It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

So, where are the jobs?

page: 4
7
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 09:44 PM
link   
According to FOX News right now, unemployment actually has went up.

Obviously a massive failure on the part of the Republicans who said that if the richest 2% keep their tax cuts, it would fix the economy completely and there wouldn't be unemployment. According to what FOX News has said this entire time, employers were worried about their taxes going up, and that was the only reason that these companies that have been reporting record profits haven't been hiring.

It's just proof positive that the GOP Agenda has completely failed.




posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 10:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by saltheart foamfollower
 


The GOP has been saying this entire time that employers were worried about their taxes going up and that's why these companies that have been reporting record profits haven't been hiring, well, their taxes aren't going to go up, they got their tax deal, so now that excuse is out the window, and still, the unemployment numbers haven't gone down.


I want us all to be real honest for a little bit. If the taxes go up it isn't going to help create jobs. If the taxes go down it isn't going to create jobs. When Americans start working for $10 a day and a breakfast burrito (or bowl of rice) jobs will come back.

There is a concentrated effort by the rich corporations and their lobbyist to break the back of the American working class. They all keep fighting for what benifits their sector without thinking about how all of the pieces fit together. Look at the conflicting bills that come through and you will see that the corporations and banks are buying the politicians. The poloticians are enjoying the perks and priviliges so much that they don't care what really happens. They are getting rich serving the corporate interest. They keep shoveling things like unemployement extensions our way to pacify people. They know that after a certain amount of time the people will stop complaining and just become wards of the state.

By the time everybody figures out it is time to demand real change, and begins to act, the corporations will have ruined us the exact same way they have dozens of other countries.

It doesn't matter if the Democrats or Republicans are in office. The only thing that will change is which coorporations get the most money.



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 10:32 PM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


You know it's kind of bizarre, since in fact you are a pretty sharp cookie, that you still play the partisan blame game.

Neither the Democrats nor the Republicans have any vested interest in creating jobs, they (the politicians) already have jobs, fairly decent paying ones with a lot of nice beneifts on and off the books.

They exist to pretty much tell people what they want to hear and believe.

The democrats didn't deliver, the republicans didn't deliver, the fact that the republicans aren't delivering doesn't excuse them any more than it excuses the democrats.

Why any intelligent person would was breath or hope on either of those corrupt entrenched interests is really beyond me.

I think you have gotten a taste already of how tough it is to break into national politics after your own laudable attempt to run in the primaries.

The truth is though, it's a very tightly controlled big money process, of entrenched corporate interests deciding who they want in there by deciding who runs that you then get to vote on.

Doesn't matter what party they are from my friend, they still all serve the same Masters regardless of what they want you to believe.

Why not put your sizeable intellect to work, realizing what's broken, the system itself, that can be subverted and hijacked out of the starting gate, not the drugged up horses running around the track, you can complain about symptoms and diseases all day long, but hey, sooner or later, the doctor needs to operate, not the corrupt politicians.

Look I get your angry, the democrats didn't shine through like you hoped, and you are smart enough to understand the republicans aren't going to do any different, you are half way there, now all you have to do is realize the democrats didn't shine because of the republicans they didn't shine because they just don't give a hoot about the average people either.



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 10:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by boondock-saint
 


Are you threatening me? I don't appreciate being threatened by you. I don't think I like the idea of you insinuating that you are going to hunt me down if the banks fail.
edit on 12/19/2010 by whatukno because: (no reason given)


I get it now. Can we just call this a bad attempt at trolling and move along?

2nd line



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 11:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by network dude
reply to post by Janky Red
 


tell you what, put on your gloating shoes in 4 years. I might be wearing the same ones, but to say that the last 4 years were great would be the a bit daft. I am in business for myself. I have seen the repercussions of stupid people first hand. If I can survive through the first year of the next congressional guffaw, I hope like hell I can be proud of my party. I can say for sure that I an not a fan of what has just transpired. Just so you know, the president don't make much difference, it's the lawmakers who determine the path of money.


I think it is daft to hold that 2008 was the result of 2 years of mis management - in fact if you count when the fiscal year started - that would mean the Democrats had a majority for LESS than a year bud.

the economy tanked officially on Sept 15 2008 the Democrats policies took effect in OCTOBER 2007

If it was 6 years of democrats and splat then I would have no good, logical reason to be severely skeptical.

