recover on it's own. If we go further in debt, which this bill WILL do, it will take longer for the market to recover.

Probably, but it will spread the least amount of pain across a longer period, so that important governmental services are not curtailed significantly, and so that consumers can get back up on their feet. The goal here is not to get out of all of this asap. Its to get out of it with teh least amount of business attrition and personal bankruptcies. I will grant you that there is a chance that if no action is taken, the markets may recover on their own. But its incredibly unlikely. So far nobody but you, my good friend, has advanced that idea as certainly as I have heard here. The universally acknowledged fact is that if this is not done, markets will crumble and the pain will be harder and longer to recover from otherwise.

The fact of our economy is that we are not profit and asset driven. We are debt driven. In other words we can invest in our own infrastructure and recoup much, much more than we have to pay in interest on bonds. The fear is that our markets are going to change and that will no longer be the case, but if you look at the way we are planning our way out here, this is not a change at all. I'm nervous at the thought of all that debt too, Freak, but I also acknowledge that if the markets respond the way that they have since the founding of the stock exchanges in the US, we will be fine in the long run. Will it mean increased taxes for a time? Yes, probalby in the future, but not for certain. But will the assets that we acquire and build with this stimulus money appreciate and build new wealth and avenues to it? Yes it will. Almost certainly.

And dont forget, with the money we have laid out thus far we are acquiring inchoate assets. I heard a report today that with the money we have laid out so far we actually have 66% value. That is higher than I thought it would be, and once the economy recovers and people start acquirign goods and using services again, the value of those risky assets will most likely increase.

[GamePlayer]

If the government wasn't in such a sorry, debt ridden state, debt spending during an economic downturn wouldn't be an issue. Now it seems the fiscal situation is so poor that even doing something about the economic downturn only makes things worse in the long term. Which I can totally understand. The debt load in the U.S. has become so enormous, debt spending now has a proportionally larger long-term impact on income and future budget problems.

[Freakzilla]

The universally acknowledged fact is that if this is not done, markets will crumble and the pain will be harder and longer to recover from otherwise.

That's the fear I've heard the democrats selling too.

"Act now before it's too late!" translates to, "Don't read the fine print, just sign here."

The fact of our economy is that we are not profit and asset driven. We are debt driven. In other words we can invest in our own infrastructure and recoup much, much more than we have to pay in interest on bonds. The fear is that our markets are going to change and that will no longer be the case, but if you look at the way we are planning our way out here, this is not a change at all. I'm nervous at the thought of all that debt too, Freak, but I also acknowledge that if the markets respond the way that they have since the founding of the stock exchanges in the US, we will be fine in the long run. Will it mean increased taxes for a time? Yes, probalby in the future, but not for certain. But will the assets that we acquire and build with this stimulus money appreciate and build new wealth and avenues to it? Yes it will.

This is change. It's changing control of the free market from our hands into the governments. What happened to that campaign promise of tax cuts for 95%? Oh yeah, we're counting welfare as tax cuts.

I'm not saying we should do nothing, I'm saying big checks for all Obama's friends is not what we should do.

Again, to put it into perspective, $850B = $17,000 for each mortage holder in the US.

OR

Free gas for five years for everyone in the US.

I'm not saying that's what we should do, only that it could be better spent than on every pork project the democrats have been pining over for the past decade.

The president says, "Now is not the time for words" when it comes to our economic crisis, but I still have questions.

[Omphalos]

"Act now before it's too late!" translates to, "Don't read the fine print, just sign here."

The rhetoric you are referring to is to combat your party member's misguided attempts to naysay an important program for a few hot-topic, sound-bite issues, and not to shove anything down anyone's throat. Havent you been paying attention to the debates and back and forth here?

This is change. It's changing control of the free market from our hands into the governments. What happened to that campaign promise of tax cuts for 95%? Oh yeah, we're counting welfare as tax cuts.

.

Gee. I guess the party in power should not have fucked up the economy so badly by firing regulators and telling them not to do their jobs, then stuck their head in the sand for so long. Obama's tactics are a response to what is needed, and no, the economy is not in the same position as when he started his campaign.

