-
Posts in the Football forum that belong in the Paw-litics forum
History Lesson on Your Social Security Card
Just in case some of you young whippersnappers (& some older ones) didn't know this.
It's easy to check out, if you don't believe it. Be sure and show it to your family
and friends. They need a little history lesson on what's what and it doesn't matter
whether you are Democrat or Republican. Facts are Facts.
Social Security Cards up until the 1980s expressly stated the number and
card were not to be used for identification purposes. Since nearly everyone in the
United States now has a number, it became convenient to use it anyway and the
message, NOT FOR IDENTIFICATION, was removed.
Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the Social
Security (FICA) Program. He promised:
1.) That participation in the Program would be
Completely voluntary,
No longer Voluntary
2.) That the participants would only have to pay
1% of the first $1,400 of their annual
Incomes into the Program,
Now 7.65%
on the first $90,000
3.) That the money the participants elected to put
into the Program would be deductible from
their income for tax purposes each year,
No longer tax deductible
4.) That the money the participants put into the
independent 'Trust Fund' rather than into the
general operating fund, and therefore, would
only be used to fund the Social Security
Retirement Program, and no other
Government program, and,
Under Johnson the money was moved to
The General Fund and Spent
5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed
as income.
Under Clinton & Gore
Up to 85% of your Social Security can be Taxed
Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are
now receiving a Social Security check every month --
and then finding that we are getting taxed on 85% of
the money we paid to the Federal government to 'put
away' -- you may be interested in the following:
------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- ----
Q: Which Political Party took Social Security from the
independent 'Trust Fund' and put it into the
general fund so that Congress could spend it?
A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the democratically
controlled House and Senate.
------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --
Q: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax
deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?
A: The Democratic Party.
------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- -----
Q: Which Political Party started taxing Social
Security annuities?
A: The Democratic Party, with Al Gore casting the
'tie-breaking' deciding vote as President of the
Senate, while he was Vice President of the US
------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- -
Q: Which Political Party decided to start
giving annuity payments to immigrants?
AND MY FAVORITE:
A: That's right!
Jimmy Carter and the Democratic Party.
Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65,
began to receive Social Security payments! The
Democratic Party gave these payments to them,
even though they never paid a dime into it!
------------ -- ------------ --------- ----- ------------ --------- ---------
Then, after violating the original contract (FICA),
the Democrats turn around and tell you that the Republicans want
to take your Social Security away!
And the worst part about it is uninformed citizens believe it!
If enough people read this, maybe a seed of
awareness will be planted and maybe changes will evolve.
-
Re: If you want a thread to die
-
Re: If you want a thread to die
Obama is wanting to raise the minimum wage.....proving again.....that he knows NOTHING about business!!!!!!!! If the minimum wage goes up, ALL prices will go up!! It will hurt people on a fixed income!!!!
-
Re: If you want a thread to die
Quote:
Originally Posted by
70TECHGRAD
Obama is wanting to raise the minimum wage.....proving again.....that he knows NOTHING about business!!!!!!!! If the minimum wage goes up, ALL prices will go up!! It will hurt people on a fixed income!!!!
When I was managing a Burger King...the day minimum wage went up...All the prices on everything sold at Burger King went up. The cost of increase in wages was passed on to the customer!!
-
Re: If you want a thread to die
Obama wants to use Executive Order to bypass Congress and do what he wants....can you say DICTATOR??
-
Re: If you want a thread to die
Quote:
Originally Posted by
70TECHGRAD
The cost of increase in wages was passed on to the customer!!
None of it was passed on to executives or shareholders?
-
Re: If you want a thread to die
Quote:
Originally Posted by
70TECHGRAD
It will hurt people on a fixed income!!!!
Freeloaders. Fixed income deadbeats need to get a job.
Ain't that right Tyler?
-
Re: If you want a thread to die
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Champ967
None of it was passed on to executives or shareholders?
What? They don't eat at BK????
Speaking of that - the "Seattle's Best" coffee is the worst tasting attempt at coffee I've ever 'attempted' (to) drink.
70 left off the most important fact - jobs will be lost.
I think the minimum wage should be set at $25 per hour. Lets just go ahead and get the whole thing over with. Then who is gonna complain?????