Further more if I heard some talk of thinking about curtailing the risk that Billionaires take I might feel better, but as far as I see it is de regulate again and again. The previous system of regulation held back such a disaster
for over 50 years - Clinton signed and 3 Republicans crafted the perfect time bomb, but I have not heard one single Republican QUESTION the wisdom of this application. Same tune here - fight the commies, we need to be more free to out source and put the market in a death spiral - You want responsibility, you guys need to
take yours for the piss poor ideas you promote - free reign for binary market places = freedom???
edit on 20-12-2010 by Janky Red because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 11:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by saltheart foamfollower
reply to post by Janky Red
 


Just to remind you, who was it again that pushed GATT and NAFTA?



Oh, that would be the Democrat's hero and favorite philanderer and accused serial.....................

Still think eliminate all income and property taxation and institute an across the board sales taxation, including the sale of stocks. Keep the wealth in country and we could eliminate all tariffs. The sales tax would act as a buffer to foreign sales in country.

Common sense.

PLUS, you reinstitute a basic tenet of the Constitution, PRIVATE PROPERTY SHALL NOT BE SEIZED WITHOUT JUST COMPENSATION.
edit on 20-12-2010 by saltheart foamfollower because: (no reason given)


We have to do that again???

GOP voted overwhelmingly for NAFTA - 3/4s of GOP voted in favor - in fact the who's who of the conservative arm was in favor -

Democrats broke nearly even- more against than for,,, even ol SATAN furry Reid in Nevada had the fricking sack to vote against his parties interests through a unified front-

We need to look at

California

and

Texas

to smell the lean on NAFTA my amigo

Them stinking Commie liberal D's both voted against NAFTA

While those sensible, American loving patriots in Texas ( R + R = both
) voted for it

You keep trying to pin Conservative GOP tendencies on liberals and then you get all butt hurt -

The lot of your mates are serial corporatists, look at your beliefs my friend, for the love of god - it gets twisted
from the page to reality. If we were talking welfare myfriend, but we are not, we are talking FREEDOM for business - really...

Unions did not want this stuff - yall hate unions - so you favor management by default - those are the two lynch pins. NAFTA works hand in hand with privatization too, you DEFEND those rights and you passively agree to
let parties inflict whatever they create in the job market here. Then you get mad about people going on the dole
when they lose their jobs... Look at the names -



Grouped by Home State
Alabama: Heflin (D-AL), Nay Shelby (D-AL), Nay
Alaska: Murkowski (R-AK), Yea Stevens (R-AK), Nay
Arizona: DeConcini (D-AZ), Yea McCain (R-AZ), Yea
Arkansas: Bumpers (D-AR), Yea Pryor (D-AR), Yea
California: Boxer (D-CA), Nay Feinstein (D-CA), Nay
Colorado: Brown (R-CO), Yea Campbell (D-CO), Nay
Connecticut: Dodd (D-CT), Yea Lieberman (D-CT), Yea
Delaware: Biden (D-DE), Yea Roth (R-DE), Yea
Florida: Graham (D-FL), Yea Mack (R-FL), Yea
Georgia: Coverdell (R-GA), Yea Nunn (D-GA), Yea
Hawaii: Akaka (D-HI), Nay Inouye (D-HI), Nay
Idaho: Craig (R-ID), Nay Kempthorne (R-ID), Nay
Illinois: Moseley-Braun (D-IL), Yea Simon (D-IL), Yea
Indiana: Coats (R-IN), Yea Lugar (R-IN), Yea
Iowa: Grassley (R-IA), Yea Harkin (D-IA), Yea
Kansas: Dole (R-KS), Yea Kassebaum (R-KS), Yea
Kentucky: Ford (D-KY), Nay McConnell (R-KY), Yea
Louisiana: Breaux (D-LA), Yea Johnston (D-LA), Yea
Maine: Cohen (R-ME), Nay Mitchell (D-ME), Yea
Maryland: Mikulski (D-MD), Nay Sarbanes (D-MD), Nay
Massachusetts: Kennedy (D-MA), Yea Kerry (D-MA), Yea
Michigan: Levin (D-MI), Nay Riegle (D-MI), Nay
Minnesota: Durenberger (R-MN), Yea Wellstone (D-MN), Nay
Mississippi: Cochran (R-MS), Yea Lott (R-MS), Yea
Missouri: Bond (R-MO), Yea Danforth (R-MO), Yea
Montana: Baucus (D-MT), Yea Burns (R-MT), Nay
Nebraska: Exon (D-NE), Nay Kerrey (D-NE), Yea
Nevada: Bryan (D-NV), Nay Reid (D-NV), Nay
New Hampshire: Gregg (R-NH), Yea Smith (R-NH), Nay
New Jersey: Bradley (D-NJ), Yea Lautenberg (D-NJ), Nay
New Mexico: Bingaman (D-NM), Yea Domenici (R-NM), Yea
New York: D'Amato (R-NY), Nay Moynihan (D-NY), Nay
North Carolina: Faircloth (R-NC), Nay Helms (R-NC), Nay
North Dakota: Conrad (D-ND), Nay Dorgan (D-ND), Not Voting
Ohio: Glenn (D-OH), Nay Metzenbaum (D-OH), Nay
Oklahoma: Boren (D-OK), Yea Nickles (R-OK), Yea
Oregon: Hatfield (R-OR), Yea Packwood (R-OR), Yea
Pennsylvania: Specter (R-PA), Yea Wofford (D-PA), Nay
Rhode Island: Chafee (R-RI), Yea Pell (D-RI), Yea
South Carolina: Hollings (D-SC), Nay Thurmond (R-SC), Nay
South Dakota: Daschle (D-SD), Yea Pressler (R-SD), Yea
Tennessee: Mathews (D-TN), Yea Sasser (D-TN), Nay
Texas: Gramm (R-TX), Yea Hutchison (R-TX), Yea
Utah: Bennett (R-UT), Yea Hatch (R-UT), Yea
Vermont: Jeffords (R-VT), Yea Leahy (D-VT), Yea
Virginia: Robb (D-VA), Yea Warner (R-VA), Yea
Washington: Gorton (R-WA), Yea Murray (D-WA), Yea
West Virginia: Byrd (D-WV), Nay Rockefeller (D-WV), Nay
Wisconsin: Feingold (D-WI), Nay Kohl (D-WI), Nay
Wyoming: Simpson (R-WY), Yea Wallop (R-WY), Yea
Vote Summary By Senator Name By Vote Position By Home State

