I've also noticed a few special treasury 20 yr bonds that are bought and sold the same day, or bought one day, sold the next. It definitely looks like Congress not only helped to increase their own wealth but actually promoted such actions.
In addition, if this is true... and with the known illegal wiretapping, as well as claims by those voting no on the 1st bailout that threats were made if they didn't vote yes in the next vote on the bail out... That if such activity were occuring, the President would have used that information to blackmail congress. Not only to proceed with a bailout, but impeachment. Most democrats believe Bush is guilty of many wrongful and unpatriotic acts which necessarily should be investigated, which due to lack of cooperation of the Executive staff, the only way to force the information is impeachment which an executive privilege assertion would mandate a YES to Impeach for not cooperating when such information is absolutely mandatory to be disclosed.
Sadly, conspiracy theories don't seem to be so improbable anymore. This is the country we have allowed to enslave us. You get paper that is worthless unless the Government says it has value. More paper to live on a day by day basis to survive in order to ensure maximum productivity.
Only difference now from slavery in the earlier years is there was always guaranteed work and housing and food for slaves, and today we can read better and snooty tooty masters in Congress.
Congress created Fanny & Freddie and used tax dollars in order to realize profits and have campaign contribution made in order to increase the likelihood that incumbents who align themselves with the financial interests will be re-elected, and those who don't, their opponents receive the contribution.
Another Tea Party, perhaps? Nothing riles an American quite like unfair Taxation. In fact, unfair taxation was the proverbial straw that broke the camel’s back and began the American Revolution. Members of our Congress would do well to remember this. Most Americans understand that in order to have good government that all citizens must pay taxes.
Most Americans now are beginning to understand that the Republicans stand for deficit spending and tax loopholes for the wealthy. Most Americans understand that when a Republican talks about tax breaks, what they really mean are thousands of dollars for the wealthy and pennies for the average American. At last Americans are beginning to see the holes in the Republican claptrap regarding taxes.
Read More »Their defence was eloquent.
As I said in my last comment on that post the real problem is that for decades democratic candidates have run for office and have been elected on issues like the ones I am advocating.
The point is - they didn't really intend to implement the policies that got them elected.
It is good though that we are finally admitting to the lies.
Confession is the first stage of change.
I also confess that since politics is the art of compromise if the decision making process was left to us that we could in fact come to an agreement that was fair.
By Elenor Roosevelt Hillary Heartbump Remains Today at 12:06 am EDT (Updated Today at 12:06 am EDT
"Tell you what Rob*****; get off this blog, go get a second job, or maybe a first job, after the taxes are removed from your paycheck, take that second job money and put it in a trust fund...then complain that it should be taxed"
A basic tenent of "liberalism" is an economy based upon "freedom from restraint". In other words, liberalism is in agreement with the so called "free market" economic policies of the republican party.
Liberalism endorses the exploitation of people.
Lib-Con is in fact a far more accurate way of describing people who have traditionally been described as liberals because though they are liberal on social issues they are conservatives regarding economic issues.
We hear all the time that there is "gridlock" in Washington - there is NO gridlock.
Congress enacts legislation all of the time.
Politics is the art of compromise.
The simple truth is - the economic differences of the "liberals" and the "conservatives" in Washington are not great enough to result in meaningful legislation.
By LilOopsie Yesterday at 9:22 pm
"a trust fund shouldn't be taxable however if the proceeds exceed a certain amount than perhaps it should be taxable.
Do you have a clue how many individuals ahve small trust funds left by parents to help them with their future expenses such as putting kids in college"
The following is my post from yesterday. I remain committed to the taxation of trust funds.
The following is a White House press release from April of this year.
"President and Mrs. George W. Bush reported taxable income of $719, 274 for the tax year 2007. This resulted in a total of $221,635 in federal income taxes paid by President and Mrs. Bush.
The President's 2007 income included salary earned as President and investment income from the trusts in which the President and Mrs. Bush's assets are held. The tax return also reports a $150,000 advance received by Mrs. Bush for the children's book she co-authored with Jenna Bush. Mrs. Bush donated all net proceeds from the advance to Teach for America and the New Teacher's Project
President and Mrs. Bush contributed a total of $165,660 to churches and charitable organizations, including the Crawford Volunteer Fire Department, Susan G. Komen For the Cure, Malaria No More Fund, Martha's Table, and St. John's Church."
This statement lists sources of income as:
1. Presidential salary..........$400K
2. Book deal.....................150K
3. Trust Funds....................?
Total income is stated as approximately $719K.
Of course none of this includes the $50,000 presidential expense account, the $100,000 nontaxable travel account, or the $19,000 entertainment account.
Anyway, $400K plus $150K equals $550K.
This means that trust fund income is - at a minimum - $169K.
Think about your interest bearing accounts for a moment and ask yourself:
HOW MUCH WEALTH WOULD YOU HAVE TO ACTUALLY CONTROL TO MAKE $169K??????
And that $169K is just the money that was drawn out of the trust fund. The money that was "rolled over" was not taxable.
This is why trust funds must be made taxable. If they are not they will continue to accumulate greater amounts of wealth which is then wealth that other people CANNOT acquire and therefore the average citizen must have LESS AND LESS all of the time.
Isn't that what we are currently experiencing???
He then described the domestic economic policies of the United States by saying, "It's class warfare..."
Buffett then added, "....my class is winning, but they shouldn't be."
Many years ago a young president named John Kennedy said, "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country."
