$14.5 B Tax Refunds Issued By "error"

Well, I'm not going to jump into this whole thing. But above the President Jackson praiser claimed jackson paid off the debt in 2 years and it was equal to the 17 trillion of today.

No.

According to: http://www.davemanuel.com/inflation-calculator.php

The debt at the time Jackson took office was $58 million. Plug that into the calculator and that is $1.7 trillion today. He paid that off in six years. We could very easily accomplish that today by raising taxes on the rich and eliminating capital gains (and including it as income).

Also, after Jackson got rid of the debt and got rid of the national bank the economy went into a huge depression that took six years to recover from.

And finally, while the big points of the US economy may seem to have peaked in the late 19th and early 20th century, the greatest time for the entire populace was the 1950's and 60's with strong wages and good labor laws. The late 19th/early 20th was one of the most corrupt periods of time in the US.

I agree with you on this part.

I don't agree with you on this part.

How much more taxes do you propose you increase on me? I already pay ~35% per year, how much more do you want?

Capital gains are already included as income, they are just taken to the side and taxed at a different rate. Generally speaking, Capital Gains are taxed at 23.8% now, instead of 15% it used to be. That's less money used for investment, and nothing to show for it. This tax increase will not go towards paying down the deficit, but instead gets placed into an already bloated fund.

What really needs to happen is less spending, and the easiest way to do that without effecting the economy is to cut down on wasteful and fraudulent spending. This thread is a prime example of wasteful spending, when you give out $14.5 billion to people who do not deserve it.

According to Lordgrim, that wouldn't exist.

You can beat a horse to death but you can't make it drink.


/facepalm.

The "money for investment" argument holds no weight with me, considering we have corporations sitting on trillions of dollars in the bank, record profits for corporations, and only decreasing wages, decreasing jobs, etc. for the rest of the population.

Older workers are getting sacked left and right because they're "too expensive" so they can hire younger people for half the wage, all in the name of "profit". Profit only helps those at the top, this is a nation, we need to focus on what is good for the nation. And boohoo you pay 35%, cry me a river. My mother's income is 10% of what it was two years ago. That's a 90% cut in her income, does her voice matter less than yours?

You can thank federal policies for that.


So, are you saying that your mother's case is the same as everyone else's?

Yes, the average wage has decreased of the past 5 years, slowly increasing but we still haven't recovered to the pre-Obama days. Are you going to blame corporations for following federal laws?

Which federal policies have stopped corporations from spending money?

Considering my mother was just one of an entire office that had all their 30+ year experience workers get sacked for fresh blood I know she's not alone. I know the general trend is that all the "new jobs" are part time and low wage.

And again, which federal laws are making this happen?

None, but there's federal policies that takes money away from being used for wages and being placed in the hands of insurance companies and the federal government.

I'm sure you heard of the tax bill called "ACPPA" more commonly known as "Obamacare."

Again, are you implying that every business does this, or just that one instance?

Affordable Care and Patent Protection Act. Also, Dodd-Frank.

So the $2+ trillion corporations have stashed in banks right now are from the past 12 months since the ACA started to come into play?

Not *every* business does that, but I am sure a good number of them do. It's very hard for pre-retirement older people to find jobs in their field.

You're going to need to be a bit more specific as to how the ACA is making all this happen. Especially since my mother and her office got sacked 3 years ago.

Define "stashed."

And the ACA has been in play since 2010. There have been regulations that were enacted since the date the bill was signed, it's just that the individual tax didn't start until January 1, 2013 and the employer requirements for insurance doesn't start until January 1, 2015. Those are the two most well-known provisions of the act, but they aren't the only ones.

Conjecture and anecdotal, not based on fact or reality.

I saw a person run a red light this morning, does that mean that a majority of drivers do that all the time?

In your mother's case, are you sure that they replaced her with younger people who have the exact same skillset that she possesses? Because I highly doubt that they replaced her experience, that wouldn't be a good business decision.

It is more likely that her skillset was outdated, and she either refused to update her skillset or refused to learn the new skillset.

Maybe you should ask her if there is a new system in place at her old job, and she didn't qualify for it because it requires her to know something she is unwilling to learn about.

If I'm going to use her as an example, I will need to know more about her.

What was her old job? What sort of business did her old job do? What was her position? How many people were in her old job?

I need more information, then I can tell you why.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/04/09/us-usa-tax-offshore-idUSBREA3729V20140409

The ACA didn't have any provisions in place to have any meaningful impact on business in ANY way until this year. And not really one on employment until next year. To say that it's having any sort of big impact on the money of corporations is silly. Also to note, this is on "offshore profits". Meaning this is money that was made in the even more regulated/taxed places such as Europe.

Businesses moving to low-wage, part-time labor is a fact, however. Businesses are stopping at nothing to reduce their costs, even in the face of massive profits.

