Birthers

SloMotion · 07-19-2012, 06:58 AM

I have a little government experience and I think it could be done by one higher level GS employee with access to the archives ... you wouldn't even need to involve the recorder-lady ... then you just use all legal means available to block/impede access or investigation of the archives ... just playing devil's advocate,

, if I'm gonna' assume they're smart enough to forge a birth certificate, I gotta' also assume that the opposition would have the resources to definitively prove the birth certificate was false ... there's a lot of questions for me that I know I'm never gonna' get an answer to, but at the rate they're going, if they ever did find the birth certificate was false, it would be long after Obama is outta' office, eh?

ScottF · 07-19-2012, 07:17 AM

Originally Posted by foreverfan

He had them post a FAKE BIRTH CERTIFICATE BECAUSE HE DOESN'T HAVE A REAL ONE. They had to know that what they posted was an obvious fake... so the real question is... why did they do it? To show the masses just who's in control. Oh by the way, they are coming for your guns too. Look us July 27, 2012.

He hasn't signed a single piece of legislation restricting gun use. Actually, he signed one allowing use of firearms in national parks.
Obama's record on this issue has been largely overlooked—except by the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, which recently issued a report card flunking him on all seven issues it deems important . Said President Paul Helmke, "If I had been told, in the days before Barack Obama's inauguration, that his record on gun violence prevention would be this poor, I would not have believed it." Obama Spurns Gun Control - Reason.com

so again, let's stick to jobs creation and the economy- real issues and real truths

SloMotion · 07-19-2012, 07:26 AM

Originally Posted by ScottF

so again, let's stick to jobs creation and the economy- real issues and real truths

... you know, this is the first time I've ever seen an attempt to hijack a non-serious thread with a serious comment as opposed to the normal hijacking method of redirecting a serious thread with non-serious comments,

... touche' and well played! ... it's on to the economy for this poster,

.

SaintsBro · 07-19-2012, 07:52 AM

Originally Posted by SloMotion

I have a little government experience and I think it could be done by one higher level GS employee with access to the archives ... you wouldn't even need to involve the recorder-lady ...

Okay! I'm with you! Let's do it, SloMo! So, we are some high level official in the state of Hawaii (who exactly are we?) and we are using our pass key (does that really exist? Which officials in another part of government would have keys to a vital records departmental office and its vault? Not many) to sneak into the archives vital records division...okay we're in, what are we doing in here exactly? I guess, since "recorder lady" is NOT involved, then I guess we have to somehow either FAKE the microfilm and/or the original record books, enough to fool her. Since she said publicly that our FAKE birth certificate we made, matches the records she has on file. So we have to line these ducks up. How do we do it? What do we do?

Do we find the roll and replace the page in the microfilm for Obama's birthday, with a duplicate page that we created, that shows his listing? Then we have to reproduce the whole roll, thousands of frames, because we can't just splice in one page, that'd be too obvious. Microfilm is FILM, you can't cut it and then stick it back together again without seeing the seam. To forge this, we would have to simulate not only the page of the microfilm, but the whole reel, the age of the microfilm itself, the reel, the box, the type of paper label on the box, the type of typewriter used on the original microfilm boxes, the yellowing of the plastic....very complex and expensive to forge all this, especially in order to fool one person (archival lady, who says our fake birth certifcate matches the vital records she has).

Let's just assume for sake of argument, that the records we want to tamper with were microfilmed in the 1980s sometime. We have to simulate not just the page of the 1961 birth ledger to insert Obama's name, we need to simulate the appearance of the roll of microfilm from the 1980s, too!

I suppose we could just find the original book and rip the page out, the one that doesn't list Obama being born, and burn it or something. That's pretty low tech. But what happens if a Republican later comes in and discovers the book with its missing page? All hell would break loose! I mean it would be freaking insane. And to get to your other point, SloMo, sure, we could cover this up until Obama gets out of office. That's easy. That's fairly do-able. But just until Obama gets out of office is not good enough -- we need to cover this thing up until Obama and virtually everybody who is responsible is dead, or beyond prosecution, so we can't get caught, right? Not to even mention the damage that would happen to our political party if/when we were caught doing this. So before we do this, before we can commit this massive conspiracy to forge this birth certificate, we have to understand -- if we're caught, we will go to jail, lose everything, our names will be mud and even our descendents will have to live with the burden of shame for years to come. It's pretty high stakes.

jcp026 · 07-19-2012, 08:55 AM

Originally Posted by SloMotion

... you know, this is the first time I've ever seen an attempt to hijack a non-serious thread with a serious comment as opposed to the normal hijacking method of redirecting a serious thread with non-serious comments, ... touche' and well played! ... it's on to the economy for this poster, .

