Willardians should be happy now ! Predict win for Romney ...

[sudden valley gunner]

+ 5 for naming those guys.

-1 for omitting Hayek.

LOL....I was going to mention Hayek...only to mention I wouldn't include him in the list because I haven't personally read him yet....the others I have. He is in my e reader though. I am working my way through Rothbard's Concieved in Liberty, I really like this book 5000 pages but he has a knack for really letting you envision the history.

 

[Tawnos]

If you include Hayek, you start having these crazy "socialist" notions, though

From The Road to Serfdom

There is no reason why, in a society which has reached the general level of wealth ours has, the first kind of security should not be guaranteed to all without endangering general freedom; that is: some minimum of food, shelter and clothing, sufficient to preserve health. Nor is there any reason why the state should not help to organize a comprehensive system of social insurance in providing for those common hazards of life against which few can make adequate provision.

 

[Citizen]

LOL....I was going to mention Hayek...only to mention I wouldn't include him in the list because I haven't personally read him yet....the others I have. He is in my e reader though. I am working my way through Rothbard's Concieved in Liberty, I really like this book 5000 pages but he has a knack for really letting you envision the history.

Thanks for the tip!

The Road to Serfdom by Friedrich Hayek is a good book. But, cumbersome reading. Lotsa long sentences and big words. If you can find something easier for your first Hayek book... If not, then The Road to Serfdom it is.

Hayek is kinda cool in that he won the Nobel Prize in Economics in the 1970's. For his work on the business cycle (boom and bust), if I recall. Apparently the only time an honest economist was ever recognized.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

If you include Hayek, you start having these crazy "socialist" notions, though

From The Road to Serfdom

The notions of socially taking care of our fellow humans to me are not crazy, we naturally are inclined in many ways to help others.

What is crazy to me is the essence of socialism/socialist society is the central control given to a few to steal from others in the name of helping.

 

[Citizen]

If you include Hayek, you start having these crazy "socialist" notions, though

From The Road to Serfdom

You are quite right. Hayek was known to be socialist leaning. As I understand it, Rothbard or others helped convince him to abandon some of those ideas.

 

[OC for ME]

Taxes were apportioned based upon population, not income. By changing the tax to an income tax, it allowed the federal government to interact with and control the individual in a very personal and unconstitutional way.

There other ways to ensure distribution of taxes among the States based on relative wealth without the 16A and without income taxes. The easiest would be a national sales tax, such as the poorly-named "Fair Tax." It would already be constitutional, even after the repeal of the 16A, as one way to implement an excise tax would be as a percentage of the purchase price of goods.

With a sales tax, the feds will be much less intrusive, we won't have to testify against ourselves just to determine our taxes, and the feds can't use the tax code to get around the 18 enumerated powers.

The implementation of the income tax gave the progressives the power they needed to effect the erstwhile unconstitutional changes that they wanted.

Repeal the 16A.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

The taxes collected (tax base) was based on property, how much land you owned, the number of cows you owned. County tax assessor/collector went around and counted your land and cows then gave you a tax bill, you paid the state. The distribution of the tax, the amount that the feds received was based on population per state. The actual taxing was done by the state. The feds then requisitioned their cut from the states. A direct income tax is easier to manage. The ability of the feds to count your cows and count your land is impractical at best. This is why property taxes are still done at the county level and those monies are not paid to the feds.

The 16A is simply a means to confiscate directly from the source of the monies to operate the federal bureaucracy. No need to use a middle man, the state, the collect the taxes for them.

 

[eye95]

I don't want the Feds counting my cows or examining my income and "deductible" expenses. We enumerated the powers of the federal government for a reason: so that it would have only the interaction with the People that was absolutely necessary. The closer to the People that state interaction happens, the better. Local is better than State, and State is infinitely better than federal. When local and State governments set the rules, we have choice over jurisdictions, which equates to increased Liberty. When the Feds exercise power, we have no choice, and Liberty takes a hit.

The least intrusive way for the Feds to tax individuals and to distribute that burden based on economic activity is via a sales tax.

Repeal the 16A!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

 

[WalkingWolf]

I don't want the Feds counting my cows or examining my income and "deductible" expenses. We enumerated the powers of the federal government for a reason: so that it would have only the interaction with the People that was absolutely necessary. The closer to the People that state interaction happens, the better. Local is better than State, and State is infinitely better than federal. When local and State governments set the rules, we have choice over jurisdictions, which equates to increased Liberty. When the Feds exercise power, we have no choice, and Liberty takes a hit.

The least intrusive way for the Feds to tax individuals and to distribute that burden based on economic activity is via a sales tax.

Repeal the 16A!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

+1 Federal income tax, and social security are IMO fascist, applying numbers to people as well as having them report where they live, as well as other information.

 

[Grapeshot]

+1 Federal income tax, and social security are IMO fascist, applying numbers to people as well as having them report where they live, as well as other information.

Still true that information is power. They more of it they have, the more power they have.

 

[Citizen]

I don't want the Feds counting my cows or examining my income and "deductible" expenses. We enumerated the powers of the federal government for a reason: so that it would have only the interaction with the People that was absolutely necessary. The closer to the People that state interaction happens, the better. Local is better than State, and State is infinitely better than federal. When local and State governments set the rules, we have choice over jurisdictions, which equates to increased Liberty. When the Feds exercise power, we have no choice, and Liberty takes a hit.

The least intrusive way for the Feds to tax individuals and to distribute that burden based on economic activity is via a sales tax.

Repeal the 16A!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

You know, I wonder about that. There was so much shenanigans going on with regard to the constitutional convention and ratification, that I sometimes wonder if maybe the whole enumerated powers argument wasn't a scam to lull people into accepting the new constitution. Of course, I know it was more complicated than that. And, I know some of the attendees were genuinely interested in a more powerful government that was still restrained.

But sometimes I wonder how much of what we see written in the constitution wasn't a power-struggle. A lot of those men were powerful in their own states. It would make more sense to me to analyze it in terms of power-hungry men in the state governments not wanting to give up too much of their power against power-hungry men who wanted national power. (Remember that many of the concon attendees ended up in the federal government). Scholars even have a letter from notorious monarchist Alexander Hamilton to George Washington in early 1787, several months before the convention, hinting that the convention would be shifted from tuning up the Articles to writing a whole new plan for government.

The omission of a Bill of Rights. No express prohibition against implied powers. Incomplete Article III (federal courts). No penalty for violations of the constitution or even the Bill of Rights. Too many loose ends. Those guys were intimately familiar with how government behaves, how it will ignore even express restraints if given the chance.

So, sometimes I wonder.

 

[katsung47]

http://www.humanevents.com/2012/08/23/electoral-college-model-predicts-big-romney-win/


I predict my candidate will not win , I don't need a fancy computer for dat !

These are gimmicks to play you. The election is pre-fixed. Romney will lose.

The real reason is the Feds need Obama's new Health care reform. There is nothing they care if people can benefit from it or not. They just want it to frame a target in their case with which they have created OKC bombing, 911 attack to get the Patriot Act.

You can see it from the surprise turn around of the Chief Justice Roberts.

726. The surprise turnaround of Chief Justice (7/4/2012)

On 6/28, Supreme Court issued a pass for Obama's Health care policy. What surprised people was Chief Justice Roberts sided with four liberal justices in voting 5-4 to declare the law's "individual mandate" constitutional.


Why did John Roberts, a Bush appointee who generally votes with his conservative colleagues, suddenly change his opinion to vote with the liberal? Just three months ago, he still opposed that "individual mandate" law.

Chief Justice Roberts: Can government require you to buy a cell phone?

Mar. 27, 2012 - Chief Justice Roberts asks the Solicitor General Verrilli if the government can require the purchase of cell phones for emergency services, just as the health-care law requires for health insurance.(The Washington Post)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...ll-phone-042/2012/03/27/gIQA9kkreS_video.html

There are different theories about this mysterious turnaround. Mostly were from disinformation office of the Feds to cover up their puppet Roberts. None could solve the puzzle. I know why - the Feds want that "individual mandate" provision. When the Feds want to put Kat Sung under surveillance, they forced the law makers passing through the Patriot Act. (Through OKC bombing and 911 bombing) When the Feds want to restrict Kat Sung in US, they activate the TSA search, (blocking leaving from air flight) blocking the entering of Canada and Mexico; (by "Operation Fast and Furious") see "697. TSA search, Canada and Mexico (12/11/2011)". Now when they want Kat Sung to have a health insurance, they activate their proxy- John Roberts.