-
Re: If you want a thread to die
Quote:
Originally Posted by
OLDBLUE
What? They don't eat at BK????
Speaking of that - the "Seattle's Best" coffee is the worst tasting attempt at coffee I've ever 'attempted' (to) drink.
70 left off the most important fact - jobs will be lost.
I think the minimum wage should be set at $25 per hour. Lets just go ahead and get the whole thing over with. Then who is gonna complain?????
Yep...when minimum wage goes up...we will see how many people complain about a $5.00 loaf of bread, $8.00 for a gallon of milk, and $5.50 for a gallon of gasoline!
-
Re: If you want a thread to die
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Champ967
Freeloaders. Fixed income deadbeats need to get a job.
Ain't that right Tyler?
If that happens...a lot of older people, like myself, will keep working, which will mean less jobs for the younger generation. Also, MANY companies will only hire part-time employees since overtime would cost them a fortune!
-
Re: If you want a thread to die
All this minimum wage talk is completely stupid. All minimum wage jobs are entry-level jobs. They are for people (teenagers and such) that have no skills or job experience.
No one who is a decent employee stays at minimum wage. They gain skills (responsibilities) and experience and even references then they start to get raises, then they can apply for other higher paying jobs. If you're on minimum wage for any length of time...there is a reason
-
Re: If you want a thread to die
Quote:
Originally Posted by
DJDAWG
All this minimum wage talk is completely stupid. All minimum wage jobs are entry-level jobs. They are for people (teenagers and such) that have no skills or job experience.
No one who is a decent employee stays at minimum wage. They gain skills (responsibilities) and experience and even references then they start to get raises, then they can apply for other higher paying jobs. If you're on minimum wage for any length of time...there is a reason
EXACTLY.............most of the time, they stay at minimum wage because they are not dependable!!! They show up for work when they want to do so.....by using a thousand excuses!
-
Re: If you want a thread to die
Everyone should be expected to work a minimum wage job at some point - and everyone should be expected to move on in life eventually. Sorta like preschool - it's good to go through but if someone's been in preschool for 10 years theres a problem.
-
Re: If you want a thread to die
I waited tables for $2.13/hour (I still think that is the minimum wage for waiters). And lots of people don't know how to tip...
-
Re: If you want a thread to die
I worked at the Tech film library (under the steps of Keeny Hall) for $1.00 per hour. I believe the cafeteria workers got a little more -- maybe $1.10 or $1.25.
-
Re: If you want a thread to die
I did "roust-about" work in the oil patch starting @ $1.15/hr, 1962. It was increased later that summer to $1.25. Kept me in shape. Humbled me too. I do appreciate my La Tech degree and the blessings that came with/from it. The oli patch didn't "tip" either sportdawg.:D
-
Re: If you want a thread to die
He raised the minimum wage for workers under federal contract. That means about 16 people get that pay raise. More fluff with this than substance.
-
Re: If you want a thread to die
Actually I read or heard that it doesn't take effect until 2015 and most employees if not of government contractors already make more that his "minimum wage". They are governmant contractors!
-
Re: If you want a thread to die
It is still the government telling businesses what they must do not related to the service or product involved. Sort of extortion. If you want to do business with us, you must ___________. And the blank isn't "provide effective and appropriate service/product."
Wonder if they can employ illegal aliens? Sorry, I don't mean to be ill-spirited - wonder of they can employ individuals that happen to be living in the USA before being granted citizenship even if the government didn't know they were here?
-
Re: If you want a thread to die
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Houston Techsan
Actually I read or heard that it doesn't take effect until 2015 and most employees if not of government contractors already make more that his "minimum wage". They are governmant contractors!
That is true......what Obama said was smoke and mirrors. It just sounds like he is forcing Congress to do something when he is actually doing nothing! Just about all the contract workers do work through a union..painters, roofers, electricians, plumbers, etc. They are paid the applicable union rate for the area where the work is performed. The union rate will be more than $10.10 per hour!!!
-
Re: If you want a thread to die
Quote:
Originally Posted by
70TECHGRAD
That is true......what Obama said was smoke and mirrors. It just sounds like he is forcing Congress to do something when he is actually doing nothing! Just about all the contract workers do work through a union..painters, roofers, electricians, plumbers, etc. They are paid the applicable union rate for the area where the work is performed. The union rate will be more than $10.10 per hour!!!
