since you dont have the integrity to take responsibility for your share of the debt, it's not really possible to discuss policy and political philosophy with you.

and debt is an essential power of business and government. you are both modeling the problem incorrectly, and stating the problem falsely.

altho i tend to agree with the vague political principle you seem to be suggesting. we can't progress as slaves to the multinational corporations and wall street.

thats why I want your kind to win - we need the economic disaster to happen as fast as possible so we can make fundamental changes, including particularly removing the ficticious legal personhood and artificial liability priviledges of corporations.

looks like a nice meal.

Ah yes, the first thing someone would do in an economic depression, go foreclosure buying and hoping he can turn those foreclosures around and sell the property for 10x their value. The only problem with this idea is that nobody is buying and nobody can afford to pay rent on their ARMs, which is why there are foreclosures in the first place.


Home prices haven't even begun to hit rock bottom yet, but I don't understand what you're going to gain from this method. Your method rests on the belief that we will get out of this depression soon and people will start buying again, at a markup cost. I don't think there's any possibility of that happening anytime soon.

Immune? It's possible that they aren't. It's more possible that they're inversely related to the stock market on most occasions and are bought during periods of depression and/or high inflation or speculation of high inflation/hyperinflation. I still believe gold will rise $5000-$6000 an ounce so I'd be a full to keep my money in bonds, or other cash related assets.

It's already pretty worthless and it should have lost its reserve currency status years ago. I'd say it will lose that in the next 2-3 years as the Obama administration continues the runaway spending.

Bullshit. China would prosper longterm if the dollar was no longer the reserve currency. The same goes for the other BRIC countries.

:thumbsup :thumbsup :thumbsup

The rich don't pay taxes.

Actually, you don't have to be rich to use the perfectly moral, ethical and LEGAL deductions to pay ONLY the tax that you owe as the result of using those deductions and that tax owed may indeed be ZERO..................if you are conducting your business under a corporate veil.

You don't have to be rich to legally pay few or no taxes, only smart. If the aplicable tax laws say that you pay no tax, you have fulfilled your ethical, moral and legal obligations to the IRS, the government and the people. You don't even have to be a whale to pay few or no taxes, just smart.

I am also amused by the fact that so many people bitch, moan, groan and complain about the so-called "rich", while spending most of their time trying to become one of them!

LOL!

Sally.

Lol.

The rich pay most of your taxes for you. You should be kissing their feet for financing you and your lifestyle.

http://taxprof.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8...6763970b-500wi

.. oh and its gotten worse. I think its about time you poor started paying your way, and stopped getting such a pathetic free ride on our backs.

Your statement is very incorrect to the point of being disingenuous and well past misleading as this information form New York City clearly demonstrates:

http://www.gothamgazette.com/article...0090519/8/2920

Qouted from the citation:

"We know that the wealthy pay the bulk of the personal income tax. In fact, the Tax Revenue Forecasting Document shows that, in the 2005 tax year, the 315,000 city taxpayers who had $100,000 or more in taxable income (only 9.2 percent of all filers) paid nearly 73 percent of the total personal income tax, even though they accounted for only 9.2 percent of all filers. Most significantly to the mayor's point, the 1 percent of filers who have incomes of $500,000 or more accounted for 49 percent of the total income tax.

Lower-income filers, of course, pay much less. The 1.64 million filers (48 percent of total filers) who have less than $25,000 of taxable income pay only 2.2 percent of total personal income taxes. That's the nature of a progressive tax system."

It might interest you to know that the so-called "rich" are fleeing New York City in droves because of the punitive tax rates there:

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/i...1UXIc0i6cd3UpK

"Tax refugees staging escape from New York

By ANDY SOLTIS

Last Updated: 6:08 AM, October 27, 2009

Posted: 2:53 AM, October 27, 2009

New Yorkers are fleeing the state and city in alarming numbers -- and costing a fortune in lost tax dollars, a new study shows.

More than 1.5 million state residents left for other parts of the United States from 2000 to 2008, according to the report from the Empire Center for New York State Policy. It was the biggest out-of-state migration in the country.

The vast majority of the migrants, 1.1 million, were former residents of New York City -- meaning one out of seven city taxpayers moved out.

"The Empire State is being drained of an invaluable resource -- people," the report said.

What's worse is that the families fleeing New York are being replaced by lower-income newcomers, who consequently pay less in taxes.

Overall, the ex-New Yorkers earn about 13 percent more than those who moved into the state, the study found.

And it should be no surprise that the city -- and Manhattan in particular -- suffered the biggest loss in terms of taxable income.

The average Manhattan taxpayer who left the state earned $93,264 a year. The average newcomer to Manhattan earned only $72,726.

That's a difference of $20,538, the highest for any county in the state. Staten Island was second, with a $20,066 difference.