Guys, I think we're fooling ourselves if we think either one of the candidates is going to fix the economy. Let's talk about the economy...NOW:

So, there's no question that the major problem with the economy right now is a lack of demand. Demand is down because people aren't stupid enough to put everything on credit cards anymore, people can't borrow against their homes any more because they're either underwater or have lost the house entirely, and wages, though mostly stagnant, have actually gone down in the last thirty years. The minimum wage now, adjusted for inflation, is lower than it was at its inception. And, last I heard, there are still four job seekers for every one job opening. Demand is down. No doubt about it.

How do we get wages up?
-Well, the minimum wage could be tied to inflation, which would push it up a bit now and increase the buying power of the working poor and help increase demand.
-Employer based health care places a HUGE BURDEN on our businesses. When you factor in what businesses spend to help pay for our insurance, which the government is already subsidizing, compensation has gone up. While not as high as profits, still a considerable amount. We can't keep subsidizing this and, with the ever increasing cost of health care, business can't afford to keep it up. We could stop subsidizing this and, naturally, most business will stop paying for our health coverage. Now, I'm not going to pretend that the bulk of money that would be freed up wouldn't just increase the profit margins, but, over time, I think we'd see wages tick up and removing this burden would make the U.S. more attractive to foreign business. I know of at least one case where a Japanese car company built a factor in Canada instead of the U.S. because of the cost of health care (and no, Obama Care doesn't have anything to do with it).
-Another, and more awesome, way to increase demand while simultaneously stabilizing the financial system would be what is a good tax (known as a Pigouvian Tax) that Luigi Zingales mentions in A Capitalism For The People. He talks about "a tax on short-term debt (with maturity of less than a year, for example), [can] discourage both excessive leverage and short-term leverage, preventing a crisis. Also, a 1 percent tax on outstanding short-term debt would raise $21.5 billion dollars annually just among the top nine institutions." He goes on to say that that amount would equal the tax liabilities of the bottom 65 million households who make less than $35,000. He doesn't exactly advocate this, but I'd take it one step further and say that for 5 years (a reasonable time to "fix" the economy, if we do what I want) the taxes of those 65 million households SHOULD be exempted. Paid for by this type of Pigouvian Tax and we put $21.5 billion dollars in the hands of the people most likely to spend it and, voila, we increase demand. But I have to stress that we write into this tax bill that those cuts for the bottom 65 million CAN NOT BE EXTENDED! It can be a BS political weapon. We have to take the debt seriously and, outside of Bill Clinton and Dwight Eisenhower, we haven't been very good at doing that.

-But what about my health insurance, you douche?!
GREAT QUESTION! A Public Option, where people opt in and pay some rate (just like with private insurance) then the federal government can insure them. It could be set up in a way that IT WOULD ALWAYS BREAK EVEN. Not bilking the taxpayer or the people using the insurance, and not adding to the debt. We could also allow people to purchase insurance across state lines, which would probably lead to crappier private insurance, but it would be cheaper insurance.

What about the job creators?
-Traditional Supply Side (Trickle-Down) Economics DOES NOT WORK! But we can tweak it. Just giving rich people and corporations money doesn't create jobs. That should be obvious right now with near record high corporate profits and taxes at, at least, 30 year lows. So how do we "tweak" it? We could say to corporations that all of the loopholes are gone. The corporate tax rate is 28%, but if you create a certain number (or percentage) of jobs in the U.S. then you can push your rate down to 18%. You could also include a couple of tax breaks that we know work and, if they took advantage of them, they could get their rate down to 12% (or pretty much the lowest in the world). But 12% is the absolute rock bottom. You will pay taxes. You will contribute.

What about taxes in general, you douche?
-Now you're just being mean. I believe that the best way to "clean up" the tax code is to get rid of all tax breaks. Then we can leave all of the rates the same and increase revenue. I also support raising the top rate to 39.6% also known as the rate from about 12 years ago.
-But what about small businesses, you stupid ass? Ouch. The "Small Business" label includes Bechtel, which took in $31 BILLION a couple of years ago. Not what most of us think of when we think of a small business. I think we should change the definition of "small business" or, if it's possible, pull them out of the individual tax system that we're in and into a system just for small businesses. A progressive system, to be sure, but a system that wouldn't lead to big tax increases for Mom and Pop spots. I don't have any idea how this would be done and haven't heard anyone talk mention it, so I can't elaborate. I'd like to add, though, that under the current system, with loopholes included, raising the top rate back to 39.6% would only affect about 2% of "small businesses."

With our current political system, how does this get done?
-It doesn't. Without campaign finance reform, getting rid of gerrymandering, reforming Congress and the filibuster, and pulling more people into the voting booths (Australian-style), none of this is possible.

Someone, please, respond seriously to this. I don't have anyone to talk to about it.

SloMotion · 07-19-2012, 08:56 AM

Well, I think a GS-10 or higher would be in the position to tamper with records like this, not be questioned or look suspicious, but not higher then a GS-12.

Another scenario would be that it would be that any high level operative with the proper clearance could access that area, remove and/or tamper with the documentation in question ... those records are not going to be 'locked down', no need to bribe anyone & your standard recording clerk is going to accept, rather then question, discrepancies in a record that's 50yrs old. It all slips through the cracks and when it does come under scrutiney, you only allow high level officials sympathetic to your position to view and confirm the authenticity of the material in question for national security reasons ... easy-peasey, lemon-squeezy ... I'm sure the editing of documents goes on at all levels of government everyday without question, big-corporations too for that matter, it's the way we do business.

Now, what would motivate someone to do this, IDK, especially in something as serious as the President of the United States, but that's just what makes it possible ... the more outrageous it seems, the less likely people will take it's possibility seriously or investigate ... it's like robbing a bank in broad daylight, except the prize here is control of the country ... and for the coverup, they've done a pretty good job keeping that whole JFK thing under wraps for so long.

Tell you the truth, I just don't trust either side at the moment ...

SaintsBro · 07-19-2012, 10:22 AM

Originally Posted by SloMotion

... those records are not going to be 'locked down',no need to bribe anyone & your standard recording clerk is going to accept, rather then question, discrepancies in a record that's 50yrs old. ... I'm sure the editing of documents goes on at all levels of government everyday without question, big-corporations too for that matter, it's the way we do business.

Actually, no, if these are vital records then they would be on kind of a lockdown, at the very minimum least they'd be in a secure area that most employees did not have access to, only the director and a handful of departmental employees would have access. It's not like the governor is walking around with a master key that can open any lock on any government office in the state. And you can't walk in the Vital Records building as a civilian, act like you know what you're doing, saunter around, then open some doors in a corridor off from the employee lunch room and go in and edit up somebody's vital records from fifty years ago. Breaking in at night, possible, but not exactly easy to do. Because you have to leave everything undisturbed etc. Tough job, even for a seasoned criminal. So how DO we do this. Who does it --exactly who, not just "they." I really want to figure this out, how it could be done.

And yes, editing of documents goes on all the time in government, but it doesn't go on in archival documents, which are something entirely different. Archival documents and vital records are like, okay, we're microfilming everything from 1947 to 1972, BOOM, it's done. It sits on a shelf and does not get used. And the process of creating these records or maintaining them is very thorough and not done half-assed, because you are talking about the proof of existence of people...very important to the state...if you go to the local DMV and say, "look, I don't really have any proof of residence, or good proof of who I am, but I live over on Elm Street, can you please give me an ID that says I live on Elm Street," what happens, what do they say to you? Do they let you fudge on things?

Discrepancies in a record are a pretty big deal. Unfortunately all we have is the word of the top person in the vital records office, who is trained and is more than a standard clerk, who has all eyes on her and a LOT to lose personally by lying -- I mean not just possible prison time but GENERATIONS of disgrace for her family and her name if she's caught lying about this zillion dollar question, what's in the file -- and she says that at least on her watch, as far as her own integrity is concerned, there are no discrepancies, and the records are authentic and match what our forged birth certificate says.

But she HAS to be lying, because we agreed he was born in Kenya. Again, would YOU lie about something so important if someone asked you to, and how much would it cost to keep your mouth shut? So, if we are the conspirators, running this conspiracy, how much are we paying this woman for this service of lying for us? How much? Also, what do we do if she comes back to us and asks for MORE money? Do we kill her? Someone tell me how this plan works.

saintfan · 07-19-2012, 11:21 AM

Originally Posted by jcp026

With our current political system, how does this get done?
-It doesn't. Without campaign finance reform, getting rid of gerrymandering, reforming Congress and the filibuster, and pulling more people into the voting booths (Australian-style), none of this is possible.

Great post - definitely good things in there. Sadly, that last part is the problem. The American people need to take ownership. That's the sad truth, and I wish I didn't think this, but I'm not sure, collectively, the American People are capable.

ScottF · 07-19-2012, 11:22 AM

Originally Posted by jcp026

Guys, I think we're fooling ourselves if we think either one of the candidates is going to fix the economy. Let's talk about the economy...NOW:

So, there's no question that the major problem with the economy right now is a lack of demand. Demand is down because people aren't stupid enough to put everything on credit cards anymore, people can't borrow against their homes any more because they're either underwater or have lost the house entirely, and wages, though mostly stagnant, have actually gone down in the last thirty years. The minimum wage now, adjusted for inflation, is lower than it was at its inception. And, last I heard, there are still four job seekers for every one job opening. Demand is down. No doubt about it.

