Why's it all of the sudden re-front paged?
Not complaining just curious what happened to cause this to be re-featured.
Was different, it only featured the part with Paul. This video has the whole segment on the fiscal cliff.
There's kind of a lack of new topics anyway what with everyone hyper focusing on random acts of so called mass violence, even though drones do worse all the time, and there's WAY worse on the Mexican border and nobody really talks about that.
Russ Roberts puts out some good stuff. Very thoughtful invterviews at econtalk.org
They put us in this mess. They get to profit from thin air. Their "profit" inflates our money supply. They MAKE all the rules for our every transaction. They make more rules to exclude us from competing with them on any account. All this activity isn't even Constitutional...
Yet they are not taxed.
You only have to tax derivatives about 1/2 a % to eliminate both the national debt and income taxes.
PS: My acronym for this money is Leveraged Income Earned. Think about it...
Nice post, good to see Ron again.
*Wisconsin Constitution* Article I, Section 25 "The people have the right to keep and bear arms for security,defense,hunting,recreation or any other law-abiding purpose"
CNBC has a campaign called RISE ABOVE. I say Rise Above DEMAGOGUERY.
The implication of CNBC's view is that raising taxes on the highest 1% who already pay 37% of the income taxes will be good for the country, and that the only reason why Republicans vote against it is because they put partisanship over country . What if the Republican politician sincerely believes that raising taxes on the wealthy will reduce jobs and economic prosperity and is therefore harmful to the country . What if he is right, and raising the taxes will harm the economy which in fact is the truth. What should he do? Should he cave to the political pressure? Would that be putting the country above partisanship?
Why does this network feel free to impugn the motives of the people that disagree with them. Specifically, the political leaders that think increasing taxes on the wealthy will reduce prosperity and jobs? This is simply AD HOMINEN argumentation, and thus demagoguery.
It is also demagoguery to fault a defenseless minority for the enormous national debt when they are contributing more than anyone else to its balance. The proponents of raising the tax say let's put it to a vote. Who will win the 98% or the 2% minority?
When you refuse to defend minorities rights, like those of the 2%, you run the risk of losing the principle that protects you, i.e. everybody's rights should be respected. Don't be surprised that the next time the question is put to a vote you are in the penalized minority. Frankly, this is what you deserve. Maybe then you will learn the lesson that everybody's property rights should be respected. And just because somebody is rich doesn't mean that you have the right to take as much money from them democratically as you want
The media is looking at the money that that 2% (and especially the .1%) has funneled to the Republican party, and making the conclusion. The idea that politicians do things for ideological reasons or factual reasons is almost completely laughable. It it were not for the Ron Pauls and Ralpha Naders, it would be.
If the majority vote to punish the top 1 or 2%, then they will suffer the consequences. The top 1% or 2% will take their money elsewhere. Or, maybe it is all just bluster from the top 1 or 2% and they will just eat the tax.
For the top 1%, there is also the same question. If you cut spending and raise taxes, the deficit will shrink, leading to a more stable financial situation (according to that top 1% themselves, our debt is a big issue). But taxes on the bottom 98% will directly be taken out of money that goes into buying your products, and taxeso nthe top 2% will cut into your profits. Spending cuts will also take money out of the economy in both ways.
So that decision has to be made. It is clear that the top 1%, with its money in Washington, wants to get money by taxing the poor and middle-class more, by robbing Social Security, and by cutting welfare.
Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:
Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a
We're not weird.. We're informed!
Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.
Thanks for posting!
We should all RENAME (and at every chance we get) the "fiscal cliff" to into the SPENDING CLIFF.
What is in a Name? you ask? EVERYTHING.
Yes, please BUY this wonderful libertarian BOOK! We all must know the History of Freedom! Buy it today!
"The System of Liberty: Themes in the History of Classical Liberalism" ...by author George Smith --
Buy it Here: http://www.amazon.com/dp/05211820
Once these terms get into media hands, they don't let up until the fear boils over.
I bet we'd have a lot more support for going over the cliff if it were called the Spending Cliff.
By claiming there is no conspiracy, you prove to those who believe in the conspiracy that you are part of the conspiracy.
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here: