Who's Pissed They're Not Getting a Rebate Check?

NEW -> Contingent Buyer Assistance Program
"The Fed will create the "money" and everyone will pay with the devaluation of the currency."



Great idea. Hey it worked for the Confederacy during the civil war. Can't afford to pay the soldier's salaries? Can't afford to pay for food and munitions? Just print more paper money. It worked great until inflation soared 9000%.



The grubberment reported that the PPI just raised 1% today. Looks like we only have 8999% to go.



http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gHs5OM3gFG_DytQQZFbWfgPT08MAD8V22EH80
 
<p>POIT, Awgee</p>

<p> </p>

<p>This should add some <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080226/ap_on_bi_ge/economy_rdp">fuel to the fires</a>. Not much good news on the horizon or any part of the economy.</p>

<p>awgee-I bet that gold is looking brighter and brighter!!</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Enjoy!</p>
 
Hmmm.





When I look toward the near future, I see single digit increase in my income tax, and double digit decrease in the value of my dollars.





Hello off-shore banking!




 
<p><em>That is why or forefathers designed our government to be a republic and not a democracy.</em></p>

<p>Now you're scaring me. I thought I was the only one that thinks our Representatives and Senators aren't supposed to do what the majority wants but are instead supposed to do what is constitutional and in the best interests of all the citizens of their area, the State and Country.</p>

<p>Instead we have myopic voting on what they think will get them 50% of the turn-out voting public + 1 vote.</p>

<p> </p>
 
<p>NSR, you aren't alone. Unfortunately, the other side is appealing to the population's short-term self interest and has been winning the hearts and minds of people who either benefit from it directly or think some form of socialism ain't all that bad. They used the Great Depression as a an excuse to enact the first step toward a socialist democracy and have been marching forward ever since. I mean really, who's going to argue against free healthcare for old folks and helpless children? Who is going to argue for forcing people to accept that they aren't smart/talented/lucky/good-looking enough to become wealthy and should do their best to not to be a drain on society? Why should we vote to hold ourselves responsible for ourselves when we have politicians telling us every day that it's someone else's fault and they will make everything ok? Why should we sacrifice our leisure time to research issues and expend personal effort in helping others when we can just hire the government to do it for us, and make everyone else pay for it? </p>

<p>The federal republic we once were was dealt a mortal blow in November of 1932, limped along on life support throughout the last 70 years, and will finally die come January. May it rest in peace. </p>
 
Nude,





I get the impression you would not like Denmark or Sweden. They have extremely high tax rates, and the government takes care of everything. Of course, they also are among the <a href="http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?knlgAreaID=108&subsecID=900003&contentID=253543">happiest nations</a> on earth, for whatever that's worth.
 
<p>IR I have no doubt they are happy, just as I have no doubt they could both be overtaken by two Girl Scouts with a rubberband gun and a mean look. But there are more people living between Santa Barbara and San Ysidro than in Denmark or Sweden combined, they both face problems with the ratio of retirees to workers in the coming years, and to be honest... they are nice places to visit but who wants to live there that doesn't already?</p>

<p>If the Left in this country want to turn us into Sweden or Denmark, they have the tools at their disposal. They call them Constitutional Amendments and they are simple to write and submit for votes. All the left needs is a two-thirds majority in the House and Senate and ratification by 3/4 of the States. Usurping powers from the people and the states, as political entities in and of themselves, is in direct violation of the spirit of the constitution no matter how good intentioned the results. This approach to turning towards populism has proven effective with the 16th, 17th, and 27th Amendments, all of which moved the country away from a republican form of government to a democratic one. In contrast, you have the power grab of the New Deal by it's supporters in all areas of government that was facillitated by the Great Depression and the desperation of millions of people. In fairness, some of the programs that buil infrastructure and provided capital investment have paid off many times over. Others were deemed unconsitutional and closed. Some of the programs hang like millstones around our neck and contribute to the financial problems that we face today and tomorrow. But they were all enacted at the federal level with no oversight or approval from the states and they all represent an end-run by the Federal government around the Constitution. </p>

<p>Your own posts and comments show that we are on the edge of another Depression. Democrats now control both houses of Congress and surely a Democrat will win the White House. The stage is set for another round of emergency Acts that will surely leave this country unrecognizable as great unrest is answered with socialized democracy.</p>
 
As regards the happy folk in Denmark and Sweden. I for one do not want a government which provides for my happiness. I want a government that stays the ____ out of my way so I can provide for my own happiness or sadness, success or failure, health care or lack of it.
 
That reminded me of a travel show I saw on Monte Carlo (BTW I highly recommend visiting the place, it's amazing). Obviously, it's massively expensive to buy a place there, so the host was asking a local about how she could live there. Her response was that since she is a native, everything she needs is provided for by the prince since they are his subjects.





You could tell the host was intrigued, since it's very much the opposite of how we do things. She kept asking what would happen if the lady got sick or anything like that - and she would respond that he takes care of them. Completely different thinking.
 