How do we get wages up?
-Well, the minimum wage could be tied to inflation, which would push it up a bit now and increase the buying power of the working poor and help increase demand.
-Employer based health care places a HUGE BURDEN on our businesses. When you factor in what businesses spend to help pay for our insurance, which the government is already subsidizing, compensation has gone up. While not as high as profits, still a considerable amount. We can't keep subsidizing this and, with the ever increasing cost of health care, business can't afford to keep it up. We could stop subsidizing this and, naturally, most business will stop paying for our health coverage. Now, I'm not going to pretend that the bulk of money that would be freed up wouldn't just increase the profit margins, but, over time, I think we'd see wages tick up and removing this burden would make the U.S. more attractive to foreign business. I know of at least one case where a Japanese car company built a factor in Canada instead of the U.S. because of the cost of health care (and no, Obama Care doesn't have anything to do with it).
-Another, and more awesome, way to increase demand while simultaneously stabilizing the financial system would be what is a good tax (known as a Pigouvian Tax) that Luigi Zingales mentions in A Capitalism For The People. He talks about "a tax on short-term debt (with maturity of less than a year, for example), [can] discourage both excessive leverage and short-term leverage, preventing a crisis. Also, a 1 percent tax on outstanding short-term debt would raise $21.5 billion dollars annually just among the top nine institutions." He goes on to say that that amount would equal the tax liabilities of the bottom 65 million households who make less than $35,000. He doesn't exactly advocate this, but I'd take it one step further and say that for 5 years (a reasonable time to "fix" the economy, if we do what I want) the taxes of those 65 million households SHOULD be exempted. Paid for by this type of Pigouvian Tax and we put $21.5 billion dollars in the hands of the people most likely to spend it and, voila, we increase demand. But I have to stress that we write into this tax bill that those cuts for the bottom 65 million CAN NOT BE EXTENDED! It can be a BS political weapon. We have to take the debt seriously and, outside of Bill Clinton and Dwight Eisenhower, we haven't been very good at doing that.

-But what about my health insurance, you douche?!
GREAT QUESTION! A Public Option, where people opt in and pay some rate (just like with private insurance) then the federal government can insure them. It could be set up in a way that IT WOULD ALWAYS BREAK EVEN. Not bilking the taxpayer or the people using the insurance, and not adding to the debt. We could also allow people to purchase insurance across state lines, which would probably lead to crappier private insurance, but it would be cheaper insurance.

What about the job creators?
-Traditional Supply Side (Trickle-Down) Economics DOES NOT WORK! But we can tweak it. Just giving rich people and corporations money doesn't create jobs. That should be obvious right now with near record high corporate profits and taxes at, at least, 30 year lows. So how do we "tweak" it? We could say to corporations that all of the loopholes are gone. The corporate tax rate is 28%, but if you create a certain number (or percentage) of jobs in the U.S. then you can push your rate down to 18%. You could also include a couple of tax breaks that we know work and, if they took advantage of them, they could get their rate down to 12% (or pretty much the lowest in the world). But 12% is the absolute rock bottom. You will pay taxes. You will contribute.

What about taxes in general, you douche?
-Now you're just being mean. I believe that the best way to "clean up" the tax code is to get rid of all tax breaks. Then we can leave all of the rates the same and increase revenue. I also support raising the top rate to 39.6% also known as the rate from about 12 years ago.
-But what about small businesses, you stupid ass? Ouch. The "Small Business" label includes Bechtel, which took in $31 BILLION a couple of years ago. Not what most of us think of when we think of a small business. I think we should change the definition of "small business" or, if it's possible, pull them out of the individual tax system that we're in and into a system just for small businesses. A progressive system, to be sure, but a system that wouldn't lead to big tax increases for Mom and Pop spots. I don't have any idea how this would be done and haven't heard anyone talk mention it, so I can't elaborate. I'd like to add, though, that under the current system, with loopholes included, raising the top rate back to 39.6% would only affect about 2% of "small businesses."

With our current political system, how does this get done?
-It doesn't. Without campaign finance reform, getting rid of gerrymandering, reforming Congress and the filibuster, and pulling more people into the voting booths (Australian-style), none of this is possible.

Someone, please, respond seriously to this. I don't have anyone to talk to about it.

I admire your passion, but your last line says it all (I bolded it). Most on the right will scream 'socialism' and 'big government' and the left will say it's not enough. The chief goal of the modern two party system is to attack the incumbent and prepare for the next election. Everyone wants to win, but no one wants to serve.

Mardigras9 · 07-19-2012, 01:19 PM

Originally Posted by saintfan

The thing is I don't care if it was the Sheriff of bloody Nottingham. That this wasn't exposed during the election and that he is still in office is one of the biggest failures of American Government ever.

Exactly, is it because there is just too many lies to nail him on one?

