We are about to have a new Census taken in the U.S. and the estimated cost of counting everyone with pertinent data will be $14,000,000,000----yep---that's FOURTEEN BILLION DOLLARS. The last census taken was in year 2000 and cost
$4,500,000,000-----that's FOUR BILLION DOLLARS. Of course we have a lot more people now than in the year 2,000 and they must be counted. Seems like their must be a more practical and less expensive way to do a census. Any ideas????
!0 Years 10 Billion Dollars
!0 Years 10 Billion Dollars
Whats wrong with this, Lon? If tax money is not to be recycled back through the economy, what should it be used for?
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple
!0 Years 10 Billion Dollars
Ahso!;1292818 wrote: Whats wrong with this, Lon? If tax money is not to be recycled back through the economy, what should it be used for?
I never said or implied that anything was wrong with it. My question was is there a less expensive way to pay for it. But since you brought up taxation------don't you have some concern about all the proposed goodies and programs that will obviously require massive (yes massive) increases in ALL kinds of taxes while carrying military activities everywhere?
I never said or implied that anything was wrong with it. My question was is there a less expensive way to pay for it. But since you brought up taxation------don't you have some concern about all the proposed goodies and programs that will obviously require massive (yes massive) increases in ALL kinds of taxes while carrying military activities everywhere?
!0 Years 10 Billion Dollars
Lon;1292857 wrote: [QUOTE=Ahso!;1292818]Whats wrong with this, Lon? If tax money is not to be recycled back through the economy, what should it be used for?
I never said or implied that anything was wrong with it. My question was is there a less expensive way to pay for it. But since you brought up taxation------don't you have some concern about all the proposed goodies and programs that will obviously require massive (yes massive) increases in ALL kinds of taxes while carrying military activities everywhere?[/QUOTE]But why? the more money in circulation, the better in times such as this, no?
Noone is talking about increasing taxes. they are simply creating the money out of thin air.
I never said or implied that anything was wrong with it. My question was is there a less expensive way to pay for it. But since you brought up taxation------don't you have some concern about all the proposed goodies and programs that will obviously require massive (yes massive) increases in ALL kinds of taxes while carrying military activities everywhere?[/QUOTE]But why? the more money in circulation, the better in times such as this, no?
Noone is talking about increasing taxes. they are simply creating the money out of thin air.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple
-
DrLeftover
- Posts: 75
- Joined: Sat Nov 28, 2009 4:22 am
!0 Years 10 Billion Dollars
I can't believe it costs that much to conduct the enumeration as required in the Constitution.
"The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct."
Article 1 section 2
"How many people live here?"
That is the only question they should be asking.
It is the only one I intend on answering.
Oh, and I may volunteer the information that they are All Citizens.
They do not need to know any of the other stuff they ask. And it is the processing of all that other invasive information that costs so much.
"The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct."
Article 1 section 2
"How many people live here?"
That is the only question they should be asking.
It is the only one I intend on answering.
Oh, and I may volunteer the information that they are All Citizens.
They do not need to know any of the other stuff they ask. And it is the processing of all that other invasive information that costs so much.
[Signature Removed]
!0 Years 10 Billion Dollars
Apparently most of the tax dollars collected are used to pay but a fraction of the interest owed to the central bank. Increasing taxes would solve nothing. Tax collection is unconstitutional & just another means of oppressing people.
Government, on behalf of the people, should be the ONLY ones printing/controlling money. Not the Fed.
I say a flat tax across the board (on good & services) would be the way to go. Oh..and reinstate the gold standard.
Otherwise we're just beating our heads against the wall.
Government, on behalf of the people, should be the ONLY ones printing/controlling money. Not the Fed.
I say a flat tax across the board (on good & services) would be the way to go. Oh..and reinstate the gold standard.
Otherwise we're just beating our heads against the wall.
