Should We Take The 1% Money to Pay off the Debt?

page: 5
4
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 09:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by links234
reply to post by winterkill
 


Suffice to say that the debt isn't an issue, no matter how much Mitch McConnell screams, or whatever noise he makes, about it.


LOL Not an issue? So, your grocery prices doubling in less than five years is "not an issue"?? You obviously have no clue what is happening now, not even China will buy any more of our debt so we are "buying our own debt" = printing money = massive inflation.




posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 09:38 PM
link   
I firmly believe that the Government is building up the debt because they know that it will never need to be paid off.

They are coming up with an alternative to the dollar, and will wipe out all debt related to the dollar in the conversion process.

It will be a new world currency, and the masses will buy into it because they will perceive that the "modern day debt problems" are unsolvable.



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 09:38 PM
link   
reply to post by milominderbinder
 


Oh...and let's not rule out seizing the money of all the damn church's, temples, and mosques either. I'd wager emptying the Vatican's coffers of the last 2000 years worth of pillage and plunder would provide a significant boost to the economy.



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 10:37 PM
link   
reply to post by winterkill
 


Yes. a very limited number of people live in luxury, while the rest live in fear
edit on 7-12-2012 by JDmOKI because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 8 2012 @ 12:06 AM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


There's nothing communist about anything I have said. Ridiculous as usual.

It's pretty amusing that so many people understand perfectly that a free society needs laws and rules yet refuse to see that a free market does as well.



posted on Dec, 8 2012 @ 12:32 AM
link   
reply to post by NavyDoc
 




Assholes can't invest in the country that made them rich in the first place? Assholes like that BUILT the country. In addition, redistribution of their hard earned money to those who cannot or will not be as successful is not "investing in the country" it is a continuation of the problem The war on poverty and the great society have created more poverty, not solved it.


No they most definitely did not and they are in fact sucking it dry. Do you understand what the Boston Tea Party was about? Do you get that much of the founding of our nation was based on getting away from corporations and mercantilism.

I'm not talking about wealth redistribution. Man it's almost like because I'm not a conservative I'm automatically deemed a communist etc...

Can you answer the question of why a corporation making 5 billion a year in PROFIT (meaning after all dues paid) that employs hundreds or thousands of Americans would shut it doors to make 5.1 billion using Chinese slave labor?



posted on Dec, 8 2012 @ 05:31 AM
link   
reply to post by milominderbinder
 


Don't the rothschilds own the debt?



posted on Dec, 8 2012 @ 06:09 AM
link   
we didnt get in this financial mess overnight and we won`t get out of it overnight either.
It`s going to take some long term hefty tax increases and spending cuts to pay off all this debt, there are no quick fixes to this mess.



posted on Dec, 8 2012 @ 09:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by NavyDoc
 




Assholes can't invest in the country that made them rich in the first place? Assholes like that BUILT the country. In addition, redistribution of their hard earned money to those who cannot or will not be as successful is not "investing in the country" it is a continuation of the problem The war on poverty and the great society have created more poverty, not solved it.


No they most definitely did not and they are in fact sucking it dry. Do you understand what the Boston Tea Party was about? Do you get that much of the founding of our nation was based on getting away from corporations and mercantilism.

I'm not talking about wealth redistribution. Man it's almost like because I'm not a conservative I'm automatically deemed a communist etc...

Can you answer the question of why a corporation making 5 billion a year in PROFIT (meaning after all dues paid) that employs hundreds or thousands of Americans would shut it doors to make 5.1 billion using Chinese slave labor?


ANd please tell me why and how this is a reason to rob the pockets of the few high wage earners who do stay in the US?

What percentage is the 5 billion? 10 percent is good less than that is not so good. YOu get fixated on a number but don't think how that number rates to the whole. If that 5 billion is a 2 percent proft, the shareholds are not happy and the stock values do not go up and you don't have much for new equipment, expansion, research.

There is more to making a company viable than the simple number of the profit. Yes, I kow that profit is a dirty word to the left, but that is the whole point in having a company in the first place.

