On January 11th we were in court for the seventh time pressing our lawsuit against your mortgage lender forward.
To summarize, the judge himself, recognizes that the potential award against BOA/Countrywide would be in the BILLIONS of dollars. where all the media about this story?
Has she no sense of dignity? Seducing voters with sexually suggestive language is disgusting. Probably successful, but disgusting. With Michelle and Sarah, I experience Velma and Roxie's Nowadays.
Our debt to China is much lower than anyone seems to think. It's really no problem at all. The communists took over China on October 1st, 1949, they nationalized all American property and businesses, and their considerable debt to the United States shortly after. I'll have to research the dollar amount of the private property nationalized, but the US government gave them $170 million worth of equipment to fight the Japanese. One 1941 dollar equals 15.32 2010 dollars. Adjusting for inflation the principle on that loan is actually $2,604,400,000. They have yet to pay a penny back so add 62 years of 5% interest compounded yearly and we get $62,088,637,015.33, over $62 Billion. But wait that is the interest rate if yearly payments are made. If they don't pay until the end of the 62 year term, 15% is more reasonable and that amounts to $15,099,890,175,644.03, over $15 trillion. As of January 31, 2011, the total Public Debt of the United States of America was $14.13 trillion. I say we let the Chinese pay off our $14.13 trillion debt and call it even.
That's my point. We didn't get to collect it from China. What makes anybody think they will collect from us. If we subtract what we owe them from what they owe us, we haven't defaulted on our debt, and they end up indebted to us. They can't foreclose on US anymore than we could foreclose on them, and they know it. I don't see a problem with debt to China. If it causes us real problems we can always do the same thing to them that they did to US.
U.S. Federal Leadership's Unresponsiveness to Combating China's Innovative Beggar-Thy-Neighbor Strategy over the Last 10 Years!
The Chinese Government gets result by managing its economy; therefore received the highest governmental trust ranking of 88% in the 2011 Edelman Trust Barometer?. The U.S. Government may not even deserve the 40% rating because it has done little if nothing to combat China's innovative beggar-thy-neighbor strategy.
Four deficits gave birth to the book and movie I.O.U.S.A, namely, the leadership, trade, savings and the fiscal deficits. Following the releases of the I.O.U.S.A. book/movie, the better financed special interest groups caused the fiscal commission to become a reality, leaving the remaining three deficits, most relevant to the middle-class, to fall by the wayside. These 3 middle-class-relevant deficits, namely the leadership, trade and savings deficits are most causal to our current economic plight, while the fiscal deficit is primarily the result (effect) of the first three. I.O.U.S.A. treatment of the trade deficit was framed in the context of Warren Buffett's parable Squanderville versus Thriftville. The portion of my post, titled, An America Lost in Squanderville deals with the trade deficit: The United States' trade gap is the proverbial "leak-in the-****" with its de-simulative effect on our recovery. In November 2003, Warren Buffett in his Fortune, Squanderville versus Thriftville article recommended that America adopt a balanced trade model. The fact that advice advocating balance and sustainability, from a sage the caliber of Warren Buffett, could be virtually ignored for over seven years is unfathomable. Media coverage that China has kept it currency undervalued is a gross understatement, it has actually been keeping the U.S. dollar over-valued; which adversely affects all U.S. trade with ALL U.S. trading partners, not just trade with China. Until action is taken on Buffett's or a similar balanced trade model, America will continue to squander time, treasure and talent in pursuit of an illusionary recovery.
The Leadership deficit can be best addressed with campaign financing reform that really works. The savings deficit can be best addressed with increased productivity, similar to Japan post-WWII economic miracle pioneered by W. Edwards Deming, an American statistician and replacing federal employment and most federal income taxes with a federal consumption tax, like those used by most industrialized countries, except the United States.
Here is a simpler solution to the China problem. If it says made in China on it then don't buy it. When the communists took over the mainland they nationalized all American owned companies and the Chinese debt to the United States. It wasn't any problem for the Chinese to deal with their huge debt to US.
This woman is an excellent example of why we need IQ tests for all potential office holders. Score a minimum of 125 or you can't run for office. That would eliminate the Republicon threat in a day. No more 18th century 'solutions' for 21st century problems!
Certainly, I like Ike! Let's return the wealthy to his taxing rate of 70% and use the money to lower taxes on the middle class to 10% for 10 years minimum. The middle class will spend the money, increasing consumer demand and giving the wealthy a vigorous economy to invest in. The wealthy will make a bigger profit and the government can use the extra revenue to eliminate the deficit and start reducing the debt.
When the economy has grown substantially and is booming we can cut taxes on the wealthy, but leave taxes unchanged on the middle class.
Of course we will need to regulate business so the wealthy can't play the con games that caused the recession again, no more derivatives or mortgages for 125% of the value of homes or hedge fund managers that get paid $900,000 per hour salaries. $900,000 per hour could be used to create 10,000 $30 per hour jobs. No individual is worth that unless he pees gasoline and leaves behind gold bricks when he uses the bathroom.
by Nmmrng February 10, 2011 9:38 PM EST "Are you going to give the deductions of the Eisenhower years? At 70% without the deductions, do you expect anyone to stay in America who has the means to leave?"
They would have a choice between countries that would get about the same amount out of them in a variety of ways and countries which might nationalize their holdings or just hang the Yankee exploiters. Don't you think the wealthy value the bill of rights more than that? But you have a good point, there should be deductions on income made from US based companies which employ at least 50% of their workforce inside the USA, and on income made from US based manufacturing, and in fact on any income made from investments inside the United States. We could also say that if you are a US citizen it doesn't matter where you made your money, if you are in that income bracket you pay the taxes on it.
