December 02, 2010 at 1:57pm
Ronald Reagan had an idea, demonize the government, and break it financially, he called it starve the beast. The idea was to cut taxes as much as possible (mainly for the wealthy) (trickle down economics), spend money like crazy (cold war) (Russia was collapsing any ways). Now we are in two pointless endless wars. When the government goes broke they can privatize everything and make big profit. The end goal is to kill all social safety nets and make money on letting big business take over everything from roads to prisons to postal work etc.
Won't it be cool to see people dying outside the hospitals when they get denied, crime will skyrocket as people get hungry. As less people consume products the unemployment rate will go up, which will drive wages down. They want to kill the social safety nets in America but watch them fight like hell to keep low taxes on the corporations and wealthy, and continue the two wars for oil. Reagans plan worked perfectly, I only wish he was still around to see the poverty that will follow when the social safety nets are all gone.
December 02, 2010 at 2:20pm
As far as jobs, we all know where they went. And george busch sr. Started nafta, couldn't get it passed, then along comes Bill, and he gets it done. Until this is stopped there wont be any good jobs. I think this is written by a republican.
December 02, 2010 at 3:09pm
dork36 (now that is a fitting name)
We could just do like Obama and all of the other Democrats do and spend ourselves into oblivion, extend every benefit known to man, let us all live off the government forever, grow fat and lazy, let China buy everything we own, cut all military spending until Ethiopia's military could come in and take us over, create Health Care laws that are un-constitutional and makes things worse and then blame everyone for the mess we created ourselves.
You know, just like you did in your comment above and I am doing in this one.
And I always wonder why the Democrats complain about NAFTA when a Democratic Congress and a Democratic President (Hillary) were responsible for enacting it.
Oh yeah, I forgot. You guys are perfect and the blame lies with George Bush Sr. or Jr. depending on the day and the dead horse you are beating.
And Obama promised an end to these wars. He has had two years and a Democratic Congress so why hasn't he done it? You guys have all the answers to every problem we face, but always find a way to blame anyone but yourself.
December 02, 2010 at 4:41pm
Excuse me,busch one started nafta and couldn't pass it. Do you have enough money saved to retire and pay your health care bills? Again, name calling, stick to the issue. Not necessary!
December 02, 2010 at 4:45pm
"Do you have enough money saved to retire and pay your health care bills?"
I don't, but that my problem. Why should I expect other people to pay for my retirement or my health care?
December 02, 2010 at 5:01pm
What I have is none of your business. What you said is way off what was being discussed. And if you don't, then you better hope social security is still in place, I am assuming you are or have been paying in to it. I cannot believe what you just said.
December 02, 2010 at 5:13pm
Didn't ask what you have, don't care. You entered the question into the discussion. Yes I have been paying into it, for nearly four decades. I expect it to be around when I am eligible. If you can't believe what I said, then I guess you expect other people to take care of you.
December 02, 2010 at 5:14pm
My guess there is enough blame to go around for all. Reagan/Bush tripled the debt and Bush Jr doubled it, so one can blame Obama all they want but someone's else skirts are not clean either.
The past is over and done with--need to look down the road and see what steps need to be taken.
As noted above, time to put up or shut up.
Problem now is that no one wants to compromise--something that must be done.
For instance--unemployment comp dollars go immediately into the system and as noted get a return of one and half to two times the bang. Tax dollars not collected on the wealthy go into savings and not into the system--let's trade off.
59 billion for extension of UEC paid for taxes on the wealthy.
That won't fly because no one wants to meet halfway on a problem. The same for a good many of those proposals in the commission's report. Even the members of that commission can not agree, so why should we think Congress will do anything--just one side trying to ram something thru that the other side does not want.
GOP noted the Healthcare Act unconstitutional--might note, two Federal District Courts have upheld the constitutionality of the Act.
May very well be the position of the SCOTUS should it reach that step.
December 02, 2010 at 6:12pm
I'm not a democrat, I didn't suggest anyone take advantage of the social safety net. I'm only pointing out that not having a social safety net would be devastating to our society.
If you check the chart of the national debt, you will see the last three republican presidents caused most of it. I didn't suggest not having a large military, I suggested not going to war with countries that haven't attacked us.
Bill Clinton is fully responsible for nafta, he did plenty of damage to our country but at least he was financially responsible.
Obama used loop holes to make his Obama care constitutional.
China is kicking our butt in the trade war, continue with our trade policies will ensure that they own us completely.
Speaking of saving for retirement, most people are living paycheck to paycheck and have $7000 on a credit card, when these people get to ill to work what do you suggest they do, beg for money?
December 02, 2010 at 7:09pm
"not having a social safety net would be devastating to our society."
What social safety net do you see going away?
"when these people get to ill to work what do you suggest they do, beg for money?"
What do you suggest they do, or what do you expect other people to do for then?
December 02, 2010 at 7:16pm
Here is an example of what this nation faces:
(Except from Think Progress)
"Yesterday, the entire Senate Republican caucus signed a letter vowing to block every piece of legislation unless the body holds a vote on the extension of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy.
This morning, at a debate with Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) at the American Enterprise Institute, conservative New York Times columnist David Brooks commented on the GOP’s reflexive obstructionism and demand for ideological purity, saying their “rigidity” harms “governance” and is based on a false world view that progressives are a “bunch of socialists”:
BROOKS: And my problem with the Republican Party right now, including Paul, is that if you offered them 80-20, they say no. If you offered them 90-10, they’d say no. If you offered them 99-1 they’d say no. And that’s because we’ve substituted governance for brokerism, for rigidity that Ronald Regan didn’t have.
And to me, this rigidity comes from this polarizing world view that they’re a bunch of socialists over there. You know, again, I’ve spent a lot of time with the president. I’ve spent a lot of time with the people around him. They’re liberals! … But they’re not idiots. And they’re not Europeans, and they don’t want to be a European welfare state. … It’s American liberalism, and it’s not inflexible."
David Brooks, if you have ever watched the News Hour or read his column, is a very conservative Republican.
Now read CannonGOP: "extend every benefit known to man, let us all live off the government forever, grow fat and lazy"---in effect calling all liberals idiots, even Brooks disagrees with this foolishness.
This from the same CannonGOP: "cut all military spending until Ethiopia's military could come in and take us over"---that is about as inane a comment as one could make.
Hard to compromise with "rigidity" or a "polarizing view" or "ideological purity" that's found even here in the county.
December 02, 2010 at 7:26pm
dailyreader, you pretend that the Democrats who control the White House and the Congress have not had that same sort of inflexibility during the last two years, but that is not the case. On what issues during that time have they compromised with Republicans?
Also David Brooks, as you are well aware, is a pseudo-conservative, and a RINO.
December 02, 2010 at 7:52pm
He wanted a public option, he compromised. He wanted much stronger regulations on the banks (can't figure why anyone wouldn't, after the disaster they caused).
December 02, 2010 at 7:56pm
He compromised with members of his own party. The government was as much responsible for the financial disaster as was the banks.
December 02, 2010 at 8:06pm
Yes I remember bush saying (just because you don't have a good job doesn't mean you can't have a nice house) and I know, Clinton started the bubble but still, banks will obviously over leverage and their collapse could crush the economy, they are bigger now than they were before.
December 03, 2010 at 6:09am
Mr Halpern, I agree with you. For a number of years there has been an unusual display of a lack of accomodation by either side--Polosi and Reid did the same as we are seeing now from the other side.
I think it is time to move pass all that, and that is what the commission would recommend.
As I mentioned, a "no Label" party to resolve the problems were are facing.
Brooks, a tinge of a RINO, they are every where. The RINO's around here will denounce all liberal programs openly and yet have no qualms about feeding at that trough of government spending themselves or getting their family on that dole.
December 03, 2010 at 7:16am
dailyreader I think HELL has frozen over because for once (and only once) I agree with your last statement.
If all of your comments followed that mentality, thought process and had that much wisdom behind them I think you and I might become best friends.
Although I am a Republican and you are a Democrat, I am as tired of the lack of continuity between BOTH parties to the point it is sickening.
I have met and talked with a lot of Democrats and believe some of them have some good ideas and some of them truly want to work for the betterment of our country.
Those are the people who I would love to see running our government along side the Republicans I think are trying to do the same.
People working on a middle ground and a compromise to the problems we face. Working together to find a solution and not creating more problems because it is politically correct to disagree with a different party.
Although, I know that is a Utopian world to believe in I still think it is what we originally set out to accomplish 234 years ago.
Labels belong on cans!
Republican, Democrat, Tea Party, or Purple Polka Dot Party; none of those labels mean anything without people behind them communicating and compromising.
December 03, 2010 at 7:53am
wow - I wish I knew what to say but all I can think is WOW--just remember boys--baby steps
December 03, 2010 at 8:34am
the American people have more in common with with each other than the politition representing us which ever party that might be. We all admire the founding fathers because of their thoughtfulness in their attempt to create a better country.