07-19-2012, 07:17 AM	#22
ScottF 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Atlanta Posts: 6,324	Originally Posted by foreverfan He had them post a FAKE BIRTH CERTIFICATE BECAUSE HE DOESN'T HAVE A REAL ONE. They had to know that what they posted was an obvious fake... so the real question is... why did they do it? To show the masses just who's in control. Oh by the way, they are coming for your guns too. Look us July 27, 2012. He hasn't signed a single piece of legislation restricting gun use. Actually, he signed one allowing use of firearms in national parks. Obama's record on this issue has been largely overlooked—except by the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, which recently issued a report card flunking him on all seven issues it deems important . Said President Paul Helmke, "If I had been told, in the days before Barack Obama's inauguration, that his record on gun violence prevention would be this poor, I would not have believed it." Obama Spurns Gun Control - Reason.com so again, let's stick to jobs creation and the economy- real issues and real truths

07-19-2012, 07:26 AM	#23
SloMotion 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Jan 2012 Posts: 6,776 Blog Entries: 15	Originally Posted by ScottF so again, let's stick to jobs creation and the economy- real issues and real truths ... you know, this is the first time I've ever seen an attempt to hijack a non-serious thread with a serious comment as opposed to the normal hijacking method of redirecting a serious thread with non-serious comments, ... touche' and well played! ... it's on to the economy for this poster, .

07-19-2012, 07:52 AM	#24
SaintsBro Site Donor Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: in line with my ridiculous CLEAR PLASTIC BAG Posts: 3,650 Blog Entries: 3	Originally Posted by SloMotion I have a little government experience and I think it could be done by one higher level GS employee with access to the archives ... you wouldn't even need to involve the recorder-lady ... Okay! I'm with you! Let's do it, SloMo! So, we are some high level official in the state of Hawaii (who exactly are we?) and we are using our pass key (does that really exist? Which officials in another part of government would have keys to a vital records departmental office and its vault? Not many) to sneak into the archives vital records division...okay we're in, what are we doing in here exactly? I guess, since "recorder lady" is NOT involved, then I guess we have to somehow either FAKE the microfilm and/or the original record books, enough to fool her. Since she said publicly that our FAKE birth certificate we made, matches the records she has on file. So we have to line these ducks up. How do we do it? What do we do? Do we find the roll and replace the page in the microfilm for Obama's birthday, with a duplicate page that we created, that shows his listing? Then we have to reproduce the whole roll, thousands of frames, because we can't just splice in one page, that'd be too obvious. Microfilm is FILM, you can't cut it and then stick it back together again without seeing the seam. To forge this, we would have to simulate not only the page of the microfilm, but the whole reel, the age of the microfilm itself, the reel, the box, the type of paper label on the box, the type of typewriter used on the original microfilm boxes, the yellowing of the plastic....very complex and expensive to forge all this, especially in order to fool one person (archival lady, who says our fake birth certifcate matches the vital records she has). Let's just assume for sake of argument, that the records we want to tamper with were microfilmed in the 1980s sometime. We have to simulate not just the page of the 1961 birth ledger to insert Obama's name, we need to simulate the appearance of the roll of microfilm from the 1980s, too! I suppose we could just find the original book and rip the page out, the one that doesn't list Obama being born, and burn it or something. That's pretty low tech. But what happens if a Republican later comes in and discovers the book with its missing page? All hell would break loose! I mean it would be freaking insane. And to get to your other point, SloMo, sure, we could cover this up until Obama gets out of office. That's easy. That's fairly do-able. But just until Obama gets out of office is not good enough -- we need to cover this thing up until Obama and virtually everybody who is responsible is dead, or beyond prosecution, so we can't get caught, right? Not to even mention the damage that would happen to our political party if/when we were caught doing this. So before we do this, before we can commit this massive conspiracy to forge this birth certificate, we have to understand -- if we're caught, we will go to jail, lose everything, our names will be mud and even our descendents will have to live with the burden of shame for years to come. It's pretty high stakes. Halo likes this.

