In one of the boards that I frequent and am an administrator a member brought up the issue that Democrats are the party of the rich and another brought up the fact that the Republican's are not much better. No surprise to me I have been saying this for years.
Does anyone ever wonder why those that are the richest people in the world promote socialism? Everyone from Warren Buffet, to the Hollywood elite, we see a continual assault on the free market economy and promotion of socialist policy.
Many people are confused as to the difference between capitalism, socialism, and free market economies. Most assume that free market is capitalism but that is not true. Capitalists may have gained their wealth through free market, but they are not one in the same. Once many (not all, such as those like Forbes and a few others) have gained the financial where with all to be able to control whole countries they are dedicated to maintaining that power by locking the door behind them and the method of doing this is the new feudalism called socialism.
Socialism contrary to common belief does NOT tax the rich to balance the books sort to speak. The theory of “redistribution” in an of itself makes sense, but in fact those that make the decision as to who should be “taxed” are those that are in power already and typically it is those that are wealthy. They are not about to give up their wealth, and therefore their power to this altruistic “redistribution” of wealth.
What has ALWAYS happened whether it be the Soviet Union, China, or here in the Socialist States of America is that the middle class is the one paying the bills. The elite tell us that we need to give to HELP those in need, they structure taxation so that they have the loop holes to avoid paying while we all sit here year after year trying to figure out how we can make ends meet.
The sad part is that these uber-rich have the money to promote programs that sound good and play on our sympathies where we feel obligated to follow their lead. However they have the money to throw out a thousand here, and thousand there, where we are looking at just making next months mortgage or rent.
Each election year we are faced with a decision in this country as to who will do the best for the common good. and each year we are confronted by politicians that float in circles. and hobnob with these rich elite, if not one themselves. The old saying of a "chicken in every pot" is quite telling here because we have a group of politicians most of which are playing to the new “downtrodden” the illegal immigrants, and trying to make them the new voting block that will get them elected, or at least keep them in power.
Truth be told most people haven’t the time or the patience to sift through the machinations that our politicians weave their way through it is time we had a third of fourth party that at the very least hold the feet of the other two parties to the fire.
12 comments:
Right on PJ. Several years ago when Bush pushed through that 5% tax break, several wealthy folks, especially from Hollywood complained about how this tax break would only benefit the wealthy and would drain resources from necessary social programs for the poor. Many of them said they would be glad to give that back. I found that laughable. For one, they would not just give that money back, they would be happy to lose the 5% break. Thats because they would have their high priced accountants find ways to save that money because you know that once they don't have to give it to the government they never want to give it back. And if they were really concerned about the wealthy getting the tax breaks they shouldn't be getting then there is no law stating that they can't pay more taxes then they are legally obligated to pay. They don't have to take every exemption or take advantage of every loophole. But as you pointed out, they don't care about these programs. They want the middle class to foot the entire bill.
RockJerry, Mr. Cambio thanks you for the above back rub. There’s nothing like preaching to the choir, eh?
However, I would disagree with the premise of your essay. This notion that all the richest people in the world promote socialism flies in the face of reality, unless you have such a broad definition of the term “socialism” as to make debate really not worthwhile. I think what you mean is that some prominent rich people, particularly the so-called “rich and famous” that the television set blasts into our living rooms on a daily basis, unflaggingly present themselves in the media as “do gooders”, and promote what you would consider the liberal agenda in America. Is that “promoting socialism”? I guess it is to the fringe conservative…
For middle class people today, the federal tax rate is 28% of gross taxable income. There are fortunately some loopholes for the average taxpayer – the home mortgage insurance deduction being the biggest and most common. Is a 28% tax rate really socialism? Really?
I appreciate your concern for the middle class and I imagine you have been seduced by John Edwards’ “Two Americas” theme and will throw him a vote. He’ll need it.
Hello again Anon, nice to see you again. I see that you still have not bothered to read ALL my post and just cherry pick what you think you can sarcastically discount.
I clearly state that not all wealthy people promote socialism, so your first point is already void of accurate content.
Secondly your claim that the liberal agenda is not socialist in nature, unless of course I am using the extreme conservative definition of socialism, is again fraught with accusation, and lacking any factual counter argument. I have already stated my definition of socialism in my “essay” so why don’t you enlighten us ultra conservatives with your definition of socialism.