Wy offshore? I already gave the example of singapore and corporate taxation structure. Singapore has companies coming in, we do not. Regulations: EEOC, EPA, ADA, FDA. Hundreds of alphabet agencies producing hundreds of thousands of pages of regulations (most of which are feel good nonsense) that regulate everything from how you hire and fire to the window cleaner does not make running a business in the US better.

We have one of the most litigious societies on the planet. Lawsuits and fear of lawsuits jack up the cost of doing business exponentially.

The same people complaining about business leaving are the same people who are always suing business for looking crossways, for demanding employment laws due to social justice, are demanding environmental laws that make it almost impossible to build a new factory, demanding taxing away the "evil profits," and so forth.

If Americans want to keep business in America, they need to stop acting like businesses are evil entities, turn off that Erin Brockvich type propaganda, forget the leftist "social justice" crap, and create an environment that is conducive to a free economoy and business.



posted on Dec, 8 2012 @ 11:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by milominderbinder
reply to post by milominderbinder
 


Oh...and let's not rule out seizing the money of all the damn church's, temples, and mosques either. I'd wager emptying the Vatican's coffers of the last 2000 years worth of pillage and plunder would provide a significant boost to the economy.


Hate to tell you this, but the "church" is just as heavily in debt as the governments. Yes the vatican pulls in a lot of money, but the operating expenses are that of a large country.

Sure you could seize the assets, but who would buy them?



posted on Dec, 8 2012 @ 12:34 PM
link   
reply to post by NavyDoc
 


You seem to be not understanding that I disagree with the premise of taking the 1%ers money to pay off the debt.



ANd please tell me why and how this is a reason to rob the pockets of the few high wage earners who do stay in the US?


Robbing seems a bit dramatic unless you want to talk about outsourcing jobs, thousands of workers were robbed of their ability to provide for their families.



If that 5 billion is a 2 percent proft, the shareholds are not happy and the stock values do not go up and you don't have much for new equipment, expansion, research.


Well hell who cares about a factory that employs 500 people, gives them a means to feed their families and not draw on food stamps and cash benefits... the shareholders aren't happy!



There is more to making a company viable than the simple number of the profit. Yes, I kow that profit is a dirty word to the left, but that is the whole point in having a company in the first place.


Profit is not a dirty word to us, stop being silly.



I already gave the example of singapore and corporate taxation structure. Singapore has companies coming in, we do not.


You may want to look at Singapore itself before using them as some kind of beacon. It's a manufacturing bubble. Their labor compensation is not too different than ours, but the cost of living is much higher, the purchasing power of their dollar is much lower than ours... in short, it's a boom that is unsustainable. People working their asses off but still struggling to buy food usually ends up in unrest. When that happens the corporations will flee as they always do, to the next exploitable country.



Regulations: EEOC, EPA, ADA, FDA. Hundreds of alphabet agencies producing hundreds of thousands of pages of regulations (most of which are feel good nonsense) that regulate everything from how you hire and fire to the window cleaner does not make running a business in the US better.


I agree with you here, to a large degree. Most of our current regulations are exactly what the big guys want. Why? Because it's yet another excuse to use foreign labor and small business can't avoid the regulations the way the big guys can so they are never a threat to big business. Regulation is necessary, but it needs to be common sense with the full awareness that whatever the big guys don't like they will avoid anyway, so regulation needs to be written with both fairness to labor/environment and fairness to the little guy.

The remainder of your reply is largely hyperbolic and really all I have to say to it is this. If a company can't figure out a way to profit without exploitation then maybe they aren't smart enough to exist. Maybe when we as a nation recognize this, taxes can come down.



posted on Dec, 8 2012 @ 12:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by MystikMushroom
I think the Gov. should just get out an eraser...

I mean, it's the government. They invented the very money they now seem to owe.

If any country gets pissy that we're not going to pay them back, we can just point to Iraq, Lybia, ect....

"Be nice or end up like Saddam"

I could see it now..."Um yeah, that 15 trillion? What 15 trillion? Yeah, we're not going to be paying that back, like, ever."