It all adds up to staggering loss in taxable income. During 2006-2007, the "migration flow" out of New York to other states amounted to a loss of $4.3 billion.

The study used annual US Census reports, which showed which states had increased population, combined with Internal Revenue Service data, which show which states, cities and counties had lost people.

While New York City and the state were the losers, the Sunshine and Garden States were winners. more than 250,000 New Yorkers who lived in and around the city fled to Florida. Another 172,000 city taxpayers ended up in New Jersey.

Why all the moving vans?

The center, part of the conservative Manhattan Institute, blames the state's high cost of living and high taxes.

The study also revealed surprising details about how city residents moved from borough to borough.

Manhattan lost 64,480 taxpayers, and more than half -- 34,383 -- went to The Bronx.

Brooklyn lost 68,951 taxpayers -- including 43,688 who went to Staten Island.

The study also had some good news. The peak loss of New Yorkers was in 2005, when nearly 250,000 residents left the state. But last year, only 126,000 left, the lowest figure over the eight-year period.

[email protected]"

Think before posting myth, misleading generalizations and out-and-out lies!

Sally.

Thanks for posting that chart!

Sally.

We really aren't very far off from our ways of thinking.. Except you likely believe that the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA is something entirely different than it really is. What it is, is a corporation. A coporation with ficticious legal personhood and artificial liability priviledges ran by executive branches comprised mostly of lawyers speaking and writting law in a foreign language acting as executors of an estate. Said company borrows money to fund their business in the name of YOU. I personally don't agree with ANYTHING these people are signing my name to so I obviously don't care for them attaching my NAME to any of it. If they want to play contract law all day long instead of them making up social contracts that I never agreed to how about I come up with my own little contract on how I will live my life. Which will be entirely based on the law of the land and civil law which this country was founded upon but taken away during the "new deal" and your progressive president. Roosevelt played a key role in those corporate personhoods that you speak of. Grant it, it all began in the late 1800's but it wasn't until 1938 that they were able to turn YOU into a corporation.

The debt was created via the Federal Reserve system and borrowed by the corporation. Congress has the power to issue debt free money. So no I don't agree to be a part of a debt that should have never been.

A bit of a correction. They were able to turn YOU into a corporation in 1921 but not able to enforce the laws > "statutes" and/or "public policy" on YOU until 1938.

I'm aware of the ways in which our political models overlap.

I think tho, that if you think the corporations which control your parties will let you do anything about it if you get romney or beck/palin or whomever elected (which I hope you do, because the democrats must be punished for their betrayal), then you are just as deluded as the people who still believe in obama.

you seem entirely uncritical and unanalytical of the clearly false picture you tend to paint, which is that this debt is somehow all or mostly obama's fault, or the dems fault, or liberals fault.

we ALL did this, and arguably the republicans piled on more debt than the democrats. certainly the republicans had the majority during most of the last 30 years.

if you want, we can try to calculate that out. a quick search hasn't yet given me an authoritative source, but the chart in the wiki might be a place to start.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...c_debt#History

however, I dont really care if your kind are deluded about causes and solutions - it fits my purposes to use your kind of "willingness to speak and reason falsely" to remove the incumbent dems, to use the outrage and depression that's coming to kick them all out.

you guys dealing with your corrupt politicians is your problem.

See if you can find one post ANYWHERE where I have ever said that I gave a flying shit about Beck or Palin. The fact is I can't stand their asses. They are the Republican infiltrators that I mentioned before. They are just as much of a fraud as Obama.

As far as the debt is concerned. I know exactly how it was created. It was created via the corporation racking up deficits+interest since the bankruptcy that was caused by design via the 20 year Federal Reserve Charter.

I never agreed to be a part of this fraud/scam. Just like I told the last judge I was before.. SHOW ME THE CONTRACT

saying "beck/palin" is black humor. I can't say that I have seen you mention either in recent memory. they are however clearly icons of the tea party and have a huge influence over the tea-publicans.

it would not surpise me a bit if they were both seriously proposed as nominees, but the corporations that control the republicans will probably allow the republicans romney or a romney clone.

as for the sovereignity arguments, while I am sympathetic to them, and even allow there may actually be a case to be pressed, the simple facts are the courts and police have been and will be crushing sovereigns with steady regularity.

and the republicans laugh at sovereigns, and use them as expendable crazies. just like they think they are using the tea "party".

i hope the baggers are like poison in republican guts.

Well I guess it's a good thing I live where I do. Kindof hard to argue against sovereignty when your STATE recognizes itself as such legislatively even though it is nothing more than a legal fiction which was left unchallenged. If the STATE is going to legally claim that I am not sovereign then it leaves it's sovereignty open to attack.