As for your simplification of the middle class only paying 28%, forgetting the reality that not only does the middle class pay that, but when you add up all the other taxes that are tacked on to virtually everything we use or do, the REAL tax burden is more like 60% of ones income, you obviously are either so wealthy that it doesn’t matter to you, or just blinded by the liberal intelligentsia’s propaganda.
Lastly, the one that made me laugh the most was your contention that John Edwards, and I might be on the same page. First of all I don’t agree with his position of there being two America’s, and I am also not against free enterprise, or against entrepreneurship, and corporations, so once again you have read into my piece that which you wish to read, and dismiss the facts with your own false assumptions. John Edwards is a socialist and wishes to regulate and tax business into submission, and frankly, although I doubt he would openly admit it, I would venture to guess that he wouldn’t mind having all business controlled totally by the government.
“Does anyone ever wonder why those that are the richest people in the world promote socialism?” – Patrick J. Cambio
Seems pretty clear, doesn’t it? But I guess you give a pass to Steve Forbes and a “few others” so that makes it all right. Your dissembling would do Bill Clinton proud. My friend, it’s quite more than a few and we could spend days Googling rich people and providing names on all sides of the political spectrum. So, let’s agree with your reply: Not all wealthy people promote “socialism”. Thank you for backing off.
So what is the point, then, of your essay?
Is your point that the rich use social programs in some diabolical plot prevent anyone else from becoming wealthy? Well, I just saw a 60 minutes piece on the 23-year-old founder of Facebook who is apparently now worth billions. I guess the rich missed that one. More generally, and over the longer term (let’s say the last 40 years), the standard of living in the U.S. has increased in an unprecedented fashion, there are many more millionaires, and the GNP has grown leaps and bounds. Apparently, the rich have failed in their plot to “redistribute” the rest of American into poverty.
Is your point that the rich don’t pay their fair share? You complain that there are loopholes for the rich. You bemoan that the middle class is overly burdened. All true and John Edwards would agree with you! So you’d like to close the loopholes and increase the burden on the wealthiest of us – about 5% of the population? Barak agrees!!
Is your point that the rich seem to be able get themselves elected to office at a high rate? Well, yes – they have the most money (which counts a lot in modern American politics) and often come from the best educated and most well connected parts of society. No surprise there. Although I note that talented politicians from modest means can do well too (Bill Clinton and Mike Huckabee both come to mind). Perhaps you’d like to use tax dollars to fund election campaigns and level the playing field?
Is your point that all taxes are bad? Ah…now we are getting somewhere. But you haven’t really stated a thesis and then argued to it. “Taxes = Bad” is certainly a favorite of the conservatives. However the conservatives that your type have put in office have outspent any Democrat and are on the way to ruining the economy even more than they have ruined foreign policy. Good job conservatives! We’ll all be sure to trust you again real soon! (You will argue that you are not a mainstream conservative, but you are more on their side than not...and part of the problem, not the solution!!)
I see from your biography that you live in Massachusetts, so perhaps that is why you refer to our great and proud country, that many have fought and died to protect, as the “Socialist States of America”. Perhaps your state does feel like a socialist state, but YOU choose to live there. Maybe the rest of the country is different.
Check. And mate. I hope I wasn't too harsh on you, but it looks like you are not participating, so onwards and upwards!
Sorry Anon, I have been really busy of late and besides I was giving you enough time retract your idiotic response to my original post, you are right it is checkmate, but not by you.
I find your assertions to be laughable – you always make me laugh – because one individual makes it to the upper crust there is no design to subjugate the middle class to mediocre economic servitude?
Based on a study done by Penn State, “estimates in 2003, almost 25% of the nation's counties had low per-capita incomes below one half the national average or less, high unemployment, low labor force participation rates, and a high dependency on government transfer payments-all measures of economic distress.” It also goes on to say; “Although the War on Poverty was declared in the 1960s, a poor family today in 2005 is much worse off than the average poor family in the 1960s, because official poverty measures have failed to keep up with changing basic needs.”
The key word there is “government transfer payments”. More and more the nations “poor” are being supplemented by government a.k.a. taxpayers (middle class), otherwise known as socialism - redistribution of income. Unfortunately it is the middle class that is taking the brunt of this redistribution not the uber-wealthy. In so doing the middle is actually getting smaller, even though the GNP is growing - hmmm, wonder where the additional cash flow is going?