We can talk common sense - if you guys would be willing to enforce real oversight of the binary markets
or address the Billionaires dispersing Trillions out of our economy to protect their "freedom". IT's $#@$@#
insane Foam, you guys cite the founding fathers for the benefit of billionaires and their job creation potential.
How is that sense>?

You think Jefferson would favor American business men systematically drying up our market place - Lets quote him and pretend thats what he envisioned!!!

Common sense indeed





edit on 21-12-2010 by Janky Red because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 12:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by sonofliberty1776

Originally posted by network dude
reply to post by Janky Red
 


tell you what, put on your gloating shoes in 4 years. I might be wearing the same ones, but to say that the last 4 years were great would be the a bit daft. I am in business for myself. I have seen the repercussions of stupid people first hand. If I can survive through the first year of the next congressional guffaw, I hope like hell I can be proud of my party. I can say for sure that I an not a fan of what has just transpired. Just so you know, the president don't make much difference, it's thepeople who bought and paid for lawmakers who determine the path of money.
Fixed


Fixed??


you mean the fix is in???

you mean they will create a system that funnels money towards the people with money, more effectively than it does now? Hopefully they will fix it so that the first Trillionaire will emerge sooner than later -

Please let me know



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 12:24 AM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


Still too early to tell what's going to happen.

If the last 2 years are any indication, there will be no change. I'm willing to bank on it.

In an ideal world, we would not have to work because we would not be slaves to someone. Something to think about.



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 01:35 AM
link   
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 


It's more of a "Fair and Balanced" view of how this policy that the wealthiest people keeping more of their ill gotten gains somehow helps create jobs.

Because it didn't work instantly, the only "Fair and Balanced" thing to do is to assume that the party that wanted it has a completely failed agenda and that all of their policies must be complete failures because the one thing they tried didn't work right out of the gate.



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 03:23 AM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


The sky is red.


Actually dude, it is

Peace is war.


Actually dude, it is



the "unfunded" tax cuts



Actually dude, it is



the bush era were due to expire..because it was unfunded and temporary

Tell me, do you believe in FAIRY TALES? Are they real?


Actually dude, it is



of course, now the socialist top 2% became used to the handfed treats the government was giving...and demanded the GOP protect them by giving them more money.

Tell me, do you know what socialism is? Do you think it is bailing out the unions that drove GM out of business? Do you believe that what is truly CRONY CAPITALISM should be called socialism? Is there a rainbow somewhere in your fantasy land?