!0 Years 10 Billion Dollars
Steev;1293006 wrote: Apparently most of the tax dollars collected are used to pay but a fraction of the interest owed to the central bank. Increasing taxes would solve nothing. Tax collection is unconstitutional & just another means of oppressing people. I don't know if you mean the U.S. or Canada, so in case you mean the U.S., from wikipedia;The presidential election of 1912 was contested between three advocates of an income tax.[22] On February 25, 1913, Secretary of State Philander Knox proclaimed that the amendment had been ratified by the necessary three-fourths of the states, and thus had become part of the Constitution. Shortly thereafter, the Revenue Act of 1913 was enacted.
According to the United States Government Printing Office, the following states ratified the amendment:
Alabama (August 10, 1909)
Kentucky (February 8, 1910)
South Carolina (February 19, 1910)
Illinois (March 1, 1910)
Mississippi (March 7, 1910)
Oklahoma (March 10, 1910)
Maryland (April 8, 1910)
Georgia (August 3, 1910)
Texas (August 16, 1910)
Ohio (January 19, 1911)
Idaho (January 20, 1911)
Oregon (January 23, 1911)
Washington (January 26, 1911)
Montana (January 27, 1911)
Indiana (January 30, 1911)
California (January 31, 1911)
Nevada (January 31, 1911)
South Dakota (February 1, 1911)
Nebraska (February 9, 1911)
North Carolina (February 11, 1911)
Colorado (February 15, 1911)
North Dakota (February 17, 1911)
Michigan (February 23, 1911)
Iowa (February 24, 1911)
Kansas (March 2, 1911)
Missouri (March 16, 1911)
Maine (March 31, 1911)
Tennessee (April 7, 1911)
Arkansas (April 22, 1911), after having previously rejected the amendment
Wisconsin (May 16, 1911)
New York (July 12, 1911)
Arizona (April 3, 1912)
Minnesota (June 11, 1912)
Louisiana (June 28, 1912)
West Virginia (January 31, 1913)
Delaware (February 3, 1913)
Ratification (by the requisite thirty-six states) was completed on February 3, 1913 with the ratification by Delaware. The amendment was subsequently ratified by the following states, bringing the total number of ratifying states to forty-two of the forty-eight then existing:
37. New Mexico (February 3, 1913)
38. Wyoming (February 3, 1913)
39. New Jersey (February 4, 1913)
40. Vermont (February 19, 1913)
41. Massachusetts (March 4, 1913)
42. New Hampshire (March 7, 1913), after rejecting the amendment on March 2, 1911
The following states rejected the amendment without ever subsequently ratifying it:
Connecticut
Rhode Island
Utah
The following states never took up the proposed amendment:
Pennsylvania
Virginia
Florida
Steev;1293006 wrote: Government, on behalf of the people, should be the ONLY ones printing/controlling money. Not the Fed.
I say a flat tax across the board (on good & services) would be the way to go. Oh..and reinstate the gold standard.
Otherwise we're just beating our heads against the wall.I too like the idea of a flat tax or a consumption tax. Whats the problem with the fed printing and controlling the money? Someone has to do it. My guess is you'll say the banking industry owns the fed, and you're correct, but so what!