I find it amusing that republican and democratic party will take opposite sides of an issue every time, their positions don't make any sense when put together ( democratic party will defend trees and dogs, but not unborn babies ) ( republican party will defend unborn babies, but don't want taxes to help the new born baby get a good start in life if it was born to a woman whom doesn't have the ability to support it ).
We all know both parties are corrupt from the power and money, but nobody talks about how to end the influence of money and power which is ironic because that was the biggest concern of the founding fathers.
December 03, 2010 at 9:54am
The issue on hand is what to do about our debt, the republicans insist on major cuts to the budget and tax cuts to the rich to grow the economy. Democrats say raise taxes. minimal taxes and minimal assistance to the poor reminds me of a third world country, where there are people begging, homeless, unsanitary food, medicine that you can't trust, police that will take bribes, kidnapping the wealthy, lots of unreported crime because of fear, going to a doctor is a huge burden and avoided often until it's to late, very sick contagious people walking around with no options, and unsafe streets.
I have an insane theory. After the first 3 mil profit, tax at 90 percent. Companies wouldn't grow so big and the opportunity to start your own business would open up all over (take walmart out would allow thousands of small businesses to start) after the 3 mil profit a company would then want to reinvest in the company, improve service, reduce prices and give better pay to the employees instead of paying huge taxes. This is the system we had in America before Reagan, this system is why America was called the land of opportunity. the American dream would be more available to more people. There wouldn't be a super rich class that could buy our representatives.
I would like some feed back on this idea. Please state your political affiliation and your thoughts.
December 03, 2010 at 10:01am
well said as well dork36!
I think there is hypocrisy in both parties as well on all kinds of issues.
Too bad we can't just pick one for example and see where we are close on agreeing, see where we are very far apart and work toward meeting in the middle somewhere.
Too much gets lost in translation or bickering about who is the greatest party or which side is more right than the other.
You pick a good topic in your comment about abortion. I may always disagree with abortion, but I still try to see both sides.
And, I could see a positive step in reducing the argument if Republicans would agree that in cases of incest or rape it would be permissible and understandable. And if the Democrats would agree to support a Constitutional Ammendment to prohibit federal tax dollars from ever being used to promote or pay for abortions, enforce stricter parental consent laws and I think go so far as to ensure the father is represented in the decision as well, we might actually get a less controversial law.
Why couldn't that be a start? It may not be perfect, but at least some better decisions might be made.
Too bad it is all about the arguing and not the solving!
December 03, 2010 at 10:53am
Simon and Garfunkel summed it up pretty nicely a long time ago:
"Going to the candidates debate
Laugh about it, shout about it, when you've got to choose
Ev'ry way you look at it, you lose"
I am 54. If going forward I could keep the money I currently pay for social security, and my kids could opt out, the gov could keep everything I have given them and I would go merrily about my business.
December 03, 2010 at 11:00am
Doolittle , that would be an excellent start,
I believe all abortions will eventually be a huge regret in that persons life, the option also reduces the need to be sexually responsible. When people use the bible as a reason, it closes the minds of a large group of people, and there are plenty of good arguements without it.
December 03, 2010 at 11:45am
This is a civil conversation for once. I am happy to see no name calling etc. Too bad the politicians don't see it that way. This kind of debate makes me proud to live in cannon county. Thank You.
December 03, 2010 at 4:38pm
I agree it is nice to have a civil conversation. It what I would have preferred all along, but unfortunately I have felt the need to defend myself and what I believe instead of focusing on what we could accomplish or find as a middle ground.
And again, I agree with you dork that sooner vs. later I believe an abortion will cause huge regret in a lot of people's lives and not just the woman's. That is why I always have to ask where is the father's rights represented? But, enough of that for now.
I certainly agree with bh123424 that I wish I could opt out of the current social security monstrosity we currently have. It is the worst investment ever created in the history of man in my opinion. I am forced to pay money on something I will never get anything out of. Allowing me to privatize a portion of it could not only help save the program, it could potentially provide me a better return on my money if I invest it wisely. If not, I still won't lose anymore than I am already losing.
ewoodle I could care less if Obama is green with gray and yellow stripes. Race has nothing to do with it unless you bring race into it. I would follow a Martian if he were leading this country wisely and following God's law as closely as possible. I haven't seen dork say one racial thing at all, so don't mess up a good debate with unnecessary rhetoric and babble.