Actually dude, it is



They demanded this tax cut..it is a tax cut, there is little you can do to argue against that point.
it is what it is...socialism for the rich

So, now CRONY CAPITALISM is called socialism now. How about theft and fraud, I suppose you would call that capitalism.


Actually dude, it is

So is liberty tyranny?


Actually dude, it is

So is Dodd and the White House EVEN SLIGHTLY responsible for helping the thieves and crooks with their bailouts?


Actually dude, it is

Is socialism a sickness envisioned by by despots the likes of Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao?


Actually dude, it is


So, DUDE.............................is the sky red?


Actually dude, it is






posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 10:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by whatukno
According to FOX News right now, unemployment actually has went up.

Obviously a massive failure on the part of the Republicans who said that if the richest 2% keep their tax cuts, it would fix the economy completely and there wouldn't be unemployment. According to what FOX News has said this entire time, employers were worried about their taxes going up, and that was the only reason that these companies that have been reporting record profits haven't been hiring.

It's just proof positive that the GOP Agenda has completely failed.


The GOP agenda has been absoluely succesful. Protect, at all costs, the wealthy interests that fund them.



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 11:10 AM
link   
reply to post by maybereal11
 


Which is in stark contrast to the Democrat agenda, which is to protect, at all costs, the wealthy interests that fund them.

The whole thing's a rigged show, like pro wrestling. We're supposed to take sides and rant and rave. They get us worked up over crap that's irrelevant in the grand scheme, like same sex marriage or flag burning. The morons glom onto it like they're rooting for Hulk Hogan and meanwhile, we're all being fleeced. How this differs over what's happened the last 150 years or more, I'm not sure, other than maybe in magnitude. They don't even try to hide it anymore. It plays out in full view and blows over. Maybe a guy or two occasionally gets publicly sacrificed on the altar of Pacify the Rubes, but a week later we're right back to where we were.

Get used to it.

And every halfwit political partisan who thinks there's a difference between the Democrats and Republicans plays right into their hands. A plague on both your houses, if I may borrow from The Bard. If you find it entertaining to engage in that sort of meaningless rhetoric, go for it. I won't stop you from seeing The Hulkster at the Garden either, and in fact attending a match probably has less detrimental effect overall than spewing the party line swill.

Suckers.



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 11:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by MikeNice81

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by saltheart foamfollower
 



When Americans start working for $10 a day and a breakfast burrito (or bowl of rice) jobs will come back.


Oh I thought you were saying $10 an hour, I was fixin' to say try 7.25 and a breakfast burrito or bowl of rice, but where I live they won't even give you the time to eat the burrito or bowl of rice. Yeah I think I will put that in compensation expecte Ten dollars a day and a burrito or a bowl of rice, but I would prefer a bowl of chile.



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 12:11 PM
link   
i thought that the 'jobs' creation was targeted in the Green and Alternative energy sectors...
(windmills, lithium batterys for electric vehicle Detroit, etc)


the act of extending the bush tax cuts, also extending unemployment $$ and extending the Death tax suspension was mainly for giving the Executives/CEOs and the Business & Corporate community
a sense of a stable tax situation for the next 2 years.
Up to the passing of the Tax bill...Corporations were unsure of future tax liabilities & the tax credits or tax exclusions being erased from the tax codes... which in turn made the Boards hesitant to support hiring.



Any 'jobs' that might be created with the Tax Cuts extension were only a fringe element at best...
the main purpose was to give the unemployed (main street) a 13 month extension...
~13 months being the time frame expected for the job creation model to gain positive traction~
and to give the whole economic system a 2 year window of 'certainty' about tax costs.


...i could be way off base...

but if Øbama had not buttered up the 6-10 million unemployed with $$ benefits we would be right on the verge of having European type riots erupting all over the USA... considering all the $$$$ the FED has lavished on the banker system and its fraud created debt paper...we are fortunate to not already have a French Revolution redux in the 21st century here in the USA
edit on 21-12-2010 by St Udio because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 02:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Janky Red
 

It was a sarcastic look at the reality of the situation my friend. We are all screwed. So, yeah, it is "fixed"



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 02:16 PM
link   
reply to post by St Udio
 


I disagree, we are not "fortunate". I have less and less hope for a peaceful resolution.



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 02:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by saltheart foamfollower
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


The sky is red.


Actually dude, it is

Peace is war.


Actually dude, it is



the "unfunded" tax cuts



Actually dude, it is



the bush era were due to expire..because it was unfunded and temporary

Tell me, do you believe in FAIRY TALES? Are they real?