07-19-2012, 08:55 AM	#25
jcp026 500th Post Join Date: Mar 2010 Posts: 953	Originally Posted by SloMotion ... you know, this is the first time I've ever seen an attempt to hijack a non-serious thread with a serious comment as opposed to the normal hijacking method of redirecting a serious thread with non-serious comments, ... touche' and well played! ... it's on to the economy for this poster, . Guys, I think we're fooling ourselves if we think either one of the candidates is going to fix the economy. Let's talk about the economy...NOW: So, there's no question that the major problem with the economy right now is a lack of demand. Demand is down because people aren't stupid enough to put everything on credit cards anymore, people can't borrow against their homes any more because they're either underwater or have lost the house entirely, and wages, though mostly stagnant, have actually gone down in the last thirty years. The minimum wage now, adjusted for inflation, is lower than it was at its inception. And, last I heard, there are still four job seekers for every one job opening. Demand is down. No doubt about it. How do we get wages up? -Well, the minimum wage could be tied to inflation, which would push it up a bit now and increase the buying power of the working poor and help increase demand. -Employer based health care places a HUGE BURDEN on our businesses. When you factor in what businesses spend to help pay for our insurance, which the government is already subsidizing, compensation has gone up. While not as high as profits, still a considerable amount. We can't keep subsidizing this and, with the ever increasing cost of health care, business can't afford to keep it up. We could stop subsidizing this and, naturally, most business will stop paying for our health coverage. Now, I'm not going to pretend that the bulk of money that would be freed up wouldn't just increase the profit margins, but, over time, I think we'd see wages tick up and removing this burden would make the U.S. more attractive to foreign business. I know of at least one case where a Japanese car company built a factor in Canada instead of the U.S. because of the cost of health care (and no, Obama Care doesn't have anything to do with it). -Another, and more awesome, way to increase demand while simultaneously stabilizing the financial system would be what is a good tax (known as a Pigouvian Tax) that Luigi Zingales mentions in A Capitalism For The People. He talks about "a tax on short-term debt (with maturity of less than a year, for example), [can] discourage both excessive leverage and short-term leverage, preventing a crisis. Also, a 1 percent tax on outstanding short-term debt would raise $21.5 billion dollars annually just among the top nine institutions." He goes on to say that that amount would equal the tax liabilities of the bottom 65 million households who make less than $35,000. He doesn't exactly advocate this, but I'd take it one step further and say that for 5 years (a reasonable time to "fix" the economy, if we do what I want) the taxes of those 65 million households SHOULD be exempted. Paid for by this type of Pigouvian Tax and we put $21.5 billion dollars in the hands of the people most likely to spend it and, voila, we increase demand. But I have to stress that we write into this tax bill that those cuts for the bottom 65 million CAN NOT BE EXTENDED! It can be a BS political weapon. We have to take the debt seriously and, outside of Bill Clinton and Dwight Eisenhower, we haven't been very good at doing that. -But what about my health insurance, you douche?! GREAT QUESTION! A Public Option, where people opt in and pay some rate (just like with private insurance) then the federal government can insure them. It could be set up in a way that IT WOULD ALWAYS BREAK EVEN. Not bilking the taxpayer or the people using the insurance, and not adding to the debt. We could also allow people to purchase insurance across state lines, which would probably lead to crappier private insurance, but it would be cheaper insurance. What about the job creators? -Traditional Supply Side (Trickle-Down) Economics DOES NOT WORK! But we can tweak it. Just giving rich people and corporations money doesn't create jobs. That should be obvious right now with near record high corporate profits and taxes at, at least, 30 year lows. So how do we "tweak" it? We could say to corporations that all of the loopholes are gone. The corporate tax rate is 28%, but if you create a certain number (or percentage) of jobs in the U.S. then you can push your rate down to 18%. You could also include a couple of tax breaks that we know work and, if they took advantage of them, they could get their rate down to 12% (or pretty much the lowest in the world). But 12% is the absolute rock bottom. You will pay taxes. You will contribute. What about taxes in general, you douche? -Now you're just being mean. I believe that the best way to "clean up" the tax code is to get rid of all tax breaks. Then we can leave all of the rates the same and increase revenue. I also support raising the top rate to 39.6% also known as the rate from about 12 years ago. -But what about small businesses, you stupid ass? Ouch. The "Small Business" label includes Bechtel, which took in $31 BILLION a couple of years ago. Not what most of us think of when we think of a small business. I think we should change the definition of "small business" or, if it's possible, pull them out of the individual tax system that we're in and into a system just for small businesses. A progressive system, to be sure, but a system that wouldn't lead to big tax increases for Mom and Pop spots. I don't have any idea how this would be done and haven't heard anyone talk mention it, so I can't elaborate. I'd like to add, though, that under the current system, with loopholes included, raising the top rate back to 39.6% would only affect about 2% of "small businesses." With our current political system, how does this get done? -It doesn't. Without campaign finance reform, getting rid of gerrymandering, reforming Congress and the filibuster, and pulling more people into the voting booths (Australian-style), none of this is possible. Someone, please, respond seriously to this. I don't have anyone to talk to about it. saintfan likes this.
jcp026 500th Post Join Date: Mar 2010 Posts: 953