Six years ago when Roberts was selected as Chief Justice, I have written already,
"344. Roberts, a secret agent of D.O.J. (9/18/05)"
http://katsung47.yuku.com/topic/4/The-dark-side-of-the-USA?page=4
This case proves I was very, very accurate at that judgement.

I'll talk about why the Feds want that "individual mandate" provision.

 

[eye95]

Roberts changed his opinion because he tumbled to the power to do anything that the 16A gave the federal government. The 16A gives the federal...er...national government the ability to levy an income tax and to adjust that tax based upon economic activity--which, despite Obama's denials, is how the individual mandate was implemented. Therefore, the individual mandate is constitutional. The problem lies in the Constitution. To fix it, we must...

Repeal the 16A!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

 

[Citizen]

SNIP Roberts changed his opinion because he tumbled to the power to do anything that the 16A gave the federal government.

Told you that during after-dinner drinks and cigar, did he?

 

[Grapeshot]

Before I go to sleep, I check under the bed for Romney.












I check the closet for Obama.

Might do better to close the closet door............and lock it! Jus' sayin'

 

[WalkingWolf]

Might do better to close the closet door............and lock it! Jus' sayin'

I keep rat poison in my closet...

 

[Grapeshot]

I keep rat poison in my closet...

I don't.............but do have a high speed delivery system.

 

[davidmcbeth]

I don't.............but do have a high speed delivery system.

Mine is a picture of Rose O'Donnell with a mini gallows next to it ... I am clearing out the self-hung bodies routinely.
:monkey:monkey

 

[katsung47]

Predict failure for Romney. The reason is simple:

Help Obama to win the second term (10/24/2012)

The recent Gallup poll shows that Mitt Romney leads over President Barack Obama in president Campaign. That’s just a gimmick to cheat people. The election result is pre-decided. Obama will stay for his second term. It doesn’t relate to any politics. It is for a case of the Feds. They need Obama’s Health Reform that they forced Chief Justice Roberts to change his mind in June to pass the “Health Reform”. (see “ 726. The surprise turnaround of Chief Justice (7/4/2012)”)

To keep Obama to stay in his seat, they have to create an economic background that favors him. Two months before voting date, in early September, we saw European bank chief Draghi said the bank would buy the bond with no limit. How could this affect US president election?

Draghi helps out Obama campaign

By Robin Harding in Washington September 6, 2012


Barack Obama’s chances of re-election as US president rose on Thursday and the words that did it were not his but Mario Draghi’s.

Long before Mr Obama stood up to accept the Democratic nomination in Charlotte, North Carolina, the head of the European Central Bank had sketched out a new plan to buy the bonds of troubled eurozone countries.


That will not move the polls; it will not move a single vote. But Mr Draghi has lowered the gravest of risks to Mr Obama: a pre-election meltdown in the eurozone that would have blown up banks, pulverised Wall Street, and routed a fragile US economy back into recession.

If that happened, it would not be Mr Obama’s fault, but he would get the blame. Just as the failure of Lehman Brothers doomed his rival John McCain in 2008, a eurozone implosion would create economic odds too great for Mr Obama to surmount.

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/bc1cf132-f831-11e1-bec8-00144feabdc0.html#axzz261Uy9nmA

Within days, Federal Reserve Chief Bernanke pushed out another QE which would push up economy temporarily but hurt it in long term with inflation. The Republicans felt it immediately. The timing of issuing QE3 is not a coincidence. It helps Obama.

Fed risks political fallout from QE3

By Robin Harding and James Politi in Washington September 14, 2012

Mitt Romney, the Republican candidate, duly opened fire on Friday after the Fed began an open-ended third round of quantitative easing (QE3), under which it will buy $40bn of mortgage-backed securities a month.

