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 TheImmaculateD1
reply to post by AugustusMasonicus
The FDIC insures any loan for a new home for up to $200,000 The problem with the mortgage mess rooted from the fact that a couple who wanted to buy a home had a good paying job couple that with say they have to pay a $500 mortgage and were budgeting for that each and every month but after about 2 yrs doubled to $1,000 which after another month spiked to $3,000 when the lipper reset meaning you were anticipating a $500 a month mortgage payment that sextupled to $3,000 means your budget is shot to hell which forced alot of homeowners to either walk away or be underwater.
Originally posted by Algernonsmouse
Originally posted by xuenchen
Let's look at the history of the 111th Congress (2009/2010)
The Senate had about a 58% Dem majority.
The House had about a 58% Dem majority.
The White House had a 100% Dem majority.
It seems however, that the majority of all legislation has/had a negative impact on the majority of citizens and of course, a negative impact on voters.
Especially financial.
They had the opportunity of a lifetime to reverse the problems.
If anything was good and positive for the majority, where is it showing now?
We can all see the long lasting negatives.
The legislation is in these links.
Can someone point out and explain the details of the positives for the majority of U.S. citizens?
(if any ...)
111th United States Congress
Acts of the 111th United States Congress
Yeah but when you need a 66% majority, not 51% that changes things, right?
Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1
reply to post by xuenchen
Orders protections from banks, Wall Street, nefarious lending agencies, protection from credit card companies.
The benefit to the people should be self evident!
We are waiting for one thing to occur before the next round of implementation goes live and that is the end of private control over The Federal Reserve which becomes nationalized effective Jan 01 2013 so another like 55 or so weeks we must wait to prevent it from being circumvented or sidestepped. Hence why no major actions are being done now to ensure that we retake control over our coin. A level of secrecy is being needed in order to ensure that this plan goes through, hence the choppy answers.
Sometime by the 2014-2015 timeframe the new US currency is rolled out deleting the phrase "Federal Reserve Note" from the top observe side of the bill as the end of The SCUM's reach into our nation is drawing to a close.
Originally posted by AugustusMasonicus
As the Great Depression occured 1929 the 'decade before' would obviously be the 1920's. President Harding, along with Secretary of the Treasury Andrew Mellon, cut marginal tax rates from 70% to 25% by 1925. This led to unprecedented growth as the Gross Domestic Product averaged 4.2% for the decade (using Historical Statistics of the United States, or HSUS data). There is a reason it was claled the 'Roaring Twneties'.
President Obama can not ignore the historical fact that tax cuts in times of economic maliase led to prosperity for all Americans
Originally posted by Indigo5
Great Depression Begins
1930 25
1931 25
1932 63
By 1932 Unemployment had risen 607% from 1929 levels. Where are the Job Creators?
Taxes are paid in the sweat of every man who labors because they are a burden on production and are paid through production...If those taxes are excessive, they are reflected in idle factories, in tax-sold farms, and in hordes of hungry people, tramping the streets and seeking jobs in vain.
GDP returns to Pre-Great Depression levels and continues to climb
1938 79
1939 79
1940 81.1
GDP at record highs and continues an upward momentum from there.
1941 81
1942 88
1943 88
1944 94
1945 94
Reducing taxes on the Wealthiest Americans has consistently led to higher deficets and inflationary bubbles that quickly pop.
What is impossible to ignore amongst your insanely odd/painfully cherry-picked choosing of unemplyment numbers is that the Bush era tax cuts for the wealthiest, or as the GOP comedically calls them "Job Creators", have been in place the entire time our economy took the worst hit since the great depression?
"A bill will be presented to the Congress for action next year. It will include an across-the-board, top-to-bottom cut in both corporate and personal income taxes. It will include long-needed tax reform that logic and equity demand ... The billions of dollars this bill will place in the hands of the consumer and our businessmen will have both immediate and permanent benefits to our economy. Every dollar released from taxation that is spent or invested will help create a new job and a new salary. And these new jobs and new salaries can create other jobs and other salaries and more customers and more growth for an expanding American economy."
– John F. Kennedy, Aug. 13, 1962, radio and television report on the state of the national economy
"It is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now ... Cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus."
– John F. Kennedy, Nov. 20, 1962, president's news conference
"Lower rates of taxation will stimulate economic activity and so raise the levels of personal and corporate income as to yield within a few years an increased – not a reduced – flow of revenues to the federal government."
– John F. Kennedy, Jan. 17, 1963, annual budget message to the Congress, fiscal year 1964
"A tax cut means higher family income and higher business profits and a balanced federal budget. Every taxpayer and his family will have more money left over after taxes for a new car, a new home, new conveniences, education and investment. Every businessman can keep a higher percentage of his profits in his cash register or put it to work expanding or improving his business, and as the national income grows, the federal government will ultimately end up with more revenues."
– John F. Kennedy, Sept. 18, 1963, radio and television address to the nation on tax-reduction bill
Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1
The JFK plan was never ended which allowed us today to continue that policy!
Direct from the Federal Reserve's website :
Federal Reserve Act
Section 31. Reservation of Right to Amend
1. Reservation of Right to Amend
The right to amend, alter, or repeal this Act is hereby expressly reserved.
This was already preliminary activated upon in 2007 using backchannels.
Earlier in Summer 2011 the Federal Reserve was told of and informed that the nation and the people declared a vote of "No Confidence" in their ability to end this mess.
[Omitted from U.S. Code. Part of original Federal Reserve Act; not amended.]
We knew QE1 and QE2 was a damn joke and have cancelled QE3 and 4 as we no That is why we are actively seeking new revenue streams currently so that we do not have to rely on them for jack squat anymore.
We are taking a page out of Russia's playbook and have begun to liaise with Moscow as to how Russia kicked them to the curb and us stateside are now taking pointers from them.
A systematic and targeted takeout of the private control over the money is being planned but must be incrementally phased in on a global scale.
Most estimates place it by 2025 will the world be free of private control over all of our money.
Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by AugustusMasonicus
I'm not an economist. I can't argue the benefits of trickle down. I wish I could.
But to be simple, the fact remains that a government, any government, that justifies itself by taking from the people they are supposed to serve, is a government that needs to be stopped.
This kenesian approach to the economy will just open the door to socialism, nationalism, more government control.
Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1
reply to post by macman
Most people make under $100,000 a year and hold down a $300,000 home so this is completely redundant and irrelevant.
So to acc to you no one if they don't make at least $250,000 a year should not ever own a home right? Good way to disinfranchise people. My mom when she was working was making far less then $80,000 a year and was and still is able to hold down our $350,000 home completely shoots that claim to Hell.They got forced into taking the ARMS using deceptive business practices.
Quick to blame the people instead of where the blame should lie with and that is the banks.
Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1
It is not uncompetitve as it ensures that the people continue to win.
That is a blatant lie like "tax cuts create jobs".
To have an attitude like that does nothing positive for our nation but have us constantly and time and time again begging The SCUM for money because there is no new income streams coming in.
Read up on something called the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory Fire of 1911.
...
Do you not know history? This is the 2nd Worst Disaster in NYC history behind 9/11.
Hook, line, sinker, SUNK now get back on topic.
Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1
reply to post by AugustusMasonicus
So let's just not have the rich pay any taxes, delete all corporate taxes, delete all regulations, kill unions, force people to work sweatshop hours for sweatshop pay, no breaks, no nothing, and if you're late once for whatever reason you are fired is your bright idea to spur on business domestically is your bright idea? Not a flipping chance.
The Triangle deal I keep on bringing up because it has total relevance and the entire douchewads want to bring the nation back to that era.