I'm not saying we should do nothing, I'm saying big checks for all Obama's friends is not what we should do.

Again, to put it into perspective, $850B = $17,000 for each mortage holder in the US.

OR

Free gas for five years for everyone in the US.

Irrelevant. Youre perspective is warped. That is like saying that its OK to buy $200 worth of gumballs instead of $200 worth of groceries to feed the family for a week. Go through the plan and find the stuff you think wont work. If there is agreement, fine. If not, well Im afraid that's just too bad. Because this is going to get done. And call it what you want, but it is an asset development and acquisition plan that will probably pay off in the end. Reduced to its simplest formulation, that is all we have here. Assets tend to appreciate in value. I keep hearing you talk about the burden in the future, but you have yet to really tell me why this will not stimulate development and thus spread that burden over more people and businesses.

[SandRider]

both of you are online right now, obviously not doing your jobs but
simply lounging about on your employers dime on a friday afternoon,
waiting to knock off and get drunk, so I'll just post quick & run.

Omph -not Freak's party, now, he's an independent.

Freak -won't argue with the CBO's numbers - can't, they're computer-model
driven, but, keep in mind they are static models. CBO reports are vague
guidelines at best. There's no way to factor in what will happen or what other
legislation will take place during the 10-15 years of their projections. The CBO
is not an Oracle ...

[Freakzilla]

If I remember correctly, the economy was doing fine for the first six years of the Bush administration until the Democrats took over Congress.

This is all a result of the liberals forcing banks to make mortgage loans to people who aren't qualified and fiascoes like Fanny May and Freddy Mac, things the republicans have been screaming about for years.

I don't think this is something we need to spread out over generations like getting into a cold pool and inch at a time, I think it's time for us to be thrown in and experience the full shock of being fiscally responsible.

Fuck the government's debt, civilians can only get into debt so far, Congress should only be allowed to go so far too and I think the line has been crossed.

They can put aside lobbyist and pork barrel spending for just one bill and actually do what's right for the people. If they don't want to do that don't call it a stimulus bill.

Maybe Princess Pelosi can sell her taxpayer funded private jet and save us a few million?

[Drunken Idaho]

Well there are certainly a lot of critics of Obama's package (not Michelle ), and I even agree that many of the earmarks might be unnecessary. I just think it's sad that the system relies on so much extraneous spending, not just on this bill but on apparently every major bill that has been passed in recent history. Neither party is unfamiliar with this technique, but both sides attack it when it's convenient to do so, as we're seeing now.

But besides that, I support Obama's political instincts when it comes to this bill. In his speech last night, I found myself saying "damned right!" a lot. I love this talk about denying failed CEOs their monster salaries when they come to Washington for bailouts. It's exactly the kind of treatment they deserve, save for being denied any bailout at all. He also went on about encouraging the production of hybrid cars, which would create jobs and reduce spending on over-priced foreign fuel, while also reducing dependency. In addition to that, he's putting money into wind and solar, which also will produce jobs and reduce dependancy on planet-poisoning resources. It was the first time I can ever say I was truly satisfied with the words of a US president.

But of course even the stuff I loved about it was attacked, saying that the speech was highly partisan. Can someone explain to me why environmental responsibility is considered a partisan issue? Especially when it could kill two birds with one stone (to be ironic) like we see here? Is protecting the planet for future generations a democrat thing? And if so, does that make protecting the oil industry a republican thing? I know it's not black & white like that, but why do so many US politicians still act like such innovation isn't a moral responsibility? If you're going to leave your children with massive debt, you might as well try to make it so that they'll be less impacted by climate disasters and oil wars.

[Freakzilla]

both of you are online right now, obviously not doing your jobs but
simply lounging about on your employers dime on a friday afternoon,
waiting to knock off and get drunk, so I'll just post quick & run.

Omph -not Freak's party, now, he's an independent.

Freak -won't argue with the CBO's numbers - can't, they're computer-model
driven, but, keep in mind they are static models. CBO reports are vague
guidelines at best. There's no way to factor in what will happen or what other
legislation will take place during the 10-15 years of their projections. The CBO
is not an Oracle ...