It's the first step in forcing anyone that receives fed money to make their minimum pay line-up with federal pay.
-
Re: If you want a thread to die
How To Create A Social State By Saul Alinsky
Saul David Alinsky (January 30, 1909 - June 12, 1972) was an American community organizer and writer. He is generally considered to be the founder of modern community organizing. He authored the book, “Rules for Radicals”.
In his book, he details the eight 8 levels of control that must be obtained in order to create a social state.
The first is the most important.
1) Healthcare: Control healthcare and you control the people.
2) Poverty: Increase the Poverty level as high as possible. Poor people are easier to control, and will not fight back as long as you are providing everything they require to live.
3) Debt: Increase the debt to an unsustainable level. In this way, taxes must increase, and this will produce more poverty.
4) Gun Control: Remove the ability for citizens to defend themselves from the Government. In that way you are able to create a police state.
5) Welfare: Take control of every aspect of their lives (Food, Housing, and Income).
6) Education: Take control of what children read and to what they are taught in school.
7) Religion: Remove the belief in the God from the Government and schools.
8) Class Warfare: Divide the people into the wealthy and the poor. This will cause more discontent, and it will be easier to tax the wealthy with the support of the poor.
Does any of this sound familiar? Think about it!!!!!!
-
Re: If you want a thread to die
Yes, we have turned history on its tail-
Rome burned while Nero "fiddled,"
America is "smoked" while Joe American fiddles.
-
Re: If you want a thread to die
Quote:
Originally Posted by
OLDBLUE
Yes, we have turned history on its tail-
Rome burned while Nero "fiddled,"
America is "smoked" while Joe American fiddles.
Amen!!! The next president will have a lot to undo!
-
Re: If you want a thread to die
Quote:
Originally Posted by
70TECHGRAD
Amen!!! The next president will have a lot to undo!
70 -- I've read Alinsky. I do not recall the items you listed above as being advocated, at least not explicitly, in Rules for Radicals.
Was the post above based on your reading of the book?
-
Re: If you want a thread to die
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Champ967
70 -- I've read Alinsky. I do not recall the items you listed above as being advocated, at least not explicitly, in Rules for Radicals.
Was the post above based on your reading of the book?
Just curious, what is your take on the book?
-
Re: If you want a thread to die
Quote:
Originally Posted by
OLDBLUE
Just curious, what is your take on the book?
Alinsky was an unabashed leftist, but took exception to the violent revolutions called for by Marxism. Rules for Radicals suggests methods for bringing attention to socialist causes, but within a democratic system.
That's the short, short version. But seizing guns and brainwashing kids aren't included.
To be sure ... I haven't read the book in 15 years. But that's how I remember it. Coincidentally, I was going through some boxes just last month, and came across it. I briefly considered re-reading it, but then tossed it in the "donate" pile and took it to the thrift store.
-
Re: If you want a thread to die
I know, he uses all the right words, but he does not grasp the difference between the "freed" spirit and the free spirit. He attacks free enterprise, but paints it all with the greed of materialistic men, not the ethical caring successful. This seems to be a foreign thought to those of his ilk, that free men can accomplish great things and maintain high morals and Christian ethics.
In this world, you have to determine what environment gives man the best opportunity. That was obviously the USA over the last 140 years. Imperfect, but by far the most promising. This, he desires to level and try to make the socialist state work when it never has.
Review the list 70 posted and you see what the progressives have done with his negative approach when placed in the role of the "state's" power over the citizen.
Emotion, fact, truth, reason????????
-
Re: If you want a thread to die
Quote:
Originally Posted by
OLDBLUE
This, he desires to level and try to make the socialist state work when it never has.
I'd submit that a form a socialism has succeeded remarkably in the Scandinavian nations. All democracies, and nominally Protestant.
That's not to say socialism > capitalism. But to say it's never worked anywhere is misleading.
Quote:
He attacks free enterprise, but paints it all with the greed of materialistic men, not the ethical caring successful.
