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.
Originally posted by gorgi
Originally posted by fakerolex
the case he is making is simple: bigger government means less money and power for the people. therefore, reduce the size of the government and the power and wealth is restored to the people. i think we can all agree this is good, yes?
Wrong, a smaller government does not mean more people will really keep their money. So instead of paying taxes you could pay out of pocket for fire fighters or police.Instead of paying taxes you could just pay a huge few to private road owners instead of having a gas tax.
You are still gonna pay, its just a matter of your taxes taking car of it and not having to do all that work or do it yourself and have payments to dozens of separate for profit corporations at a higher rate.
The dollar is not broken. It is fairly normal. Look at this and see for yourself that there is nothing really wrong with the US Dollar.
The M3 figures - which include broad range of bank accounts and are tracked by British and European monetarists for warning signals about the direction of the US economy a year or so in advance - began shrinking last summer. The pace has since quickened....
"It’s frightening," said Professor Tim Congdon from International Monetary Research. "The plunge in M3 has no precedent since the Great Depression....
The US authorities have an entirely different explanation for the failure of stimulus measures to gain full traction. They are opting instead for yet further doses of Keynesian spending, despite warnings from the IMF that the gross public debt of the US will reach 97pc of GDP next year and 110pc by 2015....
The ECRI leading index of US economic activity has been sliding continuously since its peak in October, suffering the steepest one-week drop ever recorded in mid-May.
Mr Summers acknowledged in a speech this week that the eurozone crisis had shone a spotlight on the dangers of spiralling public debt. He said deficit spending delays the day of reckoning and leaves the US at the mercy of foreign creditors. Ultimately, "failure begets failure" in fiscal policy as the logic of compound interest does its worst.... www.telegraph.co.uk...
This thread has done more to open peoples eyes to a corrupt system and show people the benefits of electing someone like RON PAUL than any other thread I've seen so far..
Originally posted by crimvelvet
reply to post by gorgi
Pedal that to the ignorant Gorgi. I HAVE been watching the dollar,
Today the Swiss franc made yet another new high against the super dollar, as it has been doing for 120 days. What you are reading in the [following] graphs is less and less of the foreign currency that one dollar can buy...
LOOK at the DARN GRAPHS Gorgi!!
The dollar is losing against the likes of the Russian ruble, Botswana pula, not to mention the European euro despite the "sovereign" debt crisis in Greece, Ireland, Italy, Portugal and Spain:. For the first time in a long time the US dollar is worth LESS than the Australian and Canadian dollars
This is what foreign economists and the IMF are saying about the USA:
The M3 figures - which include broad range of bank accounts and are tracked by British and European monetarists for warning signals about the direction of the US economy a year or so in advance - began shrinking last summer. The pace has since quickened....
"It’s frightening," said Professor Tim Congdon from International Monetary Research. "The plunge in M3 has no precedent since the Great Depression....
The US authorities have an entirely different explanation for the failure of stimulus measures to gain full traction. They are opting instead for yet further doses of Keynesian spending, despite warnings from the IMF that the gross public debt of the US will reach 97pc of GDP next year and 110pc by 2015....
The ECRI leading index of US economic activity has been sliding continuously since its peak in October, suffering the steepest one-week drop ever recorded in mid-May.
Mr Summers acknowledged in a speech this week that the eurozone crisis had shone a spotlight on the dangers of spiralling public debt. He said deficit spending delays the day of reckoning and leaves the US at the mercy of foreign creditors. Ultimately, "failure begets failure" in fiscal policy as the logic of compound interest does its worst.... www.telegraph.co.uk...
J. P. Morgan controls the media here in the USA Gorgi and he will spoon feed us the propaganda he wants us to hear.
U.S. Congressional Record February 9, 1917: J.P. Morgan interests bought 25 of America's leading newspapers, and inserted their own editors, in order to control the media. www.mindfully.org...
JP Morgan: Our next big media player? (April 13, 2010) JP Morgan controls 54 U.S. daily newspapers,and owns 31 television stations. www.newsandtech.com...
Originally posted by crimvelvet
reply to post by backinblack
This thread has done more to open peoples eyes to a corrupt system and show people the benefits of electing someone like RON PAUL than any other thread I've seen so far..
Yes he gives us something to sharpen our teeth on.
Usually the banker puppets do a hit and run and will not discuss the points. I give Gorgi high marks for actually sticking around and defending his points.
Originally posted by gorgi
Originally posted by fakerolex
the case he is making is simple: bigger government means less money and power for the people. therefore, reduce the size of the government and the power and wealth is restored to the people. i think we can all agree this is good, yes?
Wrong, a smaller government does not mean more people will really keep their money. So instead of paying taxes you could pay out of pocket for fire fighters or police.Instead of paying taxes you could just pay a huge few to private road owners instead of having a gas tax.
You are still gonna pay, its just a matter of your taxes taking car of it and not having to do all that work or do it yourself and have payments to dozens of separate for profit corporations at a higher rate.
Originally posted by gorgi
Deficit spending is bad when its not needed. Right now we do need some of it to keep the economy along. For most of the bush administration it wasnt needed. That was a waste.
Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
Originally posted by gorgi
Deficit spending is bad when its not needed. Right now we do need some of it to keep the economy along. For most of the bush administration it wasnt needed. That was a waste.