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/b7de9070-fe77-11e1-8028-00144feabdc0.html#axzz26Vualgix

QE3 will create another housing bubble.

Marc Faber: Fed's QE forever is ludicrous; no country has become rich from consumption

Source: BI-ME , Author: Constantine Gardner Fri September 14, 2012

"Asset prices will go up and the money will flow to the Mayfair Economy," he said, defining the latter as an "economy of the rich people whose assets prices go up and whose net worth increases" without any trickle down benefit to the real economy.

What you have is a small economy that is booming and the majority of the economy is being damaged by QE, Faber explains.

Faber sees the Fed's monetary policies over the last 15 years as mainly responsible for the various asset bubbles (Nasdaq, real estate etc...) leading to the subprime crisis in 2007. "The money printers and the neo-Keynesians interventionists are responsible for the crisis, reckons Faber, and people should know this."

Dr Bernanke's attempt to boost growth and reduce unemployment will end up, according to Dr. Faber, in a fiscal Grand Canyon with never ending deficits, the majority of the economy being damaged, the man in the street facing higher prices and losing his job.

http://www.bi-me.com/main.php?id=59324&t=1&c=62&cg=4&mset=

Faber sees the Fed's monetary policies over the last 15 years as mainly responsible for the various asset bubbles (Nasdaq, real estate etc...), the Nasdaq bubble is the dot.com bubble, I talked about these two bubbles from #733 to #739. And the Federal Reserve now continues to create the third one. At the purpose to help the Feds to remove the hot potatoes in their hands to the ordinary people.

 

[davidmcbeth]

http://www.humanevents.com/2012/08/23/electoral-college-model-predicts-big-romney-win/


I predict my candidate will not win , I don't need a fancy computer for dat !

wawawaaaaaa .... they were wrong, go figure

 

[katsung47]

743. Create a hoax of a better off economy (10/29/2012)

Three months before the voting date, the unemployment rate was still high that it made the re-election unlikely for Obama.

What Does an 8.3 Percent Unemployment Rate Mean for the Election?

By: Jon King | August 5, 2012

Many pundits (including this one) have made the point that if the unemployment rate is at 8% or higher that the president will have an uphill battle to win the election.

The reason why 8% is such a hurdle is that no modern president has ever won re-election when unemployment was over 8%. Actually, if one wants to take an even more skeptical view, they could say that no president since Roosevelt has won re-election with unemployment over 7.2%.

http://newstalkkgvo.com/what-does-8-3-unemployment-mean-for-the-election/

It’s hard to convince people the unemployment rate would drop below 7.2% in two months from 8.3%. But they still could manage to get a figure of 7.8% in order to make Obama’s re-election more reasonable.

Fact Check: Labor Secretary Solis Misleads on Jobs Revisions

by Joel B. Pollak 5 Oct 2012

Suspicion about the federal government's September jobs report has fallen on Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis, who appeared on CNBC this morning and defended the numbers from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), claiming--falsely--that upward revisions of 86,000 jobs were from the private sector. In fact, the new number is entirely accounted for by upwards revisions to state and federal government payrolls.

The BLS reported that while only 114,000 jobs were created in September--which would have translated into a rise in unemployment from 8.1% to 8.2%--the unemployment rate fell dramatically to 7.8%. That unusual drop is the fastest in nearly three decades, and was unexpected even in the rosiest predictions.

One reason for the rise was an upward revision of 86,000 to the July and August jobs numbers--all of which came from a 91,000 increase in the estimate of public sector jobs. Private sector job estimates were actually revised downward by 5,000.

In addition, the BLS reported a large rise in the number of part-time jobs, adding 600,000 jobs to the total--a dramatic increase of 7.5%, not explained by any other economic indicators--and raising questions about whether the government had changed the way it counted part-time workers.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Govern...or-Secretary-Solis-as-Jobs-Numbers-Questioned

Nobody can verify the figure. It’s all under their control. They could cover up the truth of 911 attack. They could make Bin Laden died twice. So what to maintain a puppet president? If they could have kept a war criminal (who activated a war with a lie) to stay on his second term, what’s the problem for another puppet? All they have to do is to create a hoax of a better off economy for several months then blame everything on the coming financial cliff.