According to the United States Government Printing Office, the following states ratified the amendment:
Alabama (August 10, 1909)
Kentucky (February 8, 1910)
South Carolina (February 19, 1910)
Illinois (March 1, 1910)
Mississippi (March 7, 1910)
Oklahoma (March 10, 1910)
Maryland (April 8, 1910)
Georgia (August 3, 1910)
Texas (August 16, 1910)
Ohio (January 19, 1911)
Idaho (January 20, 1911)
Oregon (January 23, 1911)
Washington (January 26, 1911)
Montana (January 27, 1911)
Indiana (January 30, 1911)
California (January 31, 1911)
Nevada (January 31, 1911)
South Dakota (February 1, 1911)
Nebraska (February 9, 1911)
North Carolina (February 11, 1911)
Colorado (February 15, 1911)
North Dakota (February 17, 1911)
Michigan (February 23, 1911)
Iowa (February 24, 1911)
Kansas (March 2, 1911)
Missouri (March 16, 1911)
Maine (March 31, 1911)
Tennessee (April 7, 1911)
Arkansas (April 22, 1911), after having previously rejected the amendment
Wisconsin (May 16, 1911)
New York (July 12, 1911)
Arizona (April 3, 1912)
Minnesota (June 11, 1912)
Louisiana (June 28, 1912)
West Virginia (January 31, 1913)
Delaware (February 3, 1913)
Ratification (by the requisite thirty-six states) was completed on February 3, 1913 with the ratification by Delaware. The amendment was subsequently ratified by the following states, bringing the total number of ratifying states to forty-two of the forty-eight then existing:
37. New Mexico (February 3, 1913)
38. Wyoming (February 3, 1913)
39. New Jersey (February 4, 1913)
40. Vermont (February 19, 1913)
41. Massachusetts (March 4, 1913)
42. New Hampshire (March 7, 1913), after rejecting the amendment on March 2, 1911
The following states rejected the amendment without ever subsequently ratifying it:
Connecticut
Rhode Island
Utah
The following states never took up the proposed amendment:
Pennsylvania
Virginia
Florida
Steev;1293006 wrote: Government, on behalf of the people, should be the ONLY ones printing/controlling money. Not the Fed.
I say a flat tax across the board (on good & services) would be the way to go. Oh..and reinstate the gold standard.
Otherwise we're just beating our heads against the wall.I too like the idea of a flat tax or a consumption tax. Whats the problem with the fed printing and controlling the money? Someone has to do it. My guess is you'll say the banking industry owns the fed, and you're correct, but so what!
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple
!0 Years 10 Billion Dollars
Canada/USA/whatever, it's all tied together & corrupt as hell. We've all seen economic collapse in American history before when the outcome was always the 'Fed' compensating to save hides. They likely will again but, why would anyone want currency to be managed that way? 
Why not abolish the Federal Reserve? Like Ron Paul said he would have if he were made President? Well, it would solve a lot of probs, but then of course folks like Rockefeller (worth nearly 15 trillion dollars) & Rothschild, (100-150 trillion) wouldn't control us. These guys are NOT interested in your well being. Dirty bastards!
Vladimir Lenin once said "The best way to take down a nation was to debauch/debase its currency". In 1913, removal of the gold standard gave those assholes absolute power/control or the money supply. Hasn't history taught us that absolute power corrupts absolutely? Yea, sad but true.
I'm hoping that people will wake up, (more & more are) see the corruption and kick these assholes out of the money supply instead of leaving it to this leftist socialist (Obama) who won't provide any long term solutions.
Why not abolish the Federal Reserve? Like Ron Paul said he would have if he were made President? Well, it would solve a lot of probs, but then of course folks like Rockefeller (worth nearly 15 trillion dollars) & Rothschild, (100-150 trillion) wouldn't control us. These guys are NOT interested in your well being. Dirty bastards!
Vladimir Lenin once said "The best way to take down a nation was to debauch/debase its currency". In 1913, removal of the gold standard gave those assholes absolute power/control or the money supply. Hasn't history taught us that absolute power corrupts absolutely? Yea, sad but true.
I'm hoping that people will wake up, (more & more are) see the corruption and kick these assholes out of the money supply instead of leaving it to this leftist socialist (Obama) who won't provide any long term solutions.
!0 Years 10 Billion Dollars
See 13th amendment. Also, the 14th was not properly ratified. There are additional violations of other amendments but, how ever you want to slice it - the people are being duped! A lot of info has been held in obscurity for reasons one might easily guess.
“One of the saddest lessons of history is this:
If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge — even to ourselves — that we’ve been so credulous.