December 03, 2010 at 6:10pm
When you are unable to add anything to a debate neither pro or con THE RACE CARD is played,such as 'ewoodle' did ,pay attention an you may learn something,Then you can play with every one else.
December 03, 2010 at 7:56pm
My concern with privatizing social security is it is gambling with your retirement and it causes people to be to concerned with what stocks are doing instead of the fundamentals of the economy, I think it would lead to a bubble economy, and people will vote in the best interest of big buisness instead of what is best for the people.Big Business is buying each other out extremely fast now, there won't be many individual companies left soon. We are having this discussion because of big buisness greed and recklessness caused the fed to threaten us with , give us 700 billion or the economy will collapse ( which now we know was 3 trillion ). I believe corporate power is a huge threat to our freedom , opportunities and way of life.
December 04, 2010 at 7:24am
dork: "end the influence of money and power which is ironic because that was the biggest concern of the founding fathers."
dork, you might want to read a little about the Founding Fathers and those that attended the Constitutional Convention in 1787. The concern was not about ending the influence of money and power but how to prepetuate a system that had power and money as its foundation.
If you do that reading, you will find the political process was initially limited to those with property, those who were white, those who were males only and in many instances only those that had been educated (did not hurt to have some church fronting in there also--woe unto those who openingly questioned the religious doctrine of that day.)
It was all about power and money.
When the property requirement was changed, most of the Founding Father gentlemen were dismayed by the so called "middling class" that began to appear on the political scene (you wonder what they would think today if they could see who gets to vote.)
The idea of an egalitarian system was still to come and took well over a century before women began to enjoy having a voice in the political process (some churches deny that voice even today.)
While many of your comments here and elsewhere have some substance, lurking in the back of my cynical mind is a sneaking suspicion that all is not what it seems to be.
Recently I read about some Republicans touting what they call "American Exceptionalism"--those using this phrase were all front runners for the Tea Party movement hoping to capture the 2012 presidential nomination.
A little late but "Happy Hanukkah" to all our Jewish friends (all except Joe.)
December 04, 2010 at 9:07am
So from what I read in his comment, dailyreader is basically saying that the founding fathers and today's politicians are identical. I don't think anyone could deny that today is all about "power and money" as well. And that is true for both Democrat and Republican.
I will disagree that the 1787 Constitutional Convention was all about getting "power and money". I think it was about States Rights vs. the Federal Government's rights just as it is in many cases today.
That convention focused alot on the smaller states gaining the same rights as the bigger states. Hence, the Connecticut, or Great, Compromise, which broke the deadlock between the large and small states over representation. It was instrumental in gaining the ratification of the Constitution as a whole.
Personally, I don't feel that today is much different than then in many ways. We have large states with very big representation in Congress determining what smaller states have to live by and it causes resentment and distrust.
Many people don't understand that is why when you vote in a Presidential election the candidate does not win on a popular vote, instead it is decided by an electoral college.
There is no way a small state like Rhode Island could be represented against a state like New York or California in a popular vote. There voice would simply go unheard.
You could possibly have the larger states who have more population deciding the outcome of every race with no way to balance the power.
dork I understand your concern with privatizing social security. I am not saying do it 100%. But, as it stands today I will never see any of the money I am paying in under the current system. If I were allowed to take 3% of what I currently pay and invest it however I wanted to, I guarantee I would have money to retire on unless we had a total economic breakdown and went into a deep depression like was seen in the 1930's.
And if I lost everything, I would get the same thing I am going to have 20 years from now. NOTHING.
December 04, 2010 at 9:59am
Then strengthen the anti-trust laws and become more socialistic? Maybe. I watched marketing make drastic changes in a relatively short time. One very small example, there was sears then wallyworld now the internet.
As for your gambling analogy-all investing has some levels of risk and is gambling.
It is hard to blame big business when they are just doing what they do-improving the bottom line. Many business practices are unscrupulous including buying politicians, but big business will do what it takes to "protect that bottom line". Do you think philip morris, who is allowed by laws to poison our people and drain our economy for nothing more than profits, financially supports the republicans or democrats? Of course they hedge their bets and cover them both. What did that get them, free reign to do as they please for as long as possible. A prime example of how big government and politicians existed for GREED without any consideration or remorse for the people of this nation. Y'all are correct, this disease is not bias, it effects all political parties. And we are asking politicians to fix this problem? Are we dumb enough to think they are going to plug a hole that money runs through?
