Why is Michele Bachmann dressed like an officer in the US Navy at a party?
US Presidential Election: Tuesday November 6th, 2012
- Thread starter Team Brian GB
- Start date
- Status
didn't watch this latest one but sounds like fun. a radio show was saying the other day that the other candidates would go after Cain and that Romney would sit back and watch it unfold. was that how it went?
It was the Romney vs. Perry show - they don't like each other don't you know...
It essentially serves a proxy military base to ensure the US maintains a regional hegemony over the region. Israel keeps the US's 'unwilling clients' at bay so to speak. Then there's the Christian Zionist connection in congress and the AIPAC lobby but they're not a big a reason as what I've previously explained.
Oh and in before "tin foil hatter!, anti-American! etc"
What did our four greatest presidents on mount rushmore say about corporate takeover
George Washington: “Arbitrary power is most easily established on the ruins of liberty abused to l!cent!ousness. The time is near at hand which must determine whether Americans are to be free men or s1aves. If then our freedom is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the s1aughter.”
George Washington: “Paper money (Usury Interest) has had the effect in your state that it will ever have, to ruin commerce, oppress the honest, and open the door to every species of fraud and injustice."
President Jefferson: "If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered." “I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs.”
President Lincoln (R): "The money powers prey upon the nation in times of peace and conspire against it in times of adversity. It is more despotic than a monarchy, more insolent than autocracy, and more selfish than bureaucracy. It denounces as public enemies, all who question its methods or throw light upon its crimes. I have two great enemies, the Southern Army in front of me and the Bankers in the rear. Of the two, the one at my rear is my greatest foe. Corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money powers of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until the wealth is aggregated in the hands of a few, and the Republic is destroyed.
President Theodore Roosevelt (R) “The great corporatio*ns which we have grown to speak of rather loosely as trusts are the creatures of the State, and the State not only has the right to control them, but it is duty bound to control them wherever the need of such control is shown.”
someone posted this on the Huffington Post.
George Washington: “Arbitrary power is most easily established on the ruins of liberty abused to l!cent!ousness. The time is near at hand which must determine whether Americans are to be free men or s1aves. If then our freedom is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the s1aughter.”
George Washington: “Paper money (Usury Interest) has had the effect in your state that it will ever have, to ruin commerce, oppress the honest, and open the door to every species of fraud and injustice."
President Jefferson: "If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered." “I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs.”
President Lincoln (R): "The money powers prey upon the nation in times of peace and conspire against it in times of adversity. It is more despotic than a monarchy, more insolent than autocracy, and more selfish than bureaucracy. It denounces as public enemies, all who question its methods or throw light upon its crimes. I have two great enemies, the Southern Army in front of me and the Bankers in the rear. Of the two, the one at my rear is my greatest foe. Corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money powers of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until the wealth is aggregated in the hands of a few, and the Republic is destroyed.
President Theodore Roosevelt (R) “The great corporatio*ns which we have grown to speak of rather loosely as trusts are the creatures of the State, and the State not only has the right to control them, but it is duty bound to control them wherever the need of such control is shown.”
someone posted this on the Huffington Post.
There are quite a few quotes about money and banking by US presidents.
"Whoever controls the volume of money in any country is absolute master of all industry and
commerce." — James A. Garfield, President of the United States
But I leave the best quote for last - not from a president but the father of the rothschild dynasty
"Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes it's laws" — Mayer Amschel Bauer Rothschild
That is one of the lines of 'logic' that annoys me in the USA, that your founding fathers are brought out in favour or against contemporary issues.
I suppose it adds stature and power to the argument or just how prescient the founding fathers were who most still keep in the highest regard. Perhaps they encapsulate the the pure idealism of America the best which has now through the ages been warped and contorted.
The point of the quotes are perhaps as an introduction to an argument or as an ending statement but hopefully not the argument!
Please elect Herman Cain, that 999 tax plan might just spark a revolution that brings down capitalism for good. I'm not anti-capitalist or pro-revolutionary but if its got even this far where someone with this idea can run for president, maybe we need to start again.
As the Obama Administration has shown, "getting elected" and "getting your campaign platform passed" are two greatly separate things.
The tax code does need revision. Fair fecks to him for simplifying it. That's as far as I'll go in praise of Herman Cain.
Very true of course.
Its hardly a new plan TBH. A shift to a sales tax/VAT system was considered in the UK 30 years ago.
We even have a similar principal in place today that hurts the poor a lot more than the wealthy, its called tobacco and alcohol duty.
It is always Republicans who resort to them most, but remarkably forget about their views on standing armies.
I always find it remarkable how Americans use centuries old political views for modern arguments, you would probably be laughed at if you tried that here.
It is especially dumb when the US economy was stagnant in its early days.
the key is it needs to be fair.
Ability to be bear without stifling investments.
The problem is those who have lots money...are buying these politicians to pass laws that only favour them at the expense of ordinary people.
There have been others more recent as well. Forbes for sure. And maybe Perot but I'm not sure on him.
Simplifying would be abolish all exemptions and allowances and have five simple bands: 10%, 20%, 30%, 40%, 50%.
Earnings below $100k you pay 10%. Next $100k you pay 20%, and so on.
The great myth of the 'Imperial Presidency' is that it exists in practice and not just in public relations, it is no coincidence that the stature of the presidency grew as the media and information age truly began.
Sales tax can be an effected tax system to a point. You can't do it with one rate on all sales though. It needs multiple rates for different levels of necessity/luxury.