And there's the rub. Which do you believe is more representative of an unfettered free-market? The greedy and ambitious successful, or the ethical caring successful?
I suspect each person's answer will be based largely on his or her own experience.
-
Re: If you want a thread to die
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Champ967
I'd submit that a form a socialism has succeeded remarkably in the Scandinavian nations. All democracies, and nominally Protestant.
That's not to say socialism > capitalism. But to say it's never worked anywhere is misleading.
And there's the rub. Which do you believe is more representative of an unfettered free-market? The greedy and ambitious successful, or the ethical caring successful?
I suspect each person's answer will be based largely on his or her own experience.
Your "grouping is quite telling. Try this: Unleashed socialism? Government making the decision as to your potential for succeeding based upon their (Oligarchy's) derived ethos? This is where we are headed.
The Constitution of the USA sets checks in place, but it can not continue to work when the moral standards are of men and not based upon foundational truths, which Linsky poopoos as "out of touch" with today.
Again he attacks free enterprise, but paints it all with the greed of materialistic men, not the ethical caring successful.
Group the types of rule, both stink "unfettered." Group the source of ethics man's stink, divine standards at the foundation of the USA will stand.
You can also do better at grouping greedy -vs- successful, ambitious is not the sole associate of greed!
BTW, yes I am answering this based upon my experience. I'm blessed to have the opportunities this great land has given me. I also understand the "hell" some I deal with go through because our government has taken them down the trail of "rely on me" I'll give you (just enough to exist) what you need, but you have to jump a gigantic mountain to get out of the rut. On the other side is someone close to me who is trying with all he has to get out of that slavish rut and his biggest deterrant is our "caring" federal government who insists on their way.
Thanks but no thanks I want America back!!! Too many young men and now women have given their lives for our liberties. No stinking "I know better than you" government has the right to tramle on our liberties these have died for!
I'm done now OLDBLUE out!
-
Re: If you want a thread to die
Thanks Old Blue. I've never made it a secret that I lean left on most fiscal questions, but I stopped talking politics on this board about a decade ago. Not because my views are in the minority, but because few posters seem willing / able to respectfully disagree on principle.
I've said this before but .... I think we can all agree govt is a necessary evil. But to what degree it is (or should be) each of those things is where I observe the source of most debates. Many men and women I love and respect tend to distrust govt as a matter of course. I do not share that inherent distrust, or at least not to the extent many others do. But reasonable people can disagree.
I would submit that govt is a legitimate mechanism to manage some range of societal issues, and I suspect you'd agree. But we can disagree about the breadth and scope of that range ... It takes all kinds.
-
Re: If you want a thread to die
10-4.
I understand there is corruption in Corporate America. I just believe they will get theirs. But When the people entrusted to uphold the constitution begin "re-writing" it and stepping on personal liberties the voter must step up.
Regulation for the "common" good is necessary. Regulation to pick and choose is evil. No, I don't care what "brand" does it. But we the people have a grand responsibility to address such.
Conservative or liberal, there are fundamental issues we should not be divided over.
God bless us all.
-
Re: If you want a thread to die
Yep...I'm a Republican. I believe less government is better. Now, Obama is going to act without Congress and shove more crap down our throats!!! I for one, DO NOT like that!!!!!
-
Re: If you want a thread to die
Quote:
Originally Posted by
OLDBLUE
10-4.
I understand there is corruption in Corporate America. I just believe they will get their's. But When the people entrusted to uphold the constitution begin "re-writing" it and stepping on personal liberties the voter must step up.
Regulation for the "common" good is necessary. Regulation to pick and choose is evil. No, I don't care what "brand" does it. But we the people have a grand responsibility to address such.
conservative or liberal, there are fundamental issues we should not be divided over.
God bless us all.
And that explains it all!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
1 Attachment(s)
Re: If you want a thread to die
Quote:
Originally Posted by
70TECHGRAD
Amen!!! The next president will have a lot to undo!
Attachment 11285
-
Re: If you want a thread to die
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Champ967
Thanks Old Blue. I've never made it a secret that I lean left on most fiscal questions, but I stopped talking politics on this board about a decade ago. Not because my views are in the minority, but because few posters seem willing / able to respectfully disagree on principle.