Move to Australia and you can pay the Aussies and US. Move to Argentina and you can still pay US until the Argentinians nationalize your holdings. And of course we can also stipulate that at the end of the 10 Years the 70% automatically drops down to 45%.
by Nmmrng February 10, 2011 9:38 PM EST "I agree with you on the financial regulation, though. however, the only way that we can survive on a global level is to do everything to become competitive and streamline our government to make it cost effective."
I am with you on more efficient business and government practices. But if the wealthy are not going to act in the best interests of the nation (and they haven't for some time now) we also need to give them strong incentives to do so.
I'm convinced this woman is still in office due to the high rate of Seasonal Affective Disorder in the midwest. Personally, I believe she's insane - but I have to admit that "Hu's your daddy" is friggin' funny.
Thi is the same woman that, 6 months ago stood on the floor of Congress screaming for armed revolution against the government? And she wants to lead it? What could go wrong there?
Maybe they will let their inner grizzlies out... in the mud.
But all fantasies of neo-contessa on neo-contessa aside, can you imagine a debate (!!) between these two? The IQ level of the country will fall 10 points in that hour!
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. By using this Web site you agree to accept our Terms of Service. Click here to read the Rules of Engagement.
Reply to Comment The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. By using this Web site you agree to accept our Terms of Service. Click here to read the Rules of Engagement.
our lawsuit against your mortgage lender forward.
To summarize, the judge himself, recognizes that the potential award against
BOA/Countrywide would be in the BILLIONS of dollars. where all the media about this story?
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2011/02/michele_bachmanns_fuzzy_tax_ma.html?hpid=topnews
The Chinese Government gets result by managing its economy; therefore received the highest governmental trust ranking of 88% in the 2011 Edelman Trust Barometer?. The U.S. Government may not even deserve the 40% rating because it has done little if nothing to combat China's innovative beggar-thy-neighbor strategy.
Four deficits gave birth to the book and movie I.O.U.S.A, namely, the leadership, trade, savings and the fiscal deficits. Following the releases of the I.O.U.S.A. book/movie, the better financed special interest groups caused the fiscal commission to become a reality, leaving the remaining three deficits, most relevant to the middle-class, to fall by the wayside. These 3 middle-class-relevant deficits, namely the leadership, trade and savings deficits are most causal to our current economic plight, while the fiscal deficit is primarily the result (effect) of the first three. I.O.U.S.A. treatment of the trade deficit was framed in the context of Warren Buffett's parable Squanderville versus Thriftville. The portion of my post, titled, An America Lost in Squanderville deals with the trade deficit:
The United States' trade gap is the proverbial "leak-in the-****" with its de-simulative effect on our recovery. In November 2003, Warren Buffett in his Fortune, Squanderville versus Thriftville article recommended that America adopt a balanced trade model. The fact that advice advocating balance and sustainability, from a sage the caliber of Warren Buffett, could be virtually ignored for over seven years is unfathomable. Media coverage that China has kept it currency undervalued is a gross understatement, it has actually been keeping the U.S. dollar over-valued; which adversely affects all U.S. trade with ALL U.S. trading partners, not just trade with China. Until action is taken on Buffett's or a similar balanced trade model, America will continue to squander time, treasure and talent in pursuit of an illusionary recovery.
The Leadership deficit can be best addressed with campaign financing reform that really works. The savings deficit can be best addressed with increased productivity, similar to Japan post-WWII economic miracle pioneered by W. Edwards Deming, an American statistician and replacing federal employment and most federal income taxes with a federal consumption tax, like those used by most industrialized countries, except the United States.
When the economy has grown substantially and is booming we can cut taxes on the wealthy, but leave taxes unchanged on the middle class.
Of course we will need to regulate business so the wealthy can't play the con games that caused the recession again, no more derivatives or mortgages for 125% of the value of homes or hedge fund managers that get paid $900,000 per hour salaries. $900,000 per hour could be used to create 10,000 $30 per hour jobs. No individual is worth that unless he pees gasoline and leaves behind gold bricks when he uses the bathroom.
"Are you going to give the deductions of the Eisenhower years? At 70% without the deductions, do you expect anyone to stay in America who has the means to leave?"
They would have a choice between countries that would get about the same amount out of them in a variety of ways and countries which might nationalize their holdings or just hang the Yankee exploiters. Don't you think the wealthy value the bill of rights more than that? But you have a good point, there should be deductions on income made from US based companies which employ at least 50% of their workforce inside the USA, and on income made from US based manufacturing, and in fact on any income made from investments inside the United States. We could also say that if you are a US citizen it doesn't matter where you made your money, if you are in that income bracket you pay the taxes on it.
Move to Australia and you can pay the Aussies and US. Move to Argentina and you can still pay US until the Argentinians nationalize your holdings. And of course we can also stipulate that at the end of the 10 Years the 70% automatically drops down to 45%.
by Nmmrng February 10, 2011 9:38 PM EST
"I agree with you on the financial regulation, though. however, the only way that we can survive on a global level is to do everything to become competitive and streamline our government to make it cost effective."
I am with you on more efficient business and government practices. But if the wealthy are not going to act in the best interests of the nation (and they haven't for some time now) we also need to give them strong incentives to do so.
How about when she said a couple of weeks back that the founding fathers tried to get rid of slavery...when in fact they were slave owners.
Maybe they will let their inner grizzlies out... in the mud.
But all fantasies of neo-contessa on neo-contessa aside, can you imagine a debate (!!) between these two? The IQ level of the country will fall 10 points in that hour!