Actually dude, it is



of course, now the socialist top 2% became used to the handfed treats the government was giving...and demanded the GOP protect them by giving them more money.

Tell me, do you know what socialism is? Do you think it is bailing out the unions that drove GM out of business? Do you believe that what is truly CRONY CAPITALISM should be called socialism? Is there a rainbow somewhere in your fantasy land?


Actually dude, it is



They demanded this tax cut..it is a tax cut, there is little you can do to argue against that point.
it is what it is...socialism for the rich

So, now CRONY CAPITALISM is called socialism now. How about theft and fraud, I suppose you would call that capitalism.


Actually dude, it is

So is liberty tyranny?


Actually dude, it is

So is Dodd and the White House EVEN SLIGHTLY responsible for helping the thieves and crooks with their bailouts?


Actually dude, it is

Is socialism a sickness envisioned by by despots the likes of Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao?


Actually dude, it is


So, DUDE.............................is the sky red?


Actually dude, it is





Socialism is when the people own the means of production(via powerful unions). Social Welfare is not socialist.
Authoritarian fascist regimes are not socialist.

Corporate and the banks own the means of production and the monies in the US.

So no where not even close to socialism. But Fascism though...



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 12:57 AM
link   
reply to post by John_Rodger_Cornman
 


A lot of people here rely too much on FOX News commentators to provide their opinions for them. I have found the only way to actually deal with these people is to be just as narrow minded as the commentators on FOX News. Your definition of Socialism is correct, however to many in the US who rely on FOX News to get their opinion from, Socialism is anything to do with the government.



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 02:55 AM
link   
reply to post by TheManipulator
 


it doesn't take years of college and training to do many of the jobs that society needs (or wants) to be done!!
the very first employees of what is now welfare were the welfare recipients themselves!! my sister was one of those first to be hired..she didn't have a degree, she didn't even have a high school diploma...they trained her and she did the keypunching. and well, she was paid alot less than what the employees there now are being paid! and, I kind of think that a higher percentage of those early recipients went on to become productive members of society. the program overall was more effective!

my son's a wiz when it comes to computers, and yet, without certification, he can't get a decent job in that area. he just isn't willing to go that far into debt to get the creditials the employers want.
my husband was trained to be a machinist by the company that he was working for, now, well.. now, most of the employers want you to pay to go to some tradeschool....
society doesn't need everyone in it to spend a small fortune to go to school, that will and does have a kind of inflationary effect on the economy in and of itself, since these students will find that they need much more money from their jobs to live in the society. what it does need if for everyone in the workforce to be treated with enough dignity that they are at least deemed worthy of life!!!

back a few pages I had posted something and someone came in with a question to me, I have answered it...think it was something like what does the cotton gin have to do with things...
well, it was one of the peices to the puzzle that got the masses out of felt clothing and into cotton clothing. the felt was produced by one country, which prospered because of the world's need for clothing. it was England that first gained superiority in the cotton industry, and they profited because of that....and then well, we americans became innovative and created such things as the cotton gin and got in on the action! and, we've been the biggest player around till the past few decades.
innovation, creates world demand for a countries "new" products", creates jobs, ect....
the jobs aren't gonna come back unless we start innovating again...
ya like gee, most of the country is drowning in debt, of which education is a big part of...
only it doesn't have to be that costly....heck, it's cost could be descreased alot....
the cost of college could be driven down to almost nothing!!
just upload the material onto a server, replace most of the schools with testing centers and well.....no need for daily bus rides and commutes to the schools and universities, the material is there, on your gov't issues computer and internet connection, learn what you want when you want, unless of course you are a minor, then well, you don't have that much freedom...and well, if you fail to do the required studying, that's why I say most of the schools could be converted to testing centers. your teachers are replaces by on line tutors available to answer questions...college degrees now cost only a fraction-fees for the testing.

but, na.....we don't innovate anymore....the old is the norm, and it will stay the norm as long as they can keep most of us comfy and happy living in the norm, buying the crap!



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 04:12 AM
link   
reply to post by dawnstar
 




..how much money has the government given to those extremely wealthy bankers??? how many small businesses were pinched out of existence because they couldn't get those wealthy bankers to lend them the money they needed to keep their businesses operating?


YOU DO NOT understand the system - WHO gets your tax money????