Corporate power is a threat but the true danger is our enabling them to buy government influence and do whatever they want is a threat to not only freedom but the existence of this planet. True greed's concerns are not multi-generational, it is about now and ME and ME and ME.
What can the little person do? Find the good politicians, help them stay in decision making and whistle blowing positions. Support our small businesses. Our collective spending dollars are powerful!!! If they are tyrants do not reward them.
December 04, 2010 at 10:00am
"power and money" -- the 3/5 rule was a power grab---States Rights is nothing more than power. "States Rights" is what kept slavery in place for many decades that followed 1787--power limited to those with total control over the system to not only maintain an elitist lifestyle but to accumulate more wealth at the expense of those who had no "power."
The present system is driven by power. Example-- the power of corporations to keep in place those programs that enhance their profit margins. Why else would contributions in the millions be made to the political process?
Not a whole lot has changed since those early days, only the scope and magnitude of power and the money that comes from it.
Note: Social Security, most of us stand a better chance of taking far more out of the system than what we have contributed.
December 04, 2010 at 10:11am
The average savings of Americans is now a negative number so in other words on an average Americans spend more than a dollar for every dollar they earn.
Sound like someone else you know? Uncle Sam
December 04, 2010 at 1:26pm
This is awesom, and my purpose for writing here. To make the point that the people are not being represented with our best intrest in mind, and we all seem to agree on that.
Daily reader, you are right, but the founders were not all of the belief that there should be a ruling elite, and the elitist group didn't completely get their way. Good point, I'm going to do some research on that when I get some time.
Doolittle , I actually think if social security maintained a 15 percent investment in the market, we would be better off.
Goober, you are right that we should buy American but we can't because nothing is made here, and if you create a product and can't get it on the shelf at one of the few retail stores, it won't sell, which is further proof that the American dream is becoming less and less obtainable for the average guy.
Any ideas on how to create a political party that has our best intrest in mind, or how to stop the buying of the polititions? Even the talk shows and tv news wants to keep the corruption, because they are looking at the profit line to.
December 04, 2010 at 3:10pm
I think it could work right now under a two party system and there is not really a need to create a new party or third party.
There are a lot of things I believe we could dissolve and create under the current system that would drive politicians to keep our best intrests in mind.
1. The President of the United States should have a line item veto power. The Governor of each states has this power, but the President does not. My question is, why not?
2. Eliminate earmarks attached to bills in both the House and Senate. If you want to build a bridge to nowhere then you must create a bill asking for the money and it must be approved by a committee and then sent to the Congress for a full vote with your name at the top of the bill.
For example, a bill that would help fund the education of children should not have an earmark attached to it that cost taxpayers millions on a study about why the South Dakota snail is faster than the snail from Montana.
3. Lobbyists should be barred for life from Washington D.C. and if they ever show their face we should tar and feather them and run them out of the town.
4. Eliminate PAC money and special intrest money from contributing to political campaigns.
There are a whole lot more, but I think these would be a great start.
December 04, 2010 at 4:25pm
Mr. Doolittle, u r right!
December 04, 2010 at 4:26pm
Doolittle , the arguement for earmarks is that if everything went through individually it would clog the system. And more nothing would get done.
I can't remember the exact reason but lobbyist can't be made illegal, you could change the wording in the constitution to say natural born persons to end PAC money, but that's not easily done.
Publicly funded campaigns would be a good start, but only a few polititions would support the idea.
A new party would almost have to become corupt just to get funding in this system, also new people dropped into Washington would be lost trying to change things. So I agree a new party isnt very realistic in America.
December 04, 2010 at 5:23pm
I appreciate both arguments. But I also believe when when we get a good PRESIDENT, people don't understand, change is what this country needs. And I am not quoting our PRESIDENT. THIS IS MY OWN THOUGHTS.
December 04, 2010 at 5:47pm
Also, daily reader I am a bit surprised by you! By that I mean your" cynical" mind!
December 05, 2010 at 6:34am
It is a pitfall of eliminating earmarks that it could bog down the system. However, I am sure Congress would have no problem creating a committee designed exclusively to looking at such bills and determing which ones were the best and which were the worst.
I don't think earmark attachments were as prevelant 100 years ago and we still survived and governed quite well. Times have certainly changed from then to now, but I think if they truly wanted to govern they would find a way. It might actually cause them to earn the money we pay them.
I have never heard of a law saying it can't be made legal to bar lobbyists. That one is a new one for me. If you find anything on that, please post it.