Between the national debt and our servitude to the Federal Reserve (a private corporation run by rich banking concerns), inflation that we are told isn’t happening and exponential growth of taxes from the local to the Federal making 18,000 – 20,000 today is POVERTY status, whereas only 30 years ago one could actually own a home and raise a family on that income. Again, your assertion that there are more millionaires than at any other time is also misleading in that a millionaire today is no better off than someone earning 5 figures in the fifties. The inflationary changes over the last 50 years have made millionaires more middle class than that of being part of the rich upper class.
As usual your liberal shortsightedness and lack of economic understanding has placed you firmly in the hands of the socialist political machine owned, and operated by the Uber-wealth super socialists and your buying into the hype that we are better off today that 50 years ago is going to buy your children and grand-children a life of indentured slavery to Daddy-gov and their puppet-masters the world banking concerns.
Welcome back, Mr. Cambio, to “Just My Opinion”. I was about to file “Abandonment of Property” papers with the appropriate authorities. I was thinking of renaming the site “Just Obama’s Opinion”…
Interesting quote above from the Penn State “Poverty in America” web site, which discusses the problem of persistent poverty in the U.S., not the middle class. But I guess your argument supporting your claim that the rich “subjugate the middle class to mediocre economic servitude” is that government transfer payments established by the so-called “War on Poverty” impoverish the middle class. Interesting.
Since welfare is 1 – 2 percentage points of the federal budget, and a fraction of defense spending, it’s curious how you draw a straight line from welfare to “subjugation of the middle class”, and let the rest of the conservative economic agenda off the hook. But I see you throw the Federal Reserve Bank in the stew for good measure. Why not throw in the Trilateral Commission and Gold Standard arguments too? I mean, if you want folks to roll their eyes and start looking for the nearest exit when you start spouting conspiracy theories, you *have* to include those two gems.
Anyways, your beloved conservatives’ war in Iraq puts these “government transfer payments” to shame rather quickly, as does Social Security. And I’m sure you want your Social Security payment when you retire – there’s no entitlement like the middle class entitlement!! If I were you, I’d be more concerned about the government’s funding of the military-industrial complex that President Eisenhower warned us about, than some welfare payments to a bunch of poor folks. Defense and the national debt, that’s where the real expenditures happen. And haven’t you noticed, but welfare has been reduced over the years and the emphasis now is on education and transitional assistance to the poor, “workfare”, not endless welfare payments. Bush’s budgets decrease welfare spending, not increase it, at the same time conservatives have driven the national debt through the roof and launched a new Star Wars defense initiative. Nice going.
The middle class may be getting smaller, but have you been to the mall lately? How about the mall parking lot? Lots of premium SUVs clogging the parking lanes whenever I go. The economy has changed and financial pressures are far greater today than 40 years ago. The middle class is under seige thanks to the conservatives, but removing the safety nets to save a couple of bucks is not the cure.
$18,000 – 20,000 is poverty status today, depending on the number of kids you need to feed, but 30 years ago it was not poverty status. If you had a job that paid 20 grand in 1975, chances are that job pays $75,000 grand today or more – that’s how inflation works. Last I looked, the median family income in your state was about 60 grand a year, which means half make more and half make less. Two income families have changed the paradigm.
According to a NYT article last year, “The top 0.1 percent of earners — that’s one taxpayer out of every 1,000 — now brings in 11 percent of the nation’s total income, triple the share that they did just a generation ago.” I think if you pursued that bit of data, you might find the real problem with the U.S. economy and the shrinking middle class, not some AFDC payments to feed hungry children. But the poor make a useful target for the right, don’t they?
By the way, who says we aren’t told Inflation isn’t happening? Maybe you’re not told, maybe because all you watch is Fox News, aka Bush Cheerleader Network, but the government publishes this data regularly and it is reported widely in regular newspapers. You should get out more.
Servitude to the Federal Reserve? Where do you get this stuff! The Fed is a funding mechanism for the nation’s banking system, that’s all, and the President appoints the people that run it. It’s a pretty darn good idea. It’s kept the nation out of any depression since the 1930s, or hadn’t you noticed? How many banking panics have we had since then? Exactly zero, that’s how many. Before the Fed, runs on banks and economic instability were pretty common. All we’ve had since is unfettered growth with some fairly short term recessionary activity. Thank your lucky stars we have a sophisticated banking system in place. You want to return to free banking and regular financial panics???? God help us…I think it is you who does not understand economics.
Btw, you should open up your blog to comments. This waiting around ten days until you find a moment to post comments is a real drag...