I beleive that President Kennedy was speaking to the very people who Warren Buffett says have never had it so good.
Those people would like for us to think that we ourselves are to blame for our financial problems. In truth, it is they and congress who are to blame. They have stacked the deck against us.
Buffett went on to say. "...less than 2 percent of all estates pay any tax. A couple million people die every year, 40,000 or so estates get taxed."
Over time this lack of taxation has resulted in a consolidation of wealth among an elite class.
This class then ensures that wages are kept low which prevents the vast majority of the citizenry from accumulating real wealth.
Unwilling to part with any of the vast wealth that they control - or to raise wages - they are forced to find other means of fueling the economy.
The means that this elite class has chosen to use is a system of credit. In other words, the loaning of money in return for the payment of interest.
This is an evil practice which inevitably leads to enslavement of the debtor.
That is why the charging of interest is expressly forbidden in the Bible.
Did you notice that during the "Christian" sponsored "debate" last night that there was not one single question about wages?
The issue of taxes was certainly raised - got to ensure those tax loop holes you know.
Pastor Rick Warren also made the observation that in that area (Orange County, California) an income of "only" $150,000 a year means that you are "poor".
If that is true then the vast majority of the citizenry in this country are PAUPERS - and in actuality we are.
The question is not whether to engage in class warfare because the struggle is already taking place.
The question is how to fight back against people who are determined to force involuntary servitude upon the great majority of their fellow citizens.
Once in a while I stumble across a site that is so wonderful and encouraging in terms of what people are doing on the behalf of Democracy, our nation and the world that I want to grab everyone I meet by the lapels and say GO HERE. Wait until you see all the great things that the people of the USA are doing.
There are signs of poliitical life all over our nation. People are really standing up and saying no and voting in their state legislatures in support of their no.
The New Rules Project, Designing Rules as if Communiity Matters, is one of these sites. New Rules is a project of the Institute for Local Self-Reliance.
I am not a libertarian, but I am a Democrat who agrees with about 50% of what Libertarians advocate while being strongly opposed to the other 50%. To me most of the information on this site stresses local self-reliance within the context of a government that protects the people and provides oversight.
http://www.newrules.org/index.htm
New Rules is a project of the Institute for Local Self-Reliance
A $200,000 home sold for $100,000 on forelosure that leaves the mortgagee with a taxable $100,000 capital gain of "forgiven?" debt is clearly, obviously, perniciously, Hamiltonian. It is a false trickle-down economic legitimacy, a false distribution of wealth (see the article, "Simulation of a Hoax) that is not to be in any way, by any means, tolerated.
The current credit crisis is a critical case study in Hamiltonianism and the politics of indirection that is not being limited to the digestive juices of technical critique deep within the bowels of academe. It has become a phenomenology of the up close and personal. Read More »
Peak oil prices, the so-called "new asset class," like gold or silver.
This is the oldest trick in the book to inflate prices by creating a demand that is "argued" to be a flight to quality.
The "peak" component both on the supply side and the speculative demand side is a phenomenology. It is just a reality of perception. Read More »
In the discipline of philosophy there is a school of thought called, phenomenology.
Like the tenet of social science states, "a problem is not a social problem till it is recognized to be so," phenomenology states that "reality is only the perception of it." Read More »
The KISS principle (Keep It Simple Stupid) is being suggested by McCain for the tax code. Read More »
The proposal to give tax breaks to forego exporting jobs is textbook: tax reduction to increase supply, tax increase to reduce it. I have an appreciation for the ability to recognize when to use a textbook solution in economics which are often politically safe and ideological mythology. Read More »
The latest bipartisan proposal for bailing out distressed mortgages also includes a state bond authority.
A bond is a debt instrument. So, how is it that bailing out bad debt with a debt device is a good idea? Read More »
And its successful. The vast majority of Americans have no real idea of how much taxes they pay and they blindly keep electing politicians who perpetuate the shell game we call the U.S. Tax Code.
The first step to any real reform must be to get the truth out so American taxpayers get angry; and they should be VERY angry. Read More »
For some years now, I've considered myself to be fiscally conservative with regard to government taxation and spending policies. I only wish that I had learned from a younger age to be fiscally conservative in my personal finances, but that's another story for another time. I had to learn that lesson the hard way.
When one thinks about "fiscal conservatism", the word "Conservative" pops out and seems to associate the line of thought with the political ideology of conservatism, but this is not the origin of the term. Conservatism, as it applies to money, is a principle borrowed from accounting and economic studies. There is no such thing as fiscal "liberalism" as far as I know - just fiscal conservatism and fiscal irresponsibility.
The problem is that as of late, the oxymoronic "radical conservatives" who have run this country, some states, and many municipalities, have run the term "fiscal conservatism" into the ground. Saying that one is "fiscally conservative" is like saying one is "patriotic". It's a hollow term, because there is no reasonable dichotomy from which another group would claim the opposite. You'll find no candidate advertising their "Fiscal recklessness" or "Radical tax and spend plan". What we need is another term that will put a bit more meaning into the description of one's stance on budgetary and tax policy.
Though a Google search reveals I'm not the first to use the term "Fiscal Progressivism", I'd like to be among the first to define it. In my view, Fiscal Progressivism is not the antithesis to Fiscal Conservatism, but is rather an expansion upon it that takes into account social and moral imperatives, and the total economic costs and opportunity costs of choices.
Read More »
Posts