Every time I see the bleeding hearts jumping up and down saying we need higher taxes so we can give money to the poor I want to cry. THIS mentality is what has been feeding the banksters for a hundred years. Transfering more and more wealth from the poor and middle class to the banksters and their buddies while the bankers flood the country with worthless fiat play money.

WAR and TAXES FEED THE BANKERS!


In 1913 we got the Federal Reserve Act AND the Income Tax Amendment. Funny how it was a DEMOCRAT who sponsored the Federal Reserve Act and the DEMOCRATS who wanted an income tax. (Republicans suggested a Constitutional Amendment hoping it would not be passed)

PLEASE - Read this carefully. The bankers and the politicians have been scamming us!

HOW the bankers and Politicians scam us and WHY!


Some of the most frank evidence on banking practices was given by Graham F. Towers, Governor of the Central Bank of Canada (from 1934 to 1955), before the Canadian Government's Committee on Banking and Commerce, in 1939.

Q. But there is no question about it that banks create the medium of exchange?

Mr. Towers: That is right. That is what they are for... That is the Banking business, just in the same way that a steel plant makes steel. (p. 287)

The manufacturing process consists of making a pen-and-ink or typewriter entry on a card in a book. That is all. (pp. 76 and 238)

Each and every time a bank makes a loan (or purchases securities), new bank credit is created — new deposits — brand new money. (pp. 113 and 238)

Broadly speaking, all new money comes out of a Bank in the form of loans.

As loans are debts, then under the present system all money is debt. (p. 459)

Q. When $1,000,000 worth of bonds is presented (by the government) to the bank, a million dollars of new money or the equivalent is created?

Mr. Towers: Yes.

Q. Is it a fact that a million dollars of new money is created?

Mr. Towers: That is right.

Q. Mr. Towers, when you allow the merchant banking system to issue bank deposits which, with the practice of using the cheques as we have it in vogue today, constitutes the medium of exchange upon which I think 95 per cent of our public and private business is transacted, you virtually allow the banks to issue an effective substitute for money, do you not?

Mr. Towers: The bank deposits are actual money in that sense, yes.

Q. In that sense they are actual money, but, as a matter of fact, they are not actual money but credit, bookkeeping accounts, which are used as a substitute for money?

Mr. Towers: Yes.

Q. Then we authorize the banks to issue a substitute for money?
.
.
.
Q. But if the issue of currency and money is a high prerogative of government, then that high prerogative has been transferred to the extent of 88 per cent from the Government to the merchant banking system?

Mr. Towers: Yes. (p. 286)

Q. Will you tell me why a government with power to create money, should give that power away to a private monopoly, and then borrow that which parliament can create itself, back at interest, to the point of national bankruptcy?

Mr. Towers: If parliament wants to change the form of operating the banking system, then certainly that is within the power of parliament. (p. 394)

Q. So far as war is concerned, to defend the integrity of the nation, there will be no difficulty in raising the means of financing, whatever those requirements may be?

Mr. Towers: The limit of the possibilities depends on men and materials.


Q. And where you have an abundance of men and materials, you have no difficulty, under our present banking system, in putting forth the medium of exchange that is necessary to put the men and materials to work in defence of the realm?

Mr. Towers: That is right. (p. 649)

Q. Would you admit that anything physically possible and desirable, can be made financially possible?

Mr. Towers: Certainly.


So the banks can print as much fiat money as the government wants out of thin air using a bookkeeping entry. This "play money" can then be used to finance endless wars or anything else the politicians want. So what happens next?


With two-thirds of everyone's personal income taxes wasted or not collected, 100 percent of what is collected is absorbed solely by interest on the Federal debt and by Federal Government contributions to transfer payments. In other words, all individual income tax revenues are gone before one nickel is spent on the services which taxpayers expect from their Government.

...Importantly, any meaningful increases in taxes from personal income would have to come from lower and middle income families, as 90 percent of all personal taxable income is generated below the taxable income level of $35,000.

Further, there isn't much more that can be extracted from high income brackets. If the Government took 100 percent of all taxable income beyond the $75,000 tax bracket not already taxed, it would get only $17 billion, and this confiscation, which would destroy productive enterprise, would only be sufficient to run the Government for seven days....
www.uhuh.com...

NOTE: Transfer payments are the cost of transferring money between banks. The US tax payer got stuck with that tab too, not the banks. Still think the USA does not have a “privileged” class who siphons off the wealth of the "serfs"

NOW do you understand the scam?


Every tax increase is more money transfered directly into the pocket of the bankers!



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join