Well as usual Steve, oops I mean Anon, you are full of accusations and no substance.
This won't be a long answer, but I have to correct you again, it is NOT my conservatives because I am not one of the neo-con's nor do I buy into their liberal lite policies.
As for the Trilaterialist conspirocy, although I don't buy into the John Birch Society claims of the Trilaterialists I do believe that international bankers - which do control our dollar - not the government - do have a great impact on the direction of our government and media - hell they have you convinced that G.W. and the "compassionate conservatives" are really conservative.
As for your mall example, again I'm ROFLMAO. Have you bothered to read the lastest reports on how many people are credit poor? The only reason these people are spending is because of people like you that think that the economy is doing great and telling them borrow, borrow, borrow. Talk about owing ones soul to the company store.
And by the way if in fact my "conservatives" have destroyed the economy, you'll really have to make up your mind, it's either doing great or it's not.
The stock market has been tanking for weeks now, oil prices are going through the roof, inflation, even with the Fed reducing interest rates, so we can BORROW more, and go more in debt has not helped - I'm not surprised.
I suggest you pick a few books on economics Anon, we are becoming a socialist economy and my use of welfare is more encompassing than what you claim, 1-2%, LMAO, add into that all the entitlement programs that the government now hands out - it is ALL welfare, some corporate welfare, some (very little) for the poor, and NONE for the middle class, cause it is coming out of our pocket.
Did my conservatives do this - hell no, a REAL Conservative does not supplement corporations, or hand out entitlements to those that don't deserve it. A real conservative doesn't buy into the communist - yes - communist graduated income tax - look it up before you say I am over the top, it is one of the 10 planks of Karl Marx Communist Manifesto to make a country communist. None of what the Neo-cons has done is fiscally conservative.
Well, a little longer than I intended but you get the picture, your assertions are lacking in fact,or reality as usual.
It’s interesting that you accuse me of lacking in fact or reality but you don’t really rebut any of the real facts or figures that I present you. Go figure! (pun intended)
For example, when I point out the underlying fact of your own assertion on “War on Poverty” expenditures (1-2% of the Federal budget), you change the premise of the argument to include middle class entitlements and corporate handouts. That is a different argument altogether. Plus you are wrong when you say there are no entitlements for the middle class (NONE!). Social Security is a huge entitlement and an annual budget buster, yet you are silent on whether it should be eliminated. Methinks you are looking forward to that monthly government kiss in the mail (Thank FDR when you get it). And, the home mortgage deduction on the IRS return is a HUGE subsidy to the middle class. So don’t say there is nothing for the middle class (NONE!) as they are some of the bigger hogs feeding at the government trough and are always asking for more, more, more.
The dollar is a commodity like anything else and is controlled by the world’s currency markets, as is the euro, the yen, and any other valuable currency. You may not like it, and you may choose to think of currency markets as some shadowy cartel with a few puppetmasters pulling strings, but I don’t worry about it, frankly. If the rich international bankers weren’t making money off of this, they’d be making money off something different. You never propose alternatives however. It’s easy to throw bombs at the establishment, but much harder to propose solutions.
As for the economy, the definition of recession is two quarters in a row with negative growth in GDP. That has not happened. Have things slowed? Did the housing bubble finally pop? Are the hens coming home to roost for mortgage lenders? Sure, but the economy was rip roaring along for so many sequential quarters, that a slowdown was bound to happen. In my lifetime, it happens every 6-8 years. This is normal and this too shall pass. Thank goodness for the Fed! The last recession happened when Bush ran for president, when GW literally talked the economy into the cellar campaigning against the Clinton years.
Anon, I see nothing in your so-called rebuttal that refutes anything I said.
Let’s take you’re your supposition that S.S.I. and tax breaks are entitlements. Social Security and tax breaks are NOT entitlements. First of all S.S. when first proposed was not mandatory, secondly it was intended to be a “savings account” that we pay into for our selves – how is a something we pay for ourselves an entitlement, hmm? Tax cut an entitlement - wow we get to keep our own hard earned money - that is an entitlement to you? An entitlement is something that we pay into that goes to others.
You go on to dismiss the international banker control of our economy saying in effect that if they aren’t making money this way they will do it another - LMAO once again. Is your name Spot, here Spot, sit Spot, roll over Spot. So you will just accept the quagmire that they are slowing putting us in - and I’m not talking about a character on Family Guy.