Buy food or kids clothes, no tax. Buy a bottle of Vodka 20% tax. Buy a luxury car 20% tax. My old man was on a committee for the Thatcher government that did a load of research on the principal. It just got too messy to administer and sell politically.
They pretty much have one today. 35% Federal, 11% State tax, SS and Medicare contributions. I think there would be a decent level of public support for a simplified system, and a rate of 50% for anyone on over $500,000. I have always thought SS contributions were an unecessary tax. Just pay income tax and be done with.
Americans don't like paying tax though, that is for sure. That is why so many will buy into a plan that reduces income tax and lets them pay more when they spend.
Leaving aside what particular percentage the tax rate caps at, abolishing all exemptions and allowances isn't as easy as it sounds, nor as popular. Those all got put into the system because someone wanted them, and a lot of them are pretty popular. Good luck getting support for removing the exemption for dependent children, or the deduction for charitable giving, for example.
As you are no doubt aware we have the same situation in the UK, and that the Government is consulting on merging national insurance and income tax.
I think there is a psychological effect of one top line figure as opposed to lesser, multiple ones, the Republicans would naturally think so if a 50% figure were to be the consequence.
We use the same arguments in debates about voting reform, electing the House of Lords, electing judges, removing the monarchy etc etc etc
I use a ton of exemptions but the bands I suggested would leave use paying $3000-$4000 more than we do today. Bottom line is the government spend more than they raise. Sooner or later taxes will need to be adjusted accordingly.
You make a good point though, basically people are selfish bastards and only consider what it means to them personally.
Considering it cost the State the best part of £250,000 to raise me, subsidise my healthcare, education and other state benefits I have received, I'm enjoying repaying my dues through taxation. If anything, I don't pay enough compared to the lowest paid. I don't see why the social contract argument is made regarding taxation. That's bloody Hayek for you, ruining any sense of community....
I've said it before but we could really use Teddy Roosevelt right about now. He'd probably challenge the GOP and Obama to a boxing match rather than a debate. 
The demographic spread on support for Obama's healthcare reform points to this - people younger than 40 are typically in favour but those over 40 who are generally thinking about retirement or are retired, thus claiming Medicare, are very strongly against.
Well, not as regularly, but you do often hear John Locke, the Magna Carta et al being quoted when laws that are viewed as illiberal are proposed here - Labour's counter-terrorism legislation being a good example.
Whilst it is dumb to quote Magna Carta as most of it is defunct, it is alike Americans discussing their constitution.
Though we wouldn't quote Pitt the Younger or Gladstone.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're saying but the stature of the presidency has probably been in decline since around the time of JFK. It's now at the point where even most American have near contempt for the POTUS. And no doubt they do for Congress.
Used to be the whole family would gather around the radio to listen to the POTUS speak on an address. Now, most are annoyed he's interupting American Idol or Monday Night Football.
Can one of you American dudes explain Obamacare to me because it just doesn't make sense to me. Its not solving the problem.
Give it time. A lot of the more important parts of the bill don't take effect until 2014.
Its hated by republicans because it caps the amount of money the insurance companies can charge as a proportion of earnings of the purchaser, and requires that the insurance companies spend a large % of their revenue on medical related expenditure, as well as be more open about executive compensation.
It prevents people from being discriminated against based on pre-existing conditions and does away with lifetime caps on payments.
It also lets children stay on their parent's insurance until 25 years old.
Edit: forgot, I left out the controversial mandate and "death panels"
Mandate, is what it says you have to buy insurance. Nobody likes that part.
Death panels, is that it allows you to make a living will with your doctor so if you suffer brain damage its your own choice to pull the plug.
I thought the death panel thing was government deciding if they could afford a particular treatment (like they do in the UK) and letting Granma and Grandpa die because a treatment that may get them 1 extra year may cost say $1M.
Yeah, that sounds much scarier, doesn't it? That was, of course, absolute bullshit.
The actual portion of the bill that got twisted into "death panels" was simply that there was discussion of language requiring that insurers cover hospice care, which is so far removed from the "death panel" myth as to be ridiculous, (and, sadly, that language got dropped.)
I don't think I've ever been as incensed by anything in politics, given how incredibly beneficial my mother and I found hospice care as she was dealing with the stage IV breast cancer that eventually killed her. In an incredibly painful time of our lives, the people who worked to alleviate pain and suffering for my mother and others were among the few bright spots. I can't imagine how people can do that work, knowing that barring miracles, every patient they care for will die, and not only not be utterly cold bastards, but instead be some of the most empathetic people I've ever met.
Anyone taking that work and twisting it into "death panels" to score a political point is scum, and deserves to never have the benefit of the services of those people they so disgracefully condemned.
Nice - The National Institute for Clinical Excellence is what you are talking about. It decides policyn on a much greater level than the American right would have you believe and determines what to pick up and what not to primarily on effectiveness, think national drug trials.
After all, we have a longer life expectancy despite retiring later.
Would you consider it as a step in the right direction?
The problem I have with it is that it still maintains the hegemony of the insurers.
The President did not have the votes to go for public option.
Yes. It is a step in the right direction. Once people see the benefits they wont go back. All this nonsense about repealing is just big talk. They cannot repeal it. Firstly they have explain what they are going to replace it with.
Secondly they have to get past a Democrat filibuster.
Finally none of these clowns are going to beat the President
- Status