Yeah, keep the economy going for another six months or so, then what? Raise the debt celing again? Then borrow more to spend more, raise debt ceiling...rinse-repeat again and again and again and again...
Sooner or later the american dollar will become a second world currency on par with spain and portugal, that is if america will be allowed to borrow more. If the credit risk is too high then most people/organisations/financial institutions will not lend to her which means the credit ceiling will be reached and the economy will crash aka default on payments.
Then it maybe another 10 years before anyone lends to america another dime, but I am sure the rothschild antichrists will jump in and save the day with their one world digital currency, because by that time the Euro will be nearing default as well. One world currency equals NWO dictatorship. I see this happening within the next 5-10 years at most!
They will NOT LET america and europe rebuild themselves and start over. All of this is planned chaos. Enjoy your last few paychecks traitor. You deserve no sympathy from anyone and are expendable just like the rest of the desperate, idiotic shills on this site!edit on 5/11/2011 by EarthCitizen07 because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by origamiandurbanism
I agree that certain parts of the government should be reduced. Spending should be reduced in certain areas (and perhaps raised in others, like on the infrastructure of the country). But no way do I support a flat tax.
It's policies like that which will make it impossible for me to ever vote for Paul. It's policies like that which will make this country worse. That just means more money for the wealthy (who are getting continually richer, regardless) to soak up.
Originally posted by Cuervo
Originally posted by origamiandurbanism
I agree that certain parts of the government should be reduced. Spending should be reduced in certain areas (and perhaps raised in others, like on the infrastructure of the country). But no way do I support a flat tax.
It's policies like that which will make it impossible for me to ever vote for Paul. It's policies like that which will make this country worse. That just means more money for the wealthy (who are getting continually richer, regardless) to soak up.
What do you think "flat tax" does? Do you think it means everybody pays $X.00, no matter what their incomes are? You understand it just means a flat percentage for everybody, right?
Originally posted by origamiandurbanism
Originally posted by Cuervo
Originally posted by origamiandurbanism
I agree that certain parts of the government should be reduced. Spending should be reduced in certain areas (and perhaps raised in others, like on the infrastructure of the country). But no way do I support a flat tax.
It's policies like that which will make it impossible for me to ever vote for Paul. It's policies like that which will make this country worse. That just means more money for the wealthy (who are getting continually richer, regardless) to soak up.
What do you think "flat tax" does? Do you think it means everybody pays $X.00, no matter what their incomes are? You understand it just means a flat percentage for everybody, right?
I understand what it is.
A flat tax would shift even more of the tax burden on the middle and lower classes because the rich would then not be paying what proportionally they earn. Not only that but it would it still mean wages are being taxed twice - payroll and income. But unearned income would not be. Again, no thanks!
It's like a sales tax, which again, shifts more of the burden on the middle and lower classes.
I don't understand how people that say "Down with the Elites!" would be in support of this. It makes no sense.edit on 11-5-2011 by origamiandurbanism because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Cuervo
Originally posted by origamiandurbanism
Originally posted by Cuervo
Originally posted by origamiandurbanism
I agree that certain parts of the government should be reduced. Spending should be reduced in certain areas (and perhaps raised in others, like on the infrastructure of the country). But no way do I support a flat tax.
It's policies like that which will make it impossible for me to ever vote for Paul. It's policies like that which will make this country worse. That just means more money for the wealthy (who are getting continually richer, regardless) to soak up.
What do you think "flat tax" does? Do you think it means everybody pays $X.00, no matter what their incomes are? You understand it just means a flat percentage for everybody, right?
I understand what it is.
A flat tax would shift even more of the tax burden on the middle and lower classes because the rich would then not be paying what proportionally they earn. Not only that but it would it still mean wages are being taxed twice - payroll and income. But unearned income would not be. Again, no thanks!
It's like a sales tax, which again, shifts more of the burden on the middle and lower classes.
I don't understand how people that say "Down with the Elites!" would be in support of this. It makes no sense.edit on 11-5-2011 by origamiandurbanism because: (no reason given)
How would the rich not be paying proportionally what they earned?
And sales tax? Why doesn't that make sense? I'd prefer a complete sales-tax society. He who consumes more, pays more. That totally makes sense to me. Wouldn't that mean the people who buy luxury items would be taxed more? Often, in states with sales tax (like Washington), certain items don't even get taxed because they are necessary to survive.
Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
reply to post by gorgi
Because the Rothschild family did not amass $500 trillion by playing fair or producing anything of value. They are/were satan worshippers and CHEATS of the first degree. Watch a video and read some conspiracy material to get a clue!
And its not about zionism either. Its about world domination!
Originally posted by Cuervo
Originally posted by origamiandurbanism
I agree that certain parts of the government should be reduced. Spending should be reduced in certain areas (and perhaps raised in others, like on the infrastructure of the country). But no way do I support a flat tax.
It's policies like that which will make it impossible for me to ever vote for Paul. It's policies like that which will make this country worse. That just means more money for the wealthy (who are getting continually richer, regardless) to soak up.
What do you think "flat tax" does? Do you think it means everybody pays $X.00, no matter what their incomes are? You understand it just means a flat percentage for everybody, right?