You finish that with saying:
“You never propose alternatives however. It’s easy to throw bombs at the establishment, but much harder to propose solutions.’
You obviously have not read all my posts on this Blog, check out the one on taxes. I suggest pulling out of the FED, going to a national centralized banking system controlled REALLY by our representatives, and repealing the graduated income tax, replacing it with a consumption tax, or national sales tax.
The problem with you and the majority of people in this country is you are willing to ignore the freedoms we are loosing, slowly, as long as you are not to badly impacted by what is happening.
I am not saying that we are at the point of no return nor that we have no alternatives as some of my more radical right wing friends claim, but what I am saying is we do have alternatives, but we must recognize first that the direction we are going in is wrong, and although it may not enslave us now it has the potential to do so for our children or our grand children.
One of my board acquaintances quoted a man I believe was one of the last real statesman in the country. He said: "A government that is big enough to give you all you want is big enough to take it all away."
Barry Goldwater
And I firmly believe that we are giving our government to much power and need to return it to the people. If that is wrong thinking in your mind I seriously feel sorry for your progeny, who will be the ones that will suffer your laissez faire attitude toward what is truly happening.
My, my. Your misunderstanding of how Social Security works is a stunner. You ought to go back and do some homework, Mr. Cambio. Social Security not an entitlement? That’s a good one. Thanks for the laugh.
Payments to current retirees have ALWAYS been financed by a tax (Currently 15%) on current workers' wages, half as a payroll tax and half paid by employers. Social Security is the biggest direct redistribution of wealth in the U.S., but it is no surprise that you are an ardent defender, as the middle class is always the biggest hog at the entitlment trough and the non-means tested Social Security system is the biggest trough there is. It is a budget buster and as socialist a program as one might find, and you can’t wait for that monthly kiss in the mail from Big Daddy Government.
You do not pay for your own Social Security. When you retire, active workers will pay for your retirement, just like you pay for retirees right now. And good thing you do, as those slot machines at the Indian Casinos aren’t going to feed themselves. But let’s do some math, as I always like to back my assertions with fact.
If you worked for 40 years and average $50,000 a year, you and your employers will contribute about $300,000 to Social Security. Of that, you yourself really only contributed $150,000. That is money that is directly redistributed to the retired. It’s not a savings account. It never was. It’s not optional. It never was. You and your employer are funding the retired. When you retire at 66, you better hope there is an adequate workforce to support you, as you will be eligible for about $1,800 a month. If you live for another 20 years, you will receive over $430,000 from the system in current dollars. See any problems with that math? Do you see why Social Security is in trouble? Can you really claim it is not socialist and not an entitlement?
You are right that the mortgage interest deduction is not an entitlement. It is a tax shelter, perhaps the biggest there is, and it is targeted to the middle class. As for your attack on the Fed, I guess you don’t mind a national centralized banking system, you’d just like one that is not run by bankers. Perhaps we should let the philatelists have a try at running it? Maybe dirt track racers? I don’t know, but I think letting experienced bankers run the Fed is a good idea, just like folks running a hospital ought to know something about medicine. Call me crazy. And since the President nominates the Fed leadership and the Congress approves, I guess it is controlled by “our representatives”. Did you have someone else in mind?
You like to refer to vague conspiracies a lot, and how I and everyone else is apparently somehow duped. Perhaps. Maybe some organized cadre of international bankers is controlling the U.S. economy and have created some kind of “quagmire”. I don’t know and it is hard to disprove if you just throw out nameless consipiracies. I think the fact that China lends the U.S. Treasury a ton of dough, to support the conservative’s war in Iraq, the pending middle class rebate (another budget busting entitlement that I bet you love and your children will pay for), among other things, is a problem and worthy of discussion. It’s easy to cry about the unnamed monster under the bed, but I'd prefer some substance.
Enough of this. When is the next blog entry?
Sorry to have taken so long to respond there Anon, I actually wrote this in February but have been exceptionally busy so just put it aside until I had time to deal with it.
“My, my”, is right, boy I love it when you take the bait. I hung that rather simplistic explanation of Social Security out their for you to step in it, and explain just how ineffective the crown jewel of the welfare system DOESN’T and hasn’t worked since it’s inception.