— Carl Sagan
An interesting prophecy:
Thomas Jefferson - Future Slavery Of The People
"If we run into such debts as that must be taxed in our meat and in our drink, in our necessaries and our comforts, in our labors and our amusements, for our callings and creeds, as the people of England are, our people, like them, must labor sixteen hours in the twenty- four, and give the earnings of fifteen of these to the government for their debts and daily expenses; And the sixteenth [hour of labor] being insufficient to afford us bread, we must live, as they do now, on oatmeal and potatoes, have no time to think, no means of calling the mismanagers to account; but be glad to obtain [be satisfied with] subsistence by hiring ourselves to rivet [being goons for our oppressors by securing] their chains around the necks of our fellow sufferers;
And this is the tendency of all human governments. A departure from principle in one instance becomes a precedent for a second, that second for a third, and so on ‘til the bulk of society is reduced to be mere automatons of misery, to have no sensibilities left but for sinning and suffering¦ And the forehorse of this frightful team is public debt. Taxation follows that, and in its train, wretchedness and oppression.
~ Thomas Jefferson (1743 - 1826) USA Founding Father and President of the USA
The money system we are currently subject to, isn't working. It's designed to benefit only the ruling elite. Yea, the money people - NOT us.
It's bed time here so,
G'nite! :yh_sleep
“One of the saddest lessons of history is this:
If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge — even to ourselves — that we’ve been so credulous.
— Carl Sagan
An interesting prophecy:
Thomas Jefferson - Future Slavery Of The People
"If we run into such debts as that must be taxed in our meat and in our drink, in our necessaries and our comforts, in our labors and our amusements, for our callings and creeds, as the people of England are, our people, like them, must labor sixteen hours in the twenty- four, and give the earnings of fifteen of these to the government for their debts and daily expenses; And the sixteenth [hour of labor] being insufficient to afford us bread, we must live, as they do now, on oatmeal and potatoes, have no time to think, no means of calling the mismanagers to account; but be glad to obtain [be satisfied with] subsistence by hiring ourselves to rivet [being goons for our oppressors by securing] their chains around the necks of our fellow sufferers;
And this is the tendency of all human governments. A departure from principle in one instance becomes a precedent for a second, that second for a third, and so on ‘til the bulk of society is reduced to be mere automatons of misery, to have no sensibilities left but for sinning and suffering¦ And the forehorse of this frightful team is public debt. Taxation follows that, and in its train, wretchedness and oppression.
~ Thomas Jefferson (1743 - 1826) USA Founding Father and President of the USA
The money system we are currently subject to, isn't working. It's designed to benefit only the ruling elite. Yea, the money people - NOT us.
It's bed time here so,
G'nite! :yh_sleep
!0 Years 10 Billion Dollars
Steev;1293024 wrote: Canada/USA/whatever, it's all tied together & corrupt as hell. We've all seen economic collapse in American history before when the outcome was always the 'Fed' compensating to save hides. They likely will again but, why would anyone want currency to be managed that way?
Why not abolish the Federal Reserve? Like Ron Paul said he would have if he were made President? Well, it would solve a lot of probs, but then of course folks like Rockefeller (worth nearly 15 trillion dollars) & Rothschild, (100-150 trillion) wouldn't control us. These guys are NOT interested in your well being. Dirty bastards!What problems would be solved by abolishing the federal reserve?
Saying "They likely will again but, why would anyone want currency to be managed that way?" doesn't provide any alternative. Why wouldn't we want it this way?
Why not abolish the Federal Reserve? Like Ron Paul said he would have if he were made President? Well, it would solve a lot of probs, but then of course folks like Rockefeller (worth nearly 15 trillion dollars) & Rothschild, (100-150 trillion) wouldn't control us. These guys are NOT interested in your well being. Dirty bastards!What problems would be solved by abolishing the federal reserve?
Saying "They likely will again but, why would anyone want currency to be managed that way?" doesn't provide any alternative. Why wouldn't we want it this way?
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple
!0 Years 10 Billion Dollars
Steev;1293025 wrote: See 13th amendment. Also, the 14th was not properly ratified. There are additional violations of other amendments but, how ever you want to slice it - the people are being duped! A lot of info has been held in obscurity for reasons one might easily guess.
The money system we are currently subject to, isn't working. It's designed to benefit only the ruling elite. Yea, the money people - NOT us.