I've said this before but .... I think we can all agree govt is a necessary evil. But to what degree it is (or should be) each of those things is where I observe the source of most debates. Many men and women I love and respect tend to distrust govt as a matter of course. I do not share that inherent distrust, or at least not to the extent many others do. But reasonable people can disagree.
I would submit that govt is a legitimate mechanism to manage some range of societal issues, and I suspect you'd agree. But we can disagree about the breadth and scope of that range ... It takes all kinds.
I think the way we were founded was to be a federal republic with a federal government that handled very little in the way of social issues. What has continued to happen over the 20th century IMO is we have nationalized regional issues that brought cultural differences to the fore in a way that it had not been done since the years prior to the Civil War. Our national politics therefore have become the battle ground on a cultural war that does not have to exist. The 50 state governments are more than capable to handle most of these social issues in a way that most fits the needs, culture, and expectations of their citizens. It is the hubris of the national government, often times regardless of party, that try to push their cultural desires on areas where it is not welcome that causes problems. And that holds true whether you are from Texas and Louisiana or New York and California.
-
Re: If you want a thread to die
love having discussions also, and not the name calling when it comes to politics
-
Re: If you want a thread to die
Quote:
Originally Posted by
dj95
I think the way we were founded was to be a federal republic with a federal government that handled very little in the way of social issues.
Agreed. But The Founders of this nation were hardly role models. Plus they're all dead. Just because they did not contemplate the federal govt as a tool to manage social issues does not preclude us from doing so.
-
Re: If you want a thread to die
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Champ967
Agreed. But The Founders of this nation were hardly role models. Plus they're all dead. Just because they did not contemplate the federal govt as a tool to manage social issues does not preclude us from doing so.
Really?
Maybe Stalin is more to your liking.
-
Re: If you want a thread to die
Quote:
Originally Posted by
dawg80
Really?
Maybe Stalin is more to your liking.
Ben Franklin and Joe Stalin were each depraved sinners.
Cf. your Bible.
-
Re: If you want a thread to die
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Champ967
Ben Franklin and Joe Stalin were each depraved sinners.
Cf. your Bible.
Yes, but Ben Franklin didn't kill millions of his fellow citizens.
-
Re: If you want a thread to die
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Houston Techsan
Yes, but Ben Franklin didn't kill millions of his fellow citizens.
So Stalin was a worse sinner? (Check your Bible before answering.)
Lincoln killed plenty of his fellow citizens. Is he a role model?
-
Re: If you want a thread to die
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Champ967
Agreed. But The Founders of this nation were hardly role models. Plus they're all dead. Just because they did not contemplate the federal govt as a tool to manage social issues does not preclude us from doing so.
True, but I think it would be prudent to do so. Gay marriage, socialized medicine, legalization of certain drugs, abortion, gun control, school choice, etc etc. These are all state issues. Remove this from the national docket and you would see the federal government have the ability to confront real issues facing the country such as national defense, crumbling infrastructures, and improving the value of the American dollar thus strengthening the economy. You are rarely going to convince someone to change their minds on their core values, yet as a nation, we expend a lot of time and vitriol trying to do just this.
I believe this is the genius the framers of the Constitution. A federal republic that allowed states to have sovereignty over things that were relevant to its citizens and national government to address issues that were of mutual benefit to all.
-
Re: If you want a thread to die
Quote:
Originally Posted by
dj95
True, but I think it would be prudent to do so. Gay marriage, socialized medicine, legalization of certain drugs, abortion, gun control, school choice, etc etc. These are all state issues. Remove this from the national docket and you would see the federal government have the ability to confront real issues facing the country such as national defense, crumbling infrastructures, and improving the value of the American dollar thus strengthening the economy. You are rarely going to convince someone to change their minds on their core values, yet as a nation, we expend a lot of time and vitriol trying to do just this.
I believe this is the genius the framers of the Constitution. A federal republic that allowed states to have sovereignty over things that were relevant to its citizens and national government to address issues that were of mutual benefit to all.
Agree. We just have to hash out on a case-by-case basis what should be considered a national issue.
I would argue, for example, that the federal level was the correct venue to address civil rights. But opponents at that time maintained it was best left to the states. History has demonstrated they were incorrect.