So let’s also step back and see what you were laughing at - oh ya – Social Security not an entitlement - and you still claim it is – now you have me laughing. So employers aren’t middle class people just some nebulous group of those evil corporate types that Daddy Gov FORCES to pay for a piece of my retirement. Look up the definition of entitlement it is the RIGHT for someone to do or receive something, but we’ll talk about this later in this response to your “fact” filled essay.
I am also so glad that you admit that it has been financed by a TAX, a “payroll tax” - OUR OWN MONEY, as well as a tax mandated on employers. Sure the company we work for pays into that as well, but as I said you, and the liberal elite don’t consider the working employer a person anyway - God how you love creating class warfare. You conveniently forget that better than 60% of employers in the U.S. are SMALL business people – MIDDLE CLASS – not wealthy individuals.
Then you had me on the floor with this one:
“Social Security is the biggest direct redistribution of wealth in the U.S., but it is no surprise that you are an ardent defender, as the middle class is always the biggest hog at the entitlement trough and the non-means tested Social Security system is the biggest trough there is. It is a budget buster and as socialist a program as one might find, and you can’t wait for that monthly kiss in the mail from Big Daddy Government.”
Where did I say I was defending Social Security – go ahead stick your foot further down your throat, I can’t wait to see how you twist this one. Never the less you prove my earlier points, as I knew you would in response to my last post – you admit that it is an attempt to REDISTRIBUTE the wealth, and I love it when you admit that we don’t directly pay for ourselves, although if YOU did your research as you claim, that was how it was initially presented by Heir FDR to be the plan. You go on to admit that it is a “budget buster and as socialist a program as one might find”. Yea, I think he’s got it - just a little note here Nazi Germany also had a Social Security program - good old socialist economics hard at work to placate the masses while the government lords more power over them.
I suggest that you reread ALL my posts on this subject because somehow you have it in your twisted mind that I am in favor of Social Security, which I am not. Calling it an entitlement or tax breaks an entitlement is absurd not one is entitle to take the hard earned money out of another’s pocket by government mandate, however I will retract an earlier statement and admit you are right on one thing keeping our own money - a.k.a. tax write offs – is an entitlement in that it is our RIGHT to keep our own money.
Needless to say you going on about SSI was great, you proved my point that socialism and welfare do NOT work – thank you.
Okay on to the Fed - do you know that the Fed has NEVER been audited? As for the President nominating the Fed leadership - big deal - nothing more than figureheads that make recommendations that are voted on by a board of INTERNATIONAL bankers. Even of their own admission they are a pseudo private entity – part private and part government.
As for your remarks trying to claim that I was insinuating or saying that non bankers should control our national banking system maybe you just forgot that we do have people here in the U.S. that have banking/accounting/economics backgrounds that are NOT tied to the international banking cabal. And yes I have been vague on this issue as far as naming names, but there is a reason for that, in order to fully explain all the machinations of this cabal and draw all the family connections that abound it would take a novel, or at least a novelette to truly elucidate all the permutations of this complex “conspiracy” as you like to call it. I also find it interesting that it is easy for you liberals to believe in a Bush family conspiracy, but if a conservative mentions any form of clandestine situation associated with socialism it is made light of or denounced as some sort of fantasy.
But I am not the only one that has distrust for international bankers in general - maybe these quotes from of our most respected leaders will open your eyes a bit:
Ben Franklin said in his autobiography that the inability of the colonists to get the power to issue their own money permanently out of the hands of George III and the international bankers was one of the PRIME reasons for the Revolutionary War.
Thomas Jefferson stated, "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 will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered."
Congressman Charles A. Lindbergh said: "This [Federal Reserve] Act establishes the most gigantic trust on Earth. When the President signs this bill, the invisible government of the Monetary Power will be legalized... the worst legislative crime of the ages, perpetuated by this banking and currency bill."
And last among this group was President Wilson himself when referring to the
FED years after he signed the Federal Reserve Act: "I have unwittingly ruined my country".
I would hope that people will take the time to read up on this insidious “crime” and push their representatives to rid ourselves of them. And by the way there was one other President that wanted out of the FED - John Fitzgerald Kennedy, so I suppose he was just a conspiracy nut like me.
Lastly you continue to maintain the LIE (so much for you sticking to the facts) that the war in Iraq is some how a conservative thing - hmmm, some of the most conservative politicians in the country have been and are still opposed to the invasion of Iraq. Your ignorance of the political spectrum is apparent every time you equate those that CALL themselves Neo-cons or compassionate conservatives with those that have true conservative ideals.
Post a Comment