Sure it's a d-bag move for the USA to do that, but the whole world thinks the Americans are a bunch of d-bags anyway. We're the USA, we can do whatever the hell we want and get away with it! Go 'Murica!

edit on 7-12-2012 by MystikMushroom because: (no reason given)


Most of the money isnt even owed to another country, its owned to the central bank incountry. Now what would happen if the central bank incountry wouldnt get its money back? Whom exactly would lose? The shareholders of that central bank? But its not supposed to be privately owned.



posted on Dec, 8 2012 @ 03:34 PM
link   
reply to post by sprtpilot
 


The national debt has little to do with grocery prices as a whole. Americans have always bought and owned America's debt.

Prices for groceries will likely go up within the next 6-12 months, that has more to do with drought conditions than the national debt though.

It's a gleeful back and forth between the two parties, in the 1990's Newt Gingrich complained about Clinton driving the debt up and destroying America. In the 2000's Obama complained about Bush driving the debt up and making America less safe. Today we have individuals like McConnel complaining about the debt during Obama's term. I'm sure when the GOP takes the presidency in 2016 the democrats will complain about the debt that the GOP generates. Inflation will cause the price of goods to rise and you'll insist that it's all the democrats fault and vote a straight ticket, just like you did this year.



posted on Dec, 8 2012 @ 03:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by NavyDoc
 


You seem to be not understanding that I disagree with the premise of taking the 1%ers money to pay off the debt.



ANd please tell me why and how this is a reason to rob the pockets of the few high wage earners who do stay in the US?


Robbing seems a bit dramatic unless you want to talk about outsourcing jobs, thousands of workers were robbed of their ability to provide for their families.



If that 5 billion is a 2 percent proft, the shareholds are not happy and the stock values do not go up and you don't have much for new equipment, expansion, research.


Well hell who cares about a factory that employs 500 people, gives them a means to feed their families and not draw on food stamps and cash benefits... the shareholders aren't happy!



There is more to making a company viable than the simple number of the profit. Yes, I kow that profit is a dirty word to the left, but that is the whole point in having a company in the first place.


Profit is not a dirty word to us, stop being silly.



I already gave the example of singapore and corporate taxation structure. Singapore has companies coming in, we do not.


You may want to look at Singapore itself before using them as some kind of beacon. It's a manufacturing bubble. Their labor compensation is not too different than ours, but the cost of living is much higher, the purchasing power of their dollar is much lower than ours... in short, it's a boom that is unsustainable. People working their asses off but still struggling to buy food usually ends up in unrest. When that happens the corporations will flee as they always do, to the next exploitable country.



Regulations: EEOC, EPA, ADA, FDA. Hundreds of alphabet agencies producing hundreds of thousands of pages of regulations (most of which are feel good nonsense) that regulate everything from how you hire and fire to the window cleaner does not make running a business in the US better.


I agree with you here, to a large degree. Most of our current regulations are exactly what the big guys want. Why? Because it's yet another excuse to use foreign labor and small business can't avoid the regulations the way the big guys can so they are never a threat to big business. Regulation is necessary, but it needs to be common sense with the full awareness that whatever the big guys don't like they will avoid anyway, so regulation needs to be written with both fairness to labor/environment and fairness to the little guy.

The remainder of your reply is largely hyperbolic and really all I have to say to it is this. If a company can't figure out a way to profit without exploitation then maybe they aren't smart enough to exist. Maybe when we as a nation recognize this, taxes can come down.

Meh, and until we recognize the the intent of a business and the whole reason they exist is to create profit, not to provide social justice, they will continually move elseware. If a country cannot figure out a way to keep companies in the country, they will go away and no one will have a job. Making things more punative will make the problem worse, not better.



posted on Dec, 8 2012 @ 03:46 PM
link   
reply to post by NavyDoc
 


The point of a business is not profit. It's to provide a marketable or necessary asset or service with the hope and intent to create profit.

This mechanism, by its nature, creates group incentive. It compels people to participate in the process - as both producers and consumers. When the system becomes as unbalanced as it currently is, that cycle is disrupted

Profit is not a dirty word. Greed, however, despite what Gordon Gecko tells us, is one.