And I am unclear on what you are saying about making a constitutional ammendment saying natural born citizen to eliminate PAC money. You could elborate more on that if you want.
And I have to say, for once these are legitimate debates and discussions. I think and I have always hoped, that the distance between a Republican and a Democrat lies only as far as each are willing to go to work toward reaching the best possible solution and middle ground.
If both would sit down and talk as we are here I think they would find, as I have always known, there is major differences between the two, but they are much closer in opinions than they realize!
December 05, 2010 at 11:18am
doolittle: Because of previous posts I never thought I could ever agree with anything you said. But I totally agree with everything you said in your last post on 12/4. I have another suggestion, term limits. Say change the President's term to six years with no repeat. The reason for one six year term is it takes awhile for them to set and get any of policies in place, plus they could focus on running the government instead of running for re-election. Second limit Congressmen to four or five terms and Senators to two terms.
December 05, 2010 at 2:14pm
bolo dude I have been here all along, I just couldn't get everyone to stop blaming long enough to debate or talk about anything. This is the first time we (and I say we to include myself) have actually stopped the bickering and actually talked for awhile.
I am going to defend what I believe, in word and in deed, as I am sure other people will as well. However, sometimes what we could agree upon gets lost in the fight and that is a shame. I bet if you broke it down there isn't a nickels worth of difference in what we all believe.
You know, I never thought about a six year term with no re-election for a President until you said it here. And I will have to say, that is a very good idea. You are 100% correct in that a President gets 2 years to govern before re-election kicks in. Then if re-elected they become lame duck and can't get anything done either.
I am good with term limits for both Congress and the Senate. However, I would think they both should be the same. 12 years total. Two terms for the Senator and three for the Congressman.
And maybe add a stipulation that after they sit out one term they then could run for re-election. That way if you actually do find someone decent they could still find a way to serve.
I do hope that we can continue to have these conversations in the future and go away from the Maury Povich show routine we have all grown accustomed to.
December 05, 2010 at 6:05pm
Doolittle , corporations are legally persons and have the rights of persons even though they don't have the limitations of people like death and penalties of imprisonment or death from bad behavior. Persons have the right to let the government hear their opinions, corporations don't have voice so they use money to speak. I'm not sure if or how this may or may not be tied to the money system and the fact that America and all Americans are legally a corporation. That is another complex part of our system I don't fully understand, it's also tied to the 14th amendment, look up scarecrow to learn more about that, like I say it's very complex and hard to believe at first, maybe dailyreader knows more about the scarecrow. I also find it hard to believe the supreme court would think that a created entity like a corporation should need the right to lobby congress with a louder voice than an average American.
December 06, 2010 at 12:51am
Correcting myself, it's not scarecrow, it's strawman
December 06, 2010 at 10:33am
A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position. source: Wikipedia
December 06, 2010 at 11:34am
I also disagreed with the Supreme Court's decision and I thought it was the wrong course of action.
It allows to much influence from big businesses to work the elections in their favor. And like someone posted above, they hedge their bet and contribute to both sides to ensure they always have a dog in the hunt!
December 06, 2010 at 8:12pm
The straw man I am talking about is the fictitious corporation created in your name the day you were born which allows the fed to borrow money using you as collateral. Google (straw man corporation)
December 07, 2010 at 9:06am
straw man corp-- a little far stretched for me. The straw man was looking for a brain and many still search. If I believed my country was truly this corrupt I would take up my pitchfork and attack or buy a plane ticket. I would opt for the latter since there are so many desirable places to live in this world. We can get all of our after-tax dollars and leave anytime we want. Believe me that freedom does still exist.
December 08, 2010 at 12:21am
I have a friend that showed me a lot about the strawman, legal looking documents that have been notarized, his neighbor is filling out paperwork thinking he is going to become sovereign, its all very elaborate. I even saw something on CNN one time although I didn't hear what they were saying about it.
If anyone finds all the strawman compelling I have to apologize for mentioning it, look up "sovereign citizen movement", it appears to be a big scam, apparently 300,000 people size big scam.
December 08, 2010 at 11:44am
I am sure a scam and maybe big but I question the integrity of your "friend", his neighbor and the "apparent" number of people who would fall for this scam.
December 08, 2010 at 12:21pm
No doubt, I just told him and he doesn't believe me even though it's on the FBI popular scams web site lol
December 11, 2010 at 7:16am
Did anyone listen to senator Bernie Sanders speech yesterday?