07-19-2012, 10:22 AM	#27
SaintsBro Site Donor Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: in line with my ridiculous CLEAR PLASTIC BAG Posts: 3,650 Blog Entries: 3	Originally Posted by SloMotion ... those records are not going to be 'locked down',no need to bribe anyone & your standard recording clerk is going to accept, rather then question, discrepancies in a record that's 50yrs old. ... I'm sure the editing of documents goes on at all levels of government everyday without question, big-corporations too for that matter, it's the way we do business. Actually, no, if these are vital records then they would be on kind of a lockdown, at the very minimum least they'd be in a secure area that most employees did not have access to, only the director and a handful of departmental employees would have access. It's not like the governor is walking around with a master key that can open any lock on any government office in the state. And you can't walk in the Vital Records building as a civilian, act like you know what you're doing, saunter around, then open some doors in a corridor off from the employee lunch room and go in and edit up somebody's vital records from fifty years ago. Breaking in at night, possible, but not exactly easy to do. Because you have to leave everything undisturbed etc. Tough job, even for a seasoned criminal. So how DO we do this. Who does it --exactly who, not just "they." I really want to figure this out, how it could be done. And yes, editing of documents goes on all the time in government, but it doesn't go on in archival documents, which are something entirely different. Archival documents and vital records are like, okay, we're microfilming everything from 1947 to 1972, BOOM, it's done. It sits on a shelf and does not get used. And the process of creating these records or maintaining them is very thorough and not done half-assed, because you are talking about the proof of existence of people...very important to the state...if you go to the local DMV and say, "look, I don't really have any proof of residence, or good proof of who I am, but I live over on Elm Street, can you please give me an ID that says I live on Elm Street," what happens, what do they say to you? Do they let you fudge on things? Discrepancies in a record are a pretty big deal. Unfortunately all we have is the word of the top person in the vital records office, who is trained and is more than a standard clerk, who has all eyes on her and a LOT to lose personally by lying -- I mean not just possible prison time but GENERATIONS of disgrace for her family and her name if she's caught lying about this zillion dollar question, what's in the file -- and she says that at least on her watch, as far as her own integrity is concerned, there are no discrepancies, and the records are authentic and match what our forged birth certificate says. But she HAS to be lying, because we agreed he was born in Kenya. Again, would YOU lie about something so important if someone asked you to, and how much would it cost to keep your mouth shut? So, if we are the conspirators, running this conspiracy, how much are we paying this woman for this service of lying for us? How much? Also, what do we do if she comes back to us and asks for MORE money? Do we kill her? Someone tell me how this plan works.

07-19-2012, 06:58 AM	#21
SloMotion 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Jan 2012 Posts: 6,776 Blog Entries: 15	I have a little government experience and I think it could be done by one higher level GS employee with access to the archives ... you wouldn't even need to involve the recorder-lady ... then you just use all legal means available to block/impede access or investigation of the archives ... just playing devil's advocate, , if I'm gonna' assume they're smart enough to forge a birth certificate, I gotta' also assume that the opposition would have the resources to definitively prove the birth certificate was false ... there's a lot of questions for me that I know I'm never gonna' get an answer to, but at the rate they're going, if they ever did find the birth certificate was false, it would be long after Obama is outta' office, eh?

Latest Blogs
2023 New Orleans Saints: Training Camp Last Blog: 08-01-2023 By: MarchingOn Puck the Fro Browl! Last Blog: 02-05-2023 By: neugey CFP: "Just Keep Doing What You're Doing" Last Blog: 12-08-2022 By: neugey

07-19-2012, 08:56 AM	#26
SloMotion 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Jan 2012 Posts: 6,776 Blog Entries: 15	Well, I think a GS-10 or higher would be in the position to tamper with records like this, not be questioned or look suspicious, but not higher then a GS-12. Another scenario would be that it would be that any high level operative with the proper clearance could access that area, remove and/or tamper with the documentation in question ... those records are not going to be 'locked down', no need to bribe anyone & your standard recording clerk is going to accept, rather then question, discrepancies in a record that's 50yrs old. It all slips through the cracks and when it does come under scrutiney, you only allow high level officials sympathetic to your position to view and confirm the authenticity of the material in question for national security reasons ... easy-peasey, lemon-squeezy ... I'm sure the editing of documents goes on at all levels of government everyday without question, big-corporations too for that matter, it's the way we do business. Now, what would motivate someone to do this, IDK, especially in something as serious as the President of the United States, but that's just what makes it possible ... the more outrageous it seems, the less likely people will take it's possibility seriously or investigate ... it's like robbing a bank in broad daylight, except the prize here is control of the country ... and for the coverup, they've done a pretty good job keeping that whole JFK thing under wraps for so long. Tell you the truth, I just don't trust either side at the moment ...

07-19-2012, 11:21 AM	#28
saintfan Donated Plasma Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: San Francisco, CA Posts: 18,556 Blog Entries: 5	Originally Posted by jcp026 With our current political system, how does this get done? -It doesn't. Without campaign finance reform, getting rid of gerrymandering, reforming Congress and the filibuster, and pulling more people into the voting booths (Australian-style), none of this is possible. Great post - definitely good things in there. Sadly, that last part is the problem. The American people need to take ownership. That's the sad truth, and I wish I didn't think this, but I'm not sure, collectively, the American People are capable. jcp026 likes this.