My mother is a radiologic technologist. She is constantly researching into her profession, takes additional classes at local community colleges to acquire additional certification and is involved in online communities into her profession to the point she takes the quizzes and tests sent out on a regular basis just to see how she performs. She is a type-A very serious about her job personality, and I have no doubt she is great at her job (not so great as a mother, but that's a separate matter entirely). The issue in no way was about a skillset. The company had been having them train brand new interns fresh out of school for a while. And eventually shifted out the older ladies with experience and brought in the new blood. Also, she was in a small satellite office, with one person performing each general function of the site, x-rays/mammograms, blood tests, etc. one person for each.

And doesn't make business sense? That's wonderful you live in a world of idealism. I live in the real world. Business cares for nothing but the bottom line, and doesn't look past that week or months bottom line. They'll save $20 this week and ignore that it'll cost them $100 next week. I work in fast food, we get pennies, or if we're lucky that year, nickel raises. The raises have nothing to do with our performance, despite getting performance reviews, they're just set in stone raises they "have" to give out. So you have people with YEARS of experience at a job making a nickel or dime above a fresh employee. And if you've never worked fast food you can absolutely tell who has experience and who doesn't, VERY easily. But corporate doesn't care. Minimum wage in my state is going up, and it's going to erase all raises. Everyone will be at the new minimum wage, even if that means the veterans get a $0.20 raise and new hires get a $0.75 raise. They're going to lose a few of their veterans over this. But again, they don't care. They're not going to spend more, this is high supply of bodies world, corporate america will absolutely take advantage of this. They can't compute the effect of a veteran, so they don't care, even if it's obvious a veteran employee is worthwhile.

That article shows profits made by US companies overseas. That money cannot be repatriated into the US due to double taxation (once in the country the money was made, again for "repatriating" the money from foreign sources). In other words, that money is not available for being spent on except in the country of origin. So, how is it that companies are sitting on $2.1 trillion of cash again, when they can't even bring it to be spent?

I'm sorry, but there's no way to automatically switch on the Obamacare reporting standards prior to Obamacare being passed. It costs time and money for companies to arrange their systems to comply with Obamacare reporting standards, even though the law isn't set to take place for employers until next year.

For example: AT&T had a little over $10 billion of reprogramming costs in order to track their employee database to conform to Obamacare's new reporting standards. Since Obamacare requires each large company to report per month if an employee has had health insurance, what type of insurance it is, if it complies with Obamacare's insurance standards, if the employee went to the healthcare marketplace (state or federal), and if so, if the employee took a subsidy or not. Per employee. Per month. Think that's cheap?

Wait, a company radiologist, and not with a hospital or health system? Those exists? Why isn't she qualified to work for a hospital or health system? There's a huge need for radiologists, along with other medical professionals, now there's a huge demand for these services.

Something doesn't smell right with your story.

Really? You think that businesses only focus on short-term profits and not long-term situations? Are you sure you see the entire picture, or just the one piece that you are willing to see?

That explains a lot of your biases.

You don't know anything about business. And I have learned from this thread alone that trying to explain the intricate details to people who don't give a ***is like beating your head against the wall.

I must defend ladyofhonor on this because her story is happening far more often under our current leadership and banking institution. Let's take a big corporation like United Technology which gets tax breaks quite often. Why is it every April and May the loom of lay offs occur? They lay off employees saying they can not afford them and when tax incentives by current establishment says we will give you more money if you hire folks. UT does but they hire young blood and train non citizens with American job's to send overseas. Yes this story is becoming all too frequent not only in there field of business.

All over fiat currency that takes faith to believe it has value. That's centralized banking institutions definition other then a system of banking that devalues a nations currency and causes more market crashes then having no central banking.

I am backed by Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson.

Look up the colonial script. That also played part in causing the revolutionary war Britain did not want our nation having its own currency not backed on GOLD because it was backed on belief.

We can get rid of the Fed and issue new currency by Congress as a United States Note that is interest free to filter our the federal reserve notes out of circulation. This is just one major part to rid ourselves of this poison and financial disaster and helps rebuild A Better America.

We can also repeal acts like NAFTA and the 16th amendment as well and promote Patriotic economically business policy's that think of and benefits America first and her citizens instead of outside nations. Repealing the 16 amendment is another major part in creating a better America because it benefits all. It benefits businesses from the owners right down to the employees. It encourages spending which is a major driving force in any economy. It is also less taxes for all realistically.

Listen if we can give citizenship to 20 million illegal immigrants. We can also forgive student loans or mortgages.

This is part of A Better America that restores this nation as a Republic for and by the people. All of it possible with the right leadership do not confuse this with any political party name.

I am sure others will agree this representation feels like a plutocracy oligarchy capitalist system that benefits the few at the expense of the many.

Don't blame me if your "lady's" story stabs you in the back.

Ohhh, agreed.

Actually, those tax incentives you are talking about is when you hire people with certain backgrounds. They are:

Empowerment Zone, which is when you hire from a federally declared area of low income families (aka poor neighborhoods) in cities (of course, not in rural areas, cause those are Republican voters, and those are votes the current administration isn't trying to buy).

Military rehire, which is when you hire a veteran who has been honorably discharged and has been out of work for 6 months or more.