There are plenty of problems with our economic system, Steev, but thats the consequences of lacking something to back the money. However, with the population increase and the need to forever expand economically, there is nothing that can keep up with demand as far as I know, so the value of money is based on supply and demand. What I'm wondering is how America would pay its dept is it was ever called in. I don't have the answer to that question, but considering that America's military is its greatest asset, I wonder if we'd become muscle for hire. Some think we already are. Personally, irrespective of how I'd be criticized for saying this from both ends, I like to consider myself a socialist at heart.
Fourteenth Amendment
Proposal and ratification
The United States Congress proposed the Fourteenth Amendment on June 13, 1866 and on July 9, 1868, three-fourths of the states (28 of 37) had ratified the amendment:[49]
1. Connecticut (June 25, 1866)
2. New Hampshire (July 6, 1866)
3. Tennessee (July 19, 1866)
4. New Jersey (September 11, 1866)*
5. Oregon (September 19, 1866)
6. Vermont (October 30, 1866)
7. Ohio (January 4, 1867)*
8. New York (January 10, 1867)
9. Kansas (January 11, 1867)
10. Illinois (January 15, 1867)
11. West Virginia (January 16, 1867)
12. Michigan (January 16, 1867)
13. Minnesota (January 16, 1867)
14. Maine (January 19, 1867)
15. Nevada (January 22, 1867)
16. Indiana (January 23, 1867)
17. Missouri (January 25, 1867)
18. Rhode Island (February 7, 1867)
19. Wisconsin (February 7, 1867)
20. Pennsylvania (February 12, 1867)
21. Massachusetts (March 20, 1867)
22. Nebraska (June 15, 1867)
23. Iowa (March 16, 1868)
24. Arkansas (April 6, 1868)
25. Florida (June 9, 1868)
26. North Carolina (July 4, 1868, after having rejected it on December 14, 1866)
27. Louisiana (July 9, 1868, after having rejected it on February 6, 1867)
28. South Carolina (July 9, 1868, after having rejected it on December 20, 1866)
*Ohio passed a resolution that purported to withdraw its ratification on January 15, 1868. The New Jersey legislature also tried to rescind its ratification on February 20, 1868. The New Jersey governor had vetoed his state's withdrawal on March 5, and the legislature overrode the veto on March 24. Accordingly, on July 20, 1868, Secretary of State William H. Seward certified that the amendment had become part of the Constitution if the rescissions were ineffective. The Congress responded on the following day, declaring that the amendment was part of the Constitution and ordering Seward to promulgate the amendment.
Meanwhile, two additional states had ratified the amendment:
1. Alabama (July 13, 1868, the date the ratification was "approved" by the governor)
2. Georgia (July 21, 1868, after having rejected it on November 9, 1866)
Thus, on July 28, Seward was able to certify unconditionally that the amendment was part of the Constitution without having to endorse the Congress's assertion that the withdrawals were ineffective.
There were additional ratifications and rescissions; by 2003, the amendment had been ratified by all of the 37 states that were in the Union in 1868
1. Virginia (October 8, 1869, after having rejected it on January 9, 1867)
2. Mississippi (January 17, 1870)
3. Texas (February 18, 1870, after having rejected it on October 27, 1866)
4. Delaware (February 12, 1901, after having rejected it on February 7, 1867)
5. Maryland (1959)
6. California (1959)
7. Oregon (1973, after withdrawing it on October 15, 1868)
8. Kentucky (1976, after having rejected it on January 8, 1867)
9. New Jersey (2003, after having rescinded on February 20, 1868)
10. Ohio (2003, after having rescinded on January 15, 1868)
The money system we are currently subject to, isn't working. It's designed to benefit only the ruling elite. Yea, the money people - NOT us.
There are plenty of problems with our economic system, Steev, but thats the consequences of lacking something to back the money. However, with the population increase and the need to forever expand economically, there is nothing that can keep up with demand as far as I know, so the value of money is based on supply and demand. What I'm wondering is how America would pay its dept is it was ever called in. I don't have the answer to that question, but considering that America's military is its greatest asset, I wonder if we'd become muscle for hire. Some think we already are. Personally, irrespective of how I'd be criticized for saying this from both ends, I like to consider myself a socialist at heart.