I don't like to say I belong to any party. In my adult life I've voted for Clinton twice, Bush twice and McCain recently. That makes me 8 of 9 in presidential elections.

I know the CBO isn't prescient, but some of the people in it are Obama's boys.

If his own people don't think it will work in the long run, in fact, even make things worse, I don't have much faith in it either.

I know that if I'm in debt, getting a new credit card and running it up to the limmit does not help. It only increases my debt.

[Freakzilla]

Well there are certainly a lot of critics of Obama's package (not Michelle ), and I even agree that many of the earmarks might be unnecessary. I just think it's sad that the system relies on so much extraneous spending, not just on this bill but on apparently every major bill that has been passed in recent history. Neither party is unfamiliar with this technique, but both sides attack it when it's convenient to do so, as we're seeing now.

But besides that, I support Obama's political instincts when it comes to this bill. In his speech last night, I found myself saying "damned right!" a lot. I love this talk about denying failed CEOs their monster salaries when they come to Washington for bailouts. It's exactly the kind of treatment they deserve, save for being denied any bailout at all. He also went on about encouraging the production of hybrid cars, which would create jobs and reduce spending on over-priced foreign fuel, while also reducing dependency. In addition to that, he's putting money into wind and solar, which also will produce jobs and reduce dependancy on planet-poisoning resources. It was the first time I can ever say I was truly satisfied with the words of a US president.

But of course even the stuff I loved about it was attacked, saying that the speech was highly partisan. Can someone explain to me why environmental responsibility is considered a partisan issue? Especially when it could kill two birds with one stone (to be ironic) like we see here? Is protecting the planet for future generations a democrat thing? And if so, does that make protecting the oil industry a republican thing? I know it's not black & white like that, but why do so many US politicians still act like such innovation isn't a moral responsibility? If you're going to leave your children with massive debt, you might as well try to make it so that they'll be less impacted by climate disasters and oil wars.

How do you think the jobs that are created with the package are going to be paid for? The money that we pay these people with is taxpayer money, YOUR money. We have to borrow this money from OUW OWN FUTURE!.

The government doesn't CREATE any wealth, it only takes it from you.

[Omphalos]

Sorry, Freak. I actually thought you were a republican.

I know that if I'm in debt, getting a new credit card and running it up to the limmit does not help. It only increases my debt.

Another analogy I want to discuss. Most people pay off bills with credit cards. But imagine that some people out there use credit cards to finance start up costs for businesses. That is closer to the use of the benefits money. Not just to pay creditors; to add assets that will lead to increased wealth. In this case it will also help get us out of a hole.

And that last answer you gave about the democratic congress; whatever. The Bush administration was criminal in the way it handled its banking regulators. That's what contributed to the problem we have today.

[SandRider]

Is protecting the planet for future generations a democrat thing? And if so, does that make protecting the oil industry a republican thing?

in general, yes.

Out here in West Texas, change been a-comin.

Once the Oil & Land Barons out here figgered out just how much money could be
made from Wind Energy, how many jobs, how (relatively) cheap the construction is,
they all jumped on board with both boots.

The Wind Energy boom has been a cause of great "bipartisan" co-operation out here -
there's still some oilmen holdouts, but the economic problems of last year opened alot
of eyes on that side.

It's just so reminscent of the drought out here in the 50s. Cattle ranchers who had no
use for goats or sheep, really looked down on those who raised them, found that those
animals were easier to keep alive and that money could be made from them. Them
damn sheep literally saved lives out here.

About 15 years or so ago, the LittleBigTown got a hundred life size sheep statues made,
outta some kind of real hard plaster, and had a contest for painting them up. They were
then placed all around the town. Visitors often say "Man, y'all love your sheep, huh ?"
Yes,we do. And in the future, we're gonna love our Turbines ....

[Freakzilla]

Sorry, Freak. I actually thought you were a republican.

My political compass points that way at the present, but I'm open to new ideas. To me it seems the dems are trying to crush capitolism and I'm more against that than I am for the republican platform.

[SandRider]

so wait, if you're not registered with a Party, does Georgia allow you to vote in primaries ?