-
Re: If you want a thread to die
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Champ967
Cf. your Bible.
:laugh:
-
Re: If you want a thread to die
Quote:
Originally Posted by
dj95
True, but I think it would be prudent to do so. Gay marriage, socialized medicine, legalization of certain drugs, abortion, gun control, school choice, etc etc. These are all state issues. Remove this from the national docket and you would see the federal government have the ability to confront real issues facing the country such as national defense, crumbling infrastructures, and improving the value of the American dollar thus strengthening the economy. You are rarely going to convince someone to change their minds on their core values, yet as a nation, we expend a lot of time and vitriol trying to do just this.
I believe this is the genius the framers of the Constitution. A federal republic that allowed states to have sovereignty over things that were relevant to its citizens and national government to address issues that were of mutual benefit to all.
Great post!!!! Green for you!
-
Re: If you want a thread to die
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Champ967
Agree. We just have to hash out on a case-by-case basis what should be considered a national issue.
I would argue, for example, that the federal level was the correct venue to address civil rights. But opponents at that time maintained it was best left to the states. History has demonstrated they were incorrect.
Segregation was confirmed by the US Supreme Court, so validated at the federal level (incorrectly in my opinion) with Plessy v. Ferguson. Thus civil rights was a national issue because states were violating the 14th Amendment as well as other amendments that protected the freedoms of all of our citizens originally under a flawed decision by the Supreme Court. Anytime the federal government tries to legislate values from beliefs about drugs to forced charity and everything in between, it has overstepped is boundaries. Most people look to the president to "fix" things, when that is not his job. His job is to enforce laws that are passed by Congress (the only branch of the federal government directly elected by the people). When that gets out of whack, the whole thing becomes a quagmire and mess.
-
Re: If you want a thread to die
I just learned that the confederate dead were not allowed to be buried in the Gettysburg National Battle Park!
-
Re: If you want a thread to die
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ChipDog
I just learned that the confederate dead were not allowed to be buried in the Gettysburg National Battle Park!
The right of the people to govern themselves has not been respected since...
-
Re: If you want a thread to die
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Blue Dawg
The right of the people to govern themselves has not been respected since...
since Ronald Reagan left office.
-
Re: If you want a thread to die
Quote:
Originally Posted by
70TECHGRAD
since Ronald Reagan left office.
I was thinking closer along 1865, haha. But yea, RR was a moment of clarity in an imperialist nation.
-
Re: If you want a thread to die
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Blue Dawg
I was thinking closer along 1865, haha. But yea, RR was a moment of clarity in an imperialist nation.
Exactly!!!!
-
Re: If you want a thread to die
Now I am by no means a democrat but how soon we forget. The Union meant republicans. They are the ones that prevented the confederate dead from being buried at Gettysburg. They are the ones that visited reconstruction on us (can you say Thaddeus B. Stephens) out of pure hatred and spite. They called them radical republicans and now we call them conservatives. Lincoln was probably our first "imperial" president. The emancipation proclamation was simply an executive. I generally vote republican but I have to hold my nose.
Also how soon the blacks forget. Democrats were the party of slavery and Jim Crow. The first civil rights act was passed by a republican congress in 1866 (but was declared unconstitutional). Republicants supported almost all the later civil rights acts -- It was the southern democrats that blocked them.
-
Re: If you want a thread to die
It was stated above, "how soon we forget", but to forget requires that something was first known. The true history of our nation is not known by very many because actual effort must be exerted to learn it.
Hollywood through many lies and treacherous irresponsible acts disguised as artistic liberty, or some other term, has distorted the truth to our ignorant (through laziness) youth for so many years until now those such as Oliver Stone have rewritten our nations history to suite the "show" that now occupies our federal government.
-
Re: If you want a thread to die
Please no "D" nor "R" word. Keep focused on "We the People" not political bilge. What do you REALLY want the U.S.A. to be?
Keep politics away from college sports!!!!
-
Re: If you want a thread to die
You're right Old blue. This should have been in the "insider" forum. But I just added my thoughts to keep this long lived thread alive.
-
Re: If you want a thread to die
"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."
-- Thomas Jefferson
-
Re: If you want a thread to die
Quote:
Originally Posted by
70TECHGRAD
"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."