07-19-2012, 11:22 AM	#29
ScottF 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Atlanta Posts: 6,324	Originally Posted by jcp026 Guys, I think we're fooling ourselves if we think either one of the candidates is going to fix the economy. Let's talk about the economy...NOW: So, there's no question that the major problem with the economy right now is a lack of demand. Demand is down because people aren't stupid enough to put everything on credit cards anymore, people can't borrow against their homes any more because they're either underwater or have lost the house entirely, and wages, though mostly stagnant, have actually gone down in the last thirty years. The minimum wage now, adjusted for inflation, is lower than it was at its inception. And, last I heard, there are still four job seekers for every one job opening. Demand is down. No doubt about it. How do we get wages up? -Well, the minimum wage could be tied to inflation, which would push it up a bit now and increase the buying power of the working poor and help increase demand. -Employer based health care places a HUGE BURDEN on our businesses. When you factor in what businesses spend to help pay for our insurance, which the government is already subsidizing, compensation has gone up. While not as high as profits, still a considerable amount. We can't keep subsidizing this and, with the ever increasing cost of health care, business can't afford to keep it up. We could stop subsidizing this and, naturally, most business will stop paying for our health coverage. Now, I'm not going to pretend that the bulk of money that would be freed up wouldn't just increase the profit margins, but, over time, I think we'd see wages tick up and removing this burden would make the U.S. more attractive to foreign business. I know of at least one case where a Japanese car company built a factor in Canada instead of the U.S. because of the cost of health care (and no, Obama Care doesn't have anything to do with it). -Another, and more awesome, way to increase demand while simultaneously stabilizing the financial system would be what is a good tax (known as a Pigouvian Tax) that Luigi Zingales mentions in A Capitalism For The People. He talks about "a tax on short-term debt (with maturity of less than a year, for example), [can] discourage both excessive leverage and short-term leverage, preventing a crisis. Also, a 1 percent tax on outstanding short-term debt would raise $21.5 billion dollars annually just among the top nine institutions." He goes on to say that that amount would equal the tax liabilities of the bottom 65 million households who make less than $35,000. He doesn't exactly advocate this, but I'd take it one step further and say that for 5 years (a reasonable time to "fix" the economy, if we do what I want) the taxes of those 65 million households SHOULD be exempted. Paid for by this type of Pigouvian Tax and we put $21.5 billion dollars in the hands of the people most likely to spend it and, voila, we increase demand. But I have to stress that we write into this tax bill that those cuts for the bottom 65 million CAN NOT BE EXTENDED! It can be a BS political weapon. We have to take the debt seriously and, outside of Bill Clinton and Dwight Eisenhower, we haven't been very good at doing that. -But what about my health insurance, you douche?! GREAT QUESTION! A Public Option, where people opt in and pay some rate (just like with private insurance) then the federal government can insure them. It could be set up in a way that IT WOULD ALWAYS BREAK EVEN. Not bilking the taxpayer or the people using the insurance, and not adding to the debt. We could also allow people to purchase insurance across state lines, which would probably lead to crappier private insurance, but it would be cheaper insurance. What about the job creators? -Traditional Supply Side (Trickle-Down) Economics DOES NOT WORK! But we can tweak it. Just giving rich people and corporations money doesn't create jobs. That should be obvious right now with near record high corporate profits and taxes at, at least, 30 year lows. So how do we "tweak" it? We could say to corporations that all of the loopholes are gone. The corporate tax rate is 28%, but if you create a certain number (or percentage) of jobs in the U.S. then you can push your rate down to 18%. You could also include a couple of tax breaks that we know work and, if they took advantage of them, they could get their rate down to 12% (or pretty much the lowest in the world). But 12% is the absolute rock bottom. You will pay taxes. You will contribute. What about taxes in general, you douche? -Now you're just being mean. I believe that the best way to "clean up" the tax code is to get rid of all tax breaks. Then we can leave all of the rates the same and increase revenue. I also support raising the top rate to 39.6% also known as the rate from about 12 years ago. -But what about small businesses, you stupid ass? Ouch. The "Small Business" label includes Bechtel, which took in $31 BILLION a couple of years ago. Not what most of us think of when we think of a small business. I think we should change the definition of "small business" or, if it's possible, pull them out of the individual tax system that we're in and into a system just for small businesses. A progressive system, to be sure, but a system that wouldn't lead to big tax increases for Mom and Pop spots. I don't have any idea how this would be done and haven't heard anyone talk mention it, so I can't elaborate. I'd like to add, though, that under the current system, with loopholes included, raising the top rate back to 39.6% would only affect about 2% of "small businesses." With our current political system, how does this get done? -It doesn't. Without campaign finance reform, getting rid of gerrymandering, reforming Congress and the filibuster, and pulling more people into the voting booths (Australian-style), none of this is possible. Someone, please, respond seriously to this. I don't have anyone to talk to about it. I admire your passion, but your last line says it all (I bolded it). Most on the right will scream 'socialism' and 'big government' and the left will say it's not enough. The chief goal of the modern two party system is to attack the incumbent and prepare for the next election. Everyone wants to win, but no one wants to serve. saintfan and jcp026 like this.

07-19-2012, 01:19 PM	#30
Mardigras9 Site Donor 2015 Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: Land Mass between LA and AL Posts: 4,375	Originally Posted by saintfan The thing is I don't care if it was the Sheriff of bloody Nottingham. That this wasn't exposed during the election and that he is still in office is one of the biggest failures of American Government ever. Exactly, is it because there is just too many lies to nail him on one?