~Heff
edit on 12/8/12 by Hefficide because: elucidation - busy in real life.



posted on Dec, 8 2012 @ 04:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hefficide
reply to post by NavyDoc
 


The point of a business is not profit. It's to provide a marketable or necessary asset or service with the hope and intent to create profit.

This mechanism, by its nature, creates group incentive. It compels people to participate in the process - as both producers and consumers. When the system becomes as unbalanced as it currently is, that cycle is disrupted

Profit is not a dirty word. Greed, however, despite what Gordon Gecko tells us, is one.

~Heff
edit on 12/8/12 by Hefficide because: elucidation - busy in real life.


Hope and intent to provide profit is essentially the same thing, no? The problem with "greed" it is a very subjective thing. Apparently I'm "greedy" if I do not want my taxes to go up next year. "Greed" is a silly epithet used to rally up the uninformed, but really does not have any real meaning in the marketplace.

The intent of a business is to create profit. They provide a good or service with the intent of creating profit. If they cannot create profit with their goods and services, they go out of business. If they do not expect profit, they will not start the business in the first place.

How is the system unbalanced and why? Business is now more regulated and taxed and held accountable now then any time in the past. If you want to see the reason why businesses leave the US, you need to look where the fault lies: with the government and those who would use the coercive power of government to force their views of "social justice" on their fellow man.



posted on Dec, 8 2012 @ 06:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by phroziac
reply to post by milominderbinder
 


Don't the rothschilds own the debt?



Yes...so do the Rockefeller's, Morgans, and Warburgs. Those four families are the the principle shareholders of the Federal Reserve.

That's the whole the point. After you sift through all the nonsense and fear about "paying the debt"...at the end of the day it's going to a handful of pricks who have a penchant for starting World Wars.

The hell with them...let's just not only NOT pay them back...but let's take what's theirs too. Is it "theft"? Yep. So what...they've made 7 billion suffer needlessly for YEARS.

Then the "debt" that's leftover will be remarkably manageable. We can pay off all the Peasant Investors who hold bonds, pay off China...and things are good again.

It's just that damn simple.



posted on Dec, 8 2012 @ 06:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by NavyDoc

How is the system unbalanced and why? Business is now more regulated and taxed and held accountable now then any time in the past. If you want to see the reason why businesses leave the US, you need to look where the fault lies: with the government and those who would use the coercive power of government to force their views of "social justice" on their fellow man.


Can you substantiate any aspect of that claim?

~Heff



posted on Dec, 8 2012 @ 07:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hefficide

Originally posted by NavyDoc

How is the system unbalanced and why? Business is now more regulated and taxed and held accountable now then any time in the past. If you want to see the reason why businesses leave the US, you need to look where the fault lies: with the government and those who would use the coercive power of government to force their views of "social justice" on their fellow man.


Can you substantiate any aspect of that claim?

~Heff


You seriously need a cite to believe that business is more regulated than now than in the past?



First issue of the Federal Register was published on March 16, 1936 contained eleven pages




In 2010, the register totaled 81,405 pages, said Jim Hemphill, the special assistant to the director of the Federal Register.


www.federalregister.gov...
edit on 8-12-2012 by NavyDoc because: (no reason given)





That grim reality comes into focus when one looks at the Federal Register, the official compilation of federal regulations. It’s only July, yet this year’s edition already is 41,662 pages long. Complying with these new rules will cost $55.6 billion and require 114.1 million paperwork hours to complete. That is money and time lost on unproductive activity — all done to avoid the punishing arm of an intrusive federal government.



Read more: www.washingtontimes.com...
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter
edit on 8-12-2012 by NavyDoc because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 8 2012 @ 07:36 PM
link   


In the face of higher costs of federal regulations, the
research shows that small businesses continue to bear
a disproportionate share of the federal regulatory burden.
The findings are consistent with those in Hopkins
(1995) and Crain and Hopkins (2001).
The research finds that the cost of federal regulations
totals $1.1 trillion; the cost per employee for
firms with fewer than 20 employees is $7,647.


archive.sba.gov...





new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join