Nude, you better think twice before attacking Sweden as soft on defense. They have a very strong military industry. They produce their own guns, planes, and ordinance.
 
<p>jwbrown77,</p>

<p>You have confused their export industry with practical capability.</p>

<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_Armed_Forces">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_Armed_Forces</a></p>

<p>Producing for export and actual domestic use are two different things. A total military force of 65,500 that takes a year to fully mobilize doesn't indicate a strong defensive policy. The point of defense is to be able to react quickly to any threat and Sweden can't. While they may have a built-in resistance movement in the event of invasion, they would be disorganized and cut-off from all the guns, planes, ordinance, and the factories that make them. </p>
 
Much of Sweden's military industrial complex is now owned or partly owned by foreign companies. Yes Saab and Bofors made great stuff in the years past, but their future will be reduced to being a partner or sub-contractor to pan-EU or US projects sooner or later. Just as the Swedish army gave up on domestic MBT's and purchased German imports, their AF probably won't see domestic fighter jets beyond the Gripen by 1 generation. As for reacting to external threats, Sweden has none. But this isn't a military forum so I'll stop here.





Monaco barely has 32,000 population, so supporting a socialist system from casino revenue isn't too difficult. If you want to be a citizen there, you'll have to find a way to be a legal resident for at least 10 years before applying for naturalization. If you're looking for inexpensive health care, I'd suggest shopping for health insurance, or checking US government (both state and federal) programs as the US Government is actually the largest insurer in this country. Alternatively you could opt for Canadian residency and apply for benefits there. Many Canadian provinces offer inexpensive investor residency programs that costs much less than other country's.





I believe as a country, we have the economic capability to provide a non-starvation standard of living for all legal residents, assuming that the people are willing to accept government aid. Government assistance is there for those who aren't too lazy to apply for it. Some might think that's a joke, but I personally know someone in Riverside who is in economic hardship (he stay home to provide full time care to his elderly mother) but is too lazy to apply for government aid. No, it's not a pride thing, I've known him for too many years to know exactly how lazy he can be. But my personal belief is that if someone wants to be a bum, that's OK! You shouldn't HAVE to work to eat! Under my tax scheme we'd all pay a Federal flat rate income tax (states retain power to levy state income tax as they see fit), and the government would give everyone couple hundred bucks every month that's tax exempt. If you want to live out of a van, eat Costco hotdogs every day instead of working, and go to government clinics to get pepto bismo, that's fine by me buddy!
 
The country has a total population of less than 10 million. They're not going to carry a military force the size of ours. Our military is economically unsustainable as it is.
 
jw, let's not hijack the thread with a philosophical debate on military sending, ok? If you want to start your own thread extolling the virtues of whatever you believe in, I'll be happy to participate.
 
<em>"All the left needs is a two-thirds majority in the House and Senate and ratification by 3/4 of the States."</em>





Actually, all they need is the slow creep of the scope of Big Government just like we have been seeing since the New Deal. If the Left were to ask the country for a Constitutional agreement to their agenda it would almost certainly get voted down, but if they erode our sense of responsibility slowly one law at a time, they will accomplish the same end.





BTW, I am not a supporter of Big Government or the agenda of the Left, and I expect Conservatives to be dragged kicking and screaming all the way to our Socialist future -- as they should. It is one of the things that pains me about the dismal failure of Republican control of Congress and the Presidency. It will be associated, unfairly, with a failure of Conservatism, when in reality, the Republicans abandoned Conservatism which is why they were thrown out of power. Now we will have to endure a few decades of rule by the Left and the ever increasing social programs that will entail.
 
I have to pay about $600 to the fed in taxes this year, and I will be getting back $600 in the form of these rebates.





Took me a couple hours to do my taxes, mail them off, etc. And I'm sure it takes plenty of resources to get that check to me in a couple months.





Thanks federal government.
 
<a href="http://cartoonbox.slate.com/bobgorrell/"><img width="500" border="0" alt="" src="http://content.cartoonbox.slate.com/?feature=2562922b7f51fee2d0916fc99089238f" /></a>
 
Couple of interesting facts about the spending patterns of the Democrats and Republicans.



First, Republican presidents have wracked up far more in decificit spending in both real and nominal terms on a per annum basis than the Democrats by a long shot. I don't know how the Republicans ever earned the right to carry the mantle of fiscal conservativism, but the data say that the title it is wholly unearned.



Second, red states, that is states that voted for W in 2004 are for the most part net recipients of federal funds while blue states tend to be net contributors. So while the Republicans also have somehow earned the reputation as being the leading proponents being for small government the blue states, to use Ronnie Reagan's parlance, are the welfare queens of the US.



So, while the Right are far-bigger bigger deficit spenders and larger recipients of government aid, the public and media still allow them to call themselves "fiscally conservative." That, friends and neighbors is called "managing the spin" and the Republicans are better at that than anyone.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top