The incentive to hire anyone out of work for 6 months or more had expired back in 2010. The democrats in Congress allowed it to expire, even though they had a supermajority at the time. I guess they forgot or didn't care about getting people rehired.

So, are you going to insinuate that a company like United Technologies fire people and hire only people who are from disadvantaged areas (and more than likely lack the skills needed to preform the job), or veterans who have been out of work for more than 6 months (since there's such a large pool of them out there....)? Well, you just did, but do you see the problem yet?

So, you are saying that a multinational corporation who already had a presence outside of the company are shipping jobs overseas, even though the jobs were never here in the first place?

I understand you are biased and stupid, but to make a statement like that without thinking it through, well, it's par for the course for you, isn't it?

How many pages? 4? 5? I asked for sources for your argument, and you have yet to provide more than conjecture.

Do you have evidence supporting your claim?

Oh wait....


You mean outdated ideas that don't apply to today?

How about something better than that?

It was backed by silver, what's your point? (Source)


And who will take the new currency, which is already devalued down to zero? The federal government cannot back up hundreds of trillions of dollars when they are already in debt of $17 trillion dollars. You obviously don't want to back it up by a precious recourse, so we can't do that.

The reason why the dollar isn't currently backed by any resource is because it is a commonly traded item. The value of the currency is the face value of the bill due to the fact that 99% of the world would accept it as a valid form of payment on face value.

Creating a new currency will not do that. The trust of the dollar isn't there in the currency that never existed before, and you can't transfer that trust from an old currency to a new currency, especially if it's a 1:1 swap (which isn't a transfer, but a replacement, and nothing will have changed at all, which would be pointless to do).


Explain how international trade is a bad thing. You want to repeal NAFTA, so show why, and also show how the items we have will magically appear after NAFTA is repealed (and nearly all international trade with the US halts, because NAFTA contains the same language as other trade agreements, and why stop at one trade agreements when all would be voided).

You think the Fed is a bad thing, your ideas are 100x worse for the nation. I would rather stick with the Fed, even with your perceived evils of the Fed, than to follow your advice.


Right, nothing says "trust" than forcing promises to be forgiven. Think banks will loan money to people if the federal government is just going to tell the banks "Sorry, but you aren't getting that money back because we are going to force you to forgive those loans."?


Your ideas will destroy this nation than create a better one.

Because:

-No country will dare trade with the US on anything.
-All businesses will cease to exist, therefor creating an unemployment rate of 100%.
-You will destroy international trade at it's source, which is the US dollar (the most commonly used currency in international trade, the one that countries with different currencies rely on for fair and equal treatment of their trade through exchange rates).

Heck, screw the US, your ideas will pretty much destroy most of the world's economy. I'm not sure if that was your plan or not...

News flash over the past 20 so odd years of NAFTA we have constantly heard the vacuum sucking of american jobs going overseas further hurting our American middle class if that still even exists and increasing products not American made and heighten our security risk of the source of said food products. All of this while benefiting outside nations and hurting the american economy. Also UTC started its foundation in The United States of America upstarted off of american tax payer dollars. Those jobs overseas would be here in the US if we had the proper leadership.

A) You can attribute every single trade agreement to the same idiotic *** you just said. What makes NAFTA so different?

B) Nobody mentioned food products. Where did you get that from?

Actually, the US economy grew at a slightly accelerated pace up until 2009, when the housing bubble collapsed and Obama became your new "vacuum" sucking out jobs in favor of "fairness"

Food trade was part of the free trade act as well for example, raspberries go out of season in the US perhaps, we get them from over seas that could not have the same regulations or standards we hold for our own which does increase security risk to our nation on where we get some of our food.

slightly is ok in your eyes? it could of been better without. Your leaving out Clinton to blame for getting that passed before the republicans took control of congress. I am not part of these gangster partys known as republicans and democrats. You once said i was a Liberal and you are wrong Consider me like George Washington not part of any partys but for the people meaning every american citizen. Obama became " OUR" president you are a legal citizen of Texas and a citizen of the US right ? You sound like your not even from our country saying " obama became yours". Maby we should ask for your Identification to make sure your legit. That flag you fly is making me curious even if its part of a protest.

So, according to you, raspberries go out of season because of regulations, but not because of weather patterns or degree differences.

Got it!


If you are talking about NAFTA, the whole negotiation process happened before Clinton came into office, all Clinton did was sign the trade agreement.

I will never say that Obama is my president because I don't agree with his policies or his agenda. He may have been elected by the people, but I will never claim him as my president, because I do not ever want to be associated with his failure of a presidency. To acknowledge him as my president would be paramount to acknowledging him as my leader, which means I condone his actions and accept his agenda.

You want to question my citizenship? Ok, let's compare each other then.

Let's see what I have that you do not:

Better spelling. Better grammar. Better understanding of economics. Better historical understanding of the US. Better knowledge of US law. Better knowledge of tax code. Better knowledge of present day economic trends.

Now let's compare to what you have that I do not:

Conspiracy theories.

What does any of that have to do with citizenship you ask? Why don't you find that out for yourself, and come back to me when you want to question my citizenship again.