Fourteenth Amendment
Proposal and ratification
The United States Congress proposed the Fourteenth Amendment on June 13, 1866 and on July 9, 1868, three-fourths of the states (28 of 37) had ratified the amendment:[49]
1. Connecticut (June 25, 1866)
2. New Hampshire (July 6, 1866)
3. Tennessee (July 19, 1866)
4. New Jersey (September 11, 1866)*
5. Oregon (September 19, 1866)
6. Vermont (October 30, 1866)
7. Ohio (January 4, 1867)*
8. New York (January 10, 1867)
9. Kansas (January 11, 1867)
10. Illinois (January 15, 1867)
11. West Virginia (January 16, 1867)
12. Michigan (January 16, 1867)
13. Minnesota (January 16, 1867)
14. Maine (January 19, 1867)
15. Nevada (January 22, 1867)
16. Indiana (January 23, 1867)
17. Missouri (January 25, 1867)
18. Rhode Island (February 7, 1867)
19. Wisconsin (February 7, 1867)
20. Pennsylvania (February 12, 1867)
21. Massachusetts (March 20, 1867)
22. Nebraska (June 15, 1867)
23. Iowa (March 16, 1868)
24. Arkansas (April 6, 1868)
25. Florida (June 9, 1868)
26. North Carolina (July 4, 1868, after having rejected it on December 14, 1866)
27. Louisiana (July 9, 1868, after having rejected it on February 6, 1867)
28. South Carolina (July 9, 1868, after having rejected it on December 20, 1866)
*Ohio passed a resolution that purported to withdraw its ratification on January 15, 1868. The New Jersey legislature also tried to rescind its ratification on February 20, 1868. The New Jersey governor had vetoed his state's withdrawal on March 5, and the legislature overrode the veto on March 24. Accordingly, on July 20, 1868, Secretary of State William H. Seward certified that the amendment had become part of the Constitution if the rescissions were ineffective. The Congress responded on the following day, declaring that the amendment was part of the Constitution and ordering Seward to promulgate the amendment.
Meanwhile, two additional states had ratified the amendment:
1. Alabama (July 13, 1868, the date the ratification was "approved" by the governor)
2. Georgia (July 21, 1868, after having rejected it on November 9, 1866)
Thus, on July 28, Seward was able to certify unconditionally that the amendment was part of the Constitution without having to endorse the Congress's assertion that the withdrawals were ineffective.
There were additional ratifications and rescissions; by 2003, the amendment had been ratified by all of the 37 states that were in the Union in 1868
1. Virginia (October 8, 1869, after having rejected it on January 9, 1867)
2. Mississippi (January 17, 1870)
3. Texas (February 18, 1870, after having rejected it on October 27, 1866)
4. Delaware (February 12, 1901, after having rejected it on February 7, 1867)
5. Maryland (1959)
6. California (1959)
7. Oregon (1973, after withdrawing it on October 15, 1868)
8. Kentucky (1976, after having rejected it on January 8, 1867)
9. New Jersey (2003, after having rescinded on February 20, 1868)
10. Ohio (2003, after having rescinded on January 15, 1868)
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple
!0 Years 10 Billion Dollars
Ahso!;1293030 wrote: What problems would be solved by abolishing the federal reserve?
Saying "They likely will again but, why would anyone want currency to be managed that way?" doesn't provide any alternative. Why wouldn't we want it this way?
The best way to enslave humans has been to use their strongest qualities against them. Their inborn sense of spirituality and connectedness. So, religion is invented. We have socially productive abilities, we can labor and create amazing art. So, invent slavery/serfdom, indentured servitude, and debt, debt, debt. And then reinforce this all with threats of violence focused on non conformers. (law & enforcement). The Fed & the IRS pretty much have us bent right over for them, I'd say.