-- Thomas Jefferson
Not one of our Founding Fathers could get elected President today and very few to Congress. The media would hound them over quotes like above..."Mean-spirited" and "Right-wing radical" and "hate the poor" and "bigoted" and "loves the rich" and "supports income inequality"; etc...
-
Re: If you want a thread to die
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Champ967
Well, to be fair, they did OWN. OTHER. HUMANS.
So, there's that ...
Not all...Sam Adams, Ben Franklin and others.
But, for those that did, I just can't understand it. I can't wrap my brain around the fact they founded the best country/government in human history (with the constitution), yet did that.
-
Re: If you want a thread to die
Quote:
Originally Posted by
DJDAWG
Sam Adams, Ben Franklin
Lush and womanizer, respectively.
Quote:
they founded the best country/government in human history
Debatable.
-
Re: If you want a thread to die
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Champ967
Debatable.
For a nation as wildly widely diverse, nope.
-
Re: If you want a thread to die
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JuBru
For a nation as wildly widely diverse, nope.
Ok. Greatest wildly diverse nation. I can get on board with that.
-
Re: If you want a thread to die
Well thank the Lord that we don't put Sinners in the White House anymore!!
Come on Champ... be better than that. We all know that there has only been one perfect President in history and he died on Calvary 2000 years ago.
Oh, and you knuckleheads know that we actually have a joke thread already... well.... this thread is a joke... so carry on!!
-
Re: If you want a thread to die
Quote:
Originally Posted by
DocMarvin362
Well thank the Lord that we don't put Sinners in the White House anymore!!
Come on Champ... be better than that. We all know that there has only been one perfect President in history and he died on Calvary 2000 years ago.
Oh, and you knuckleheads know that we actually have a joke thread already... well.... this thread is a joke... so carry on!!
Knuckleheads? Now you're a name-calling meanie.
-
Re: If you want a thread to die
-
Re: If you want a thread to die
Quote:
Originally Posted by
DocMarvin362
Well thank the Lord that we don't put Sinners in the White House anymore!!
Come on Champ... be better than that. We all know that there has only been one perfect President in history and he died on Calvary 2000 years ago.
Oh, and you knuckleheads know that we actually have a joke thread already... well.... this thread is a joke... so carry on!!
This thread is diverse.
-
Re: If you want a thread to die
Quote:
Originally Posted by
DocMarvin362
Come on Champ... be better than that. We all know that there has only been one perfect President in history and he died on Calvary 2000 years ago.
Correcto-mundo!
The way some professed followers of Christ get all goo-goo eyed for the founders of this above-average federation continues to baffle / amuse me.
-
Posts in the Football forum that belong in the Paw-litics forum
Just wondering about what y'all think about this. Some economists are saying this law could destroy our economy. Here is part of an article written about it:
On this date, U.S. House of Representatives Bill “H.R. 2847” goes into effect.
In 2010, the U.S. Congress passed House of Representatives bill H.R. 2847.
Hidden within this bill is a provision known as "FATCA," which stands for the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act.
This bill does several important things, as of July 1st, 2014:
1. It forces all worldwide banks to comply with the IRS if they have any transactions in U.S. dollars.
2. Because the U.S. dollar is still the world's reserve currency, it essentially means ALL WORLDWIDE BANKS, except for the smallest community institutions, must comply.
3. To comply, banks can either spend a fortune segmenting, tracking, and potentially "taxing" their U.S. dollar transactions by as much as 30%... or they can simply get rid of all of their U.S. customers.
In other words, the U.S. government is saying to all banks around the world: If you deal in U.S. dollars in any way, you have to give us full, unfettered access to all of these transactions... or you have to get rid of all of your U.S. customers.
The repercussions here are enormous:
For one, it means more and more institutions will move AWAY from the U.S. dollar, accelerating the already rapid worldwide move away from the dollar as reserve currency.
For another, it essentially makes it extremely difficult, if not impossible, for the average American to get some of his money out of U.S. dollars, and into more stable currencies via foreign banks.
Already, we've seen two of the largest banks in the world, JP Morgan Chase and HSBC, basically eliminate international wire transfers. Many small banks have reportedly followed suit.
And we expect many, many more banks to basically outlaw international wire transfers, the run up to this new July 1st law.
This is a clear example of Capital Controls. This is what a broke and desperate government does when they know the value of their currency is about to collapse.
We've seen governments around the globe pull these stunts over and over again... right before a currency devaluation or collapse. And now it's happenings right here, in the United States of America.
|
-
Re: Posts in the Football forum that belong in the Paw-litics forum
All the crapola taking place now just drives home the point: "Government is not the solution to problems. Government IS the problem."
We need another Ronaldo Maximus.
-
Re: Posts in the Football forum that belong in the Paw-litics forum
Quote:
Originally Posted by
70TECHGRAD
Just wondering about what y'all think about this. Some economists are saying this law could destroy our economy. Here is part of an article written about it:
July 1st, 2014
On this date, U.S. House of Representatives Bill “H.R. 2847” goes into effect.
In 2010, the U.S. Congress passed House of Representatives bill H.R. 2847.
Hidden within this bill is a provision known as "FATCA," which stands for the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act.
This bill does several important things, as of July 1st, 2014:
1. It forces all worldwide banks to comply with the IRS if they have any transactions in U.S. dollars.
2. Because the U.S. dollar is still the world's reserve currency, it essentially means ALL WORLDWIDE BANKS, except for the smallest community institutions, must comply.
3. To comply, banks can either spend a fortune segmenting, tracking, and potentially "taxing" their U.S. dollar transactions by as much as 30%... or they can simply get rid of all of their U.S. customers.
In other words, the U.S. government is saying to all banks around the world: If you deal in U.S. dollars in any way, you have to give us full, unfettered access to all of these transactions... or you have to get rid of all of your U.S. customers.
The repercussions here are enormous:
For one, it means more and more institutions will move AWAY from the U.S. dollar, accelerating the already rapid worldwide move away from the dollar as reserve currency.
For another, it essentially makes it extremely difficult, if not impossible, for the average American to get some of his money out of U.S. dollars, and into more stable currencies via foreign banks.
Already, we've seen two of the largest banks in the world, JP Morgan Chase and HSBC, basically eliminate international wire transfers. Many small banks have reportedly followed suit.
And we expect many, many more banks to basically outlaw international wire transfers, the run up to this new July 1st law.
This is a clear example of Capital Controls. This is what a broke and desperate government does when they know the value of their currency is about to collapse.
We've seen governments around the globe pull these stunts over and over again... right before a currency devaluation or collapse. And now it's happenings right here, in the United States of America.
|
Source?
I serious doubt any law that will negatively effect big banks will pass congress. Why?
Guess who has the biggest lobby and gives more money to politicians, Democrat or Republican. Yep you guess it the big banks, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan et al
-
Re: Posts in the Football forum that belong in the Paw-litics forum
Quote:
Originally Posted by
longdawgview
Source?
I serious doubt any law that will negatively effect big banks will pass congress. Why?
Guess who has the biggest lobby and gives more money to politicians, Democrat or Republican. Yep you guess it the big banks, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan et al
Just ignore it. Most of it is wrong.
1. Not about currency. If the bank has a U.S citizen's account, then that bank has to reveal all the account details to the IRS.
2. Invalidated by #1.
3. The 30% is how much a U.S. payor is supposed to withhold from non-compliant banks/citizens.
Changing from a dollar-backed to a renminbi-backed reserve currency doesn't change a person's citizenship.
Conversion of U.S. dollars into any foreign currency is not affected. Conversions just become more nuanced.
International wire transfers are still happening.
I'm iffy on the capital controls statement, though. Could really go either way.
That doesn't mean the FATCA stuff is good/effective/non-redundant.
http://americansabroad.org/issues/fa...d-be-repealed/
RNC appears in favor of repealing FATCA.
https://www.abolishfatca.com/live/RN...Resolution.pdf
Sources:
http://www.irs.gov/Businesses/Corpor...ct-%28FATCA%29
http://www.treasury.gov/resource-cen...ges/FATCA.aspx
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign...Compliance_Act
http://www.iexpats.com/fatca/
http://www.cnbc.com/id/101450365
http://www.forbes.com/sites/halahtou...rawals-either/