The current policy is to enslave & impoverish. As I understand it, 1913 was the end of the 'Republic (as we've known it) with the intro of the 'Federal reserve act' and the 16th Amendment to the constitution, 'income tax'.
A chunk of our ability to work and produce is taken from us by a centralized state & thrown into a large private bank. Then they charge interest for the circulation of this 'fiat currency' & it's constantly & secretly losing it's value behind the scenes. Indentured servitude via usury.
A president should & could eliminate the 'Fed' via executive order. Of course, anyone who has tried to even go that direction in the past was 'dealt with' accordingly. Hmm..wonder why or who could/would do such a thing? I'll give you 3 guesses & the first two don't count. :wah: F'k the fed!! You think they give a damn about you or me & our well being?! On the contrary. Of course not. To me it would be absurd to even entertain the notion that they do.
So yea, I believe in abolishing the Reserve, restoring the gold standard, and the congress could abolish the IRS, income tax and other taxes and substitute them with a flat tax added on to retail/non food items. Then you'd witness some real explosive economic growth and a distribution of the wealth all around. The nation's treasury could be flowing over the brim from that tax revenue, despite the tax rates overall being considerably lower.
Alternately, continue how we are. That sure works...Not! :yh_rotfl
Saying "They likely will again but, why would anyone want currency to be managed that way?" doesn't provide any alternative. Why wouldn't we want it this way?
The best way to enslave humans has been to use their strongest qualities against them. Their inborn sense of spirituality and connectedness. So, religion is invented. We have socially productive abilities, we can labor and create amazing art. So, invent slavery/serfdom, indentured servitude, and debt, debt, debt. And then reinforce this all with threats of violence focused on non conformers. (law & enforcement). The Fed & the IRS pretty much have us bent right over for them, I'd say.
The current policy is to enslave & impoverish. As I understand it, 1913 was the end of the 'Republic (as we've known it) with the intro of the 'Federal reserve act' and the 16th Amendment to the constitution, 'income tax'.
A chunk of our ability to work and produce is taken from us by a centralized state & thrown into a large private bank. Then they charge interest for the circulation of this 'fiat currency' & it's constantly & secretly losing it's value behind the scenes. Indentured servitude via usury.
A president should & could eliminate the 'Fed' via executive order. Of course, anyone who has tried to even go that direction in the past was 'dealt with' accordingly. Hmm..wonder why or who could/would do such a thing? I'll give you 3 guesses & the first two don't count. :wah: F'k the fed!! You think they give a damn about you or me & our well being?! On the contrary. Of course not. To me it would be absurd to even entertain the notion that they do.
So yea, I believe in abolishing the Reserve, restoring the gold standard, and the congress could abolish the IRS, income tax and other taxes and substitute them with a flat tax added on to retail/non food items. Then you'd witness some real explosive economic growth and a distribution of the wealth all around. The nation's treasury could be flowing over the brim from that tax revenue, despite the tax rates overall being considerably lower.
Alternately, continue how we are. That sure works...Not! :yh_rotfl
!0 Years 10 Billion Dollars
But, what the hell do I know? lol
Just shootin the *****, so to speak.
There are those who can read conspiracy into everything & yea, it can get to the point of paranoia with them. Sure there's corruption all around but, to what degree exactly? The truth probably lies somewhere in between the extreme theories & the propaganda that the masses are fed via mainstream media. In the end things will work out as they will regardless of the speculation. Meanwhile, what harm is there engaging in a bit of friendly debate? Seems like many are scared to even chat about it,
or get defensive. A fight or flight response. Muh, whadaya gonna do tho!? :driving:
Just shootin the *****, so to speak.
There are those who can read conspiracy into everything & yea, it can get to the point of paranoia with them. Sure there's corruption all around but, to what degree exactly? The truth probably lies somewhere in between the extreme theories & the propaganda that the masses are fed via mainstream media. In the end things will work out as they will regardless of the speculation. Meanwhile, what harm is there engaging in a bit of friendly debate? Seems like many are scared to even chat about it,
or get defensive. A fight or flight response. Muh, whadaya gonna do tho!? :driving: