Question: What would the government do with all that tax money if the taxes increased? Simply not owe money? Would people see ANY benefit from the government?

I honestly think it's too late for the debt problem to be solved easily by something like a tax increase, and the spending is really the underlying issue anyways. The government needs to get leaner.

It was the UN security council that approved the mission in Libya, our NATO is part of the mission, which is how it always works.

That's the ruse... yeah if you take out what our military is using as a cost, it's an expenditure. But that's now exactly how it works. We've already funded & set aside arms for these conflicts, anything new coming is paid for by the U.N., through our funds and others. Then we profit on the arm deals, troop pay, etc.

Edit: We do fund transportation, repair, and the actual systems our military uses.

The issue with that is, the Fed never removes the money coming back in off the books, so it looks like money is always going out. We pay out some billions to the U.N. and when we profit back, it's through our Military or Corps, which never report back to the fed (because they aren't a bank) on what was earned.

Yet we profit by the billions.... it's just the tax payer is of course screwed over, we pay for it, corps make the profits, we pay for it again down the road.

If drones are people then so are airplanes, they are after all being controlled by people, other than one guy can be on the other side of the world doing it.


I'm just glad he's not using the war terror crap to do it. And no, I don't agree with the shit going on in Libya or any war/conflict or nation we are in, for any reason.

Answer: They would SPEND it as fast as they can. :(

Sorry, just because you don't like the facts doesn't mean I'm carrying Obama's water.

I find it odd you enjoy being naive and brainwashed.

Now we're talking about war crimes? :1orglaugh

Yeah, cut these motherfuckers

no worries. i simply think both sides are to blame for the mess. Repubs carry a little more blame overall. But dems are not doing shit to solve anything. How many jobs did the stimulus bill create for 700 billion. how does a health care bill that does nothing but force the uninsured to buy insurance from price gouging insurers solve anything. Both parties are destroying the middle class because the belt way & wall street are insulated by money & a sell out to globalism.

We haven't spent 700b, yet.... and not all of it was for jobs and it's other purpose was to save jobs, which it did do, hell it saved entire States school systems from failing. Point being, it was much more than just a job bill.

If you have a job, you pay for people with no insurance through your local and fed taxes already, at extremely over priced rates. And when that's not enough, they get money directly from the State, ie: our tax dollars again.

Can't argue with the rest... it's turned into pure scum running the ship.

That's 100% correct... even under Clinton when we did skyrocket in tax revenue, the Gov did not spend any less money, they spent more, every year he was in office. It's been this way for about 30 years now, revenue up or down, the Gov spending goes up. This last year, is the only year that the percentage of increase was lower than the average growth trend, but that damn sure doesn't mean we're spending less.... it's just not growing as fast.

That's something I've asked myself over and over.

They took that stimulus money and bailed out banks. And they helped save teachers jobs (though some of those are questionable lol)

The root of the problem was the housing industry failing and houses being foreclosed on.

Property taxes pay for schools.

Instead of just giving banks a big bailout loan that ultimately did nothing to help the housing crisis which started it and didn't long term save the school jobs...
Wouldn't it have just made more sense to take that 700 billion dollars and pay off all the single family home mortgages?

That would have more than "saved" the banks. People would have kept their homes. Property taxes would still be pouring in to pay for the schools.

Instead...people are still losing their homes in record numbers, schools are now beginning to make the inevitable cuts because of less property taxes (less homeowners), and the banks won't loan shit to anybody. :(

Fifty Things The GOP Doesn't Want You To Know

yes. the stimulus was a fraud. It was really a bandaid for state govts on the brink, to save jobs for 1 year. Now those states like WI, NJ, NY are having big battles with unions over the cost of running govt.

the system is slowly dying. Corporations no longer pay living wages to the little people. The little people now rely on govt services to get by. Its nothing but a huge win for big corporations & a slow move to the 3rd world for the rest of us. Sometime soon you will start seeing flashmobs appear in affluent communites & ransack them. I might join them if not outright create them myself. Oh shit the FBI will be knocking soon. They dont need a courtorder to wiretap me anymore.

no no... the stimulus didn't do the bank bailouts, that was under Bush. Obama did have to dish out the final part of it, but it was already signed.

For housing to turn around we would need another fraud bubble. The market hasn't come back down yet, it's still fucked up from the fraud, that's how damn big it was.

Schools funds are managed by the State :(

You know the sad thing, 700b is the stimulus and that sounds like a lot... but the bailouts total bill, was 4 TRILLION dollars my friend.

That's AFTER we lost 1/3 of our countries wealth to the same people we gave the 4 trillion dollars to.

Banks have to pay property tax as well, which is why in a few years you'll see the real value of property return, because they'll be selling that shit off like mad (or own it at a loss with no future value to make back).

Banks will lighten up when the eco turns around... but I bet they never go back to easy loans like before, and I have a feeling the interest rates will return, which is why through the 80's the housing market sucked.

Aye, Obama said he was upset how States managed it, which is why he slowed it down and tightened up the regs on it.

Like Texas, they took the money, gave it all the schools, but then spent the school budget on other shit, ran out of stimulus and now blame Obama for screwing them, when it was 100% the State that did it. They had a chance to truly unscrew things, and they 100% blew it.

The States should stop fighting over stupid shit that is a minor impact on them and focus on the real issues, like the State's taking our tax dollars, buying corp stock, giving those corps favoritism on contracts again paid for by our tax dollars, then giving those corps major tax breaks, property tax breaks, all so they hire a few hundred people at complete shit wages because they killed the unions, so now the State is forced to pay for them anyway.

They're too busy profiting from the mess to give a shit about correcting it...

It's sad, we're totally fucked... even if we tried, we're fucked. It needs to fail :/

And of course all the foreclosed homes are going to...those same banks! I'm seeing a trend...

The dems (and us Canadians, and the rest of the world) know all of this already. It's the republicans who have their heads in the sand, and have people like Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachman, Mit Romney, and all the pricks at Fox News, keeping them there.

Exactly.... transfer of wealth, right up the pipe!


However, if States don't start passing laws on banks paying property taxes, some banks are going to have some huge ass bills to cover, and that's straight up money going out for them, a very bad thing for a bank.

I'm sure they'll figure out a way to bet on that tax bill, making some way to fluff the books, has a stock ticker or some new loan will be made to cover it, that's probably what will happen, that's what always happens.

can't argue with that .... very dispointing the spin the Obama has put on this ... mainly from the Nobel Peace Prize winner ...

you know libya is the classic case of a "democrat" type war. The mission was soley for humanitarian purposes, because many civilians were facing death from a dictator. its a better reason than neo-cons, who will invade just because that guy tried to kill my daddy. But still, war to save foreign civilians leads to quagmire, exactly what libya has become. not to mention the morality of selecting libyans to live & syrians/iranians to die. America seems to want to fight only the weakest enemies. Silly politicians.

Not to mention that the Libyan soldiers we are killing are also citizens of Libya with families. We are creating another country full of people looking for revenge on America. :(

If Obama drops one more bomb on Libya he will be impeached and possibly brought up on war crimes. Congress just voted that they have not authorized Obama to attack Libya. :thumbsup

yep good point, spend less...

The resolution isn't binding. :1orglaugh it only shows they don't agree with the action AND they kept funding it. :1orglaugh HELLOOOO! They would have to remove the U.N. charter otherwise.

It's complete smoke and mirror bullshit, and truly you're eating it right up.

He'll never be brought up on war crimes or ever be impeached for this, it's not Obama attacking Libya and it's not him dropping bombs, it's that simple.

The action was already authorized by Congress if it falls within the charter rules, and Libya does.

United Nations Participation Act, Title 22, Section 7, § 287d. Use of armed forces; limitations defines the legal use for the U.N. and related. U.N. Charter Article 41-43. Which allows for Article 42 forces to Not Require Congressional approval.

This isn't complex stuff... He doesn't need congressional approval for Libya, it's not a violation of the war powers act, and it's not grounds for impeachment, at all.


Anything the media says, truly.. anything, you need to look it up, it's almost always wrong, twisted or complete bullshit. This is no different, it's complete bullshit, from congress, to the media, to all the yuppies sucking it up.

Basically no different than a loophole like GE uses to not pay any tax.

I think we all know that the founding fathers did not want a president to be able to do this kind of stuff. We should never have been able to put troops in Vietnam, Panama, Grenada, Iraq, or Afghanistan. And we should never have been able to bomb any of the dozen or so countries we've done it to over the last 30 years or so...WITHOUT Congress declaring war.

I guess it kinda took off in the modern era with The Korean "War"

It's the reason our govt. was set up that way. To STOP us from becoming what we are today...

Yeah, I agree that legally the President is able to get away with this. Just like cops can now legally search you and the TSA can frisk you.

Is it what the constitution says? No. Is it what The United States Of America is supposed to be doing? No.

And every time the President starts a "non-war" with another country we go further and further down the slippery slope.

Obama could have just as easily said no,we have done more than our share. We are a bit low on funds. If you fellows have a beef with Libya,how about you fellows just deal with it.

Aye, the war powers act, screwed it all up... even though Congress has the power to add this act and the u.n. charter stuff, it's clearly was not what the Constitution had in mind.

The right likes to use the war powers act, because it keeps their favorite President from being a war criminal. Even though 1942 was the last year we legally declared war.

This is a two way door that only swings one way with a group.

And those people could say, No to us in Iraq and Afghan, today - right now! Would you rather foot a tiny Libya bill, or the entire Iraq and Afghan bill, that's about 1000x larger?

Personally I would choose: "none of the above" :pimp

I'm all for ending the wars... I would like us stop being in any other country, period, war or not, no bases but within our borders.

But.. no mater what we think, war makes trillions of dollars, so it isn't ending anytime soon. :disgust

This fits the threads direction PERFECTLY!



"Politicians hide themselves away, they only started the war."

Almost 40 years later and the song still nails it.

I like Cake's version too... the beat is slick.

You are completely wrong. UN charter does not out weigh the constitution of the war powers act. Plus the UN is committing a war crime. When did Libya declare war on any of the UN nations? So the UN is invading Libya and committing a war of aggression. Siding with terrorists.

1991 lecture by Louis Henkin
Maybe you don't understand the word "every"?

I never said the UN charter out weights the constitution, not once did I say that... That makes it impossible for me to be wrong, even more so completely wrong when you're opinions are based on a lack of education.

The War Powers Act, isn't part of the Constitution, it's a resolution. So if it can over ride the constitution in your mind, then so can the "United Nations Participation Act" which is exactly the same thing, and what is being used in Libya. That's OUR act, our Congress voted it in, it's not the U.N. charter.

And Libya doesn't have to declare war on the UN, the UN is doing EXACTLY what it was setup to do with Libya. Read up... stop thinking you know, and read up.

I'm glad it says that... it's nice to use twisted information for your own benefit. Because the Constitution says, Congress makes those choices.... fully.

It's really that simple, either an Act is allowed to be amened by Congress or it's not, which is it? If not, we've been in violation for a long time... if so (which it is) the "United Nations Participation Act" does trump the war powers act, as it's preauthorize for use already, without need of approval.

Btw... This means CONGRESS authorized it. Not the President. So.... a bit more legit than the war powers act.


Truly... you need to read up ... this argument is getting pathetic.

:1orglaugh You are so wrong I dont even know where to start.

The "United Nations Participation Act" 1947 The Wars Powers Resolution 1973 came after. The "United Nations Participation Act" does not need to be amended when a new law redefines the conditions that a president must go to congress. So no the UNPA does not trump the WPR. Obama would be the FIRST president to say it does. Right?

It is getting pathetic because you are wrong and not admitting it.

And of course we have been in violation for years.

why can't we just agree that all politicians have become just plain crooks?

name one that hasn't done something that a "politician" shouldn't. please.

when people wake up and realize it's not one side or the other...it's actually america vs. the people destroying it...i think we'll all be in a lot better shape.

the people destroying it? imo, politicians.

Because of this part: "the constitution of the war powers act"

You totally don't understand the difference between them do you?

One is pre-authorized by congress, the action is already authorized, by the people that have the legal authority to make that choice.

The War Powers Act gives the President the power to start the war, it does not authorize war.

And again, if the War Powers Act can override the constitution, then so can the "United Nations Participation Act" - which are NOT the same powers being handed down.

That's been brought up many times throughout this thread... :thumbsup and then :Oh crap

Clearly I understand more than you. Since almost every scholar agrees with me. :winkwink: Well maybe not now that their god Obama is trying to change the meaning of the laws. I am past the basic stuff that you are trying to get your head around and on to the more complex issues that you think you have grasped but have not

I understand what I am saying you dont. Ill try again later.

For every idiot scholar agreeing with you, you find find an equal brilliant scholar proving it wrong.

Difference between us, I posted actual proof that backed up what I said. Not an opinion, because I don't like the guy, which we can see with your posts.

You're a hater.. facts and logic do not work with you, period.

hahahaha... hold up. Did Obama tell Congress? And hahaha, look at the act names, chapter numbers. DUH! hehehe.


TO THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
AND THE PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE OF THE SENATE
March 21, 2011
Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President:)
At approximately 3:00 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time, on March 19, 2011, at my direction, U.S. military forces commenced operations to assist an international effort authorized by the United Nations (U.N.) Security Council and undertaken with the support of European allies and Arab partners, to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe and address the threat posed to international peace and security by the crisis in Libya. As part of the multilateral response authorized under U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973, U.S. military forces, under the command of Commander, U.S. Africa Command, began a series of strikes against air defense systems and military airfields for the purposes of preparing a no-fly zone. These strikes will be limited in their nature, duration, and scope. Their purpose is to support an international coalition as it takes all necessary measures to enforce the terms of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973. These limited U.S. actions will set the stage for further action by other coalition partners.

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973 authorized Member States, under Chapter VII of the U.N. Charter, to take all necessary measures to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in Libya, including the establishment and enforcement of a “no-fly zone” in the airspace of Libya. United States military efforts are discrete and focused on employing unique U.S. military capabilities to set the conditions for our European allies and Arab partners to carry out the measures authorized by the U.N. Security Council Resolution.
Muammar Qadhafi was provided a very clear message that a cease-fire must be implemented immediately. The international community made clear that all attacks against civilians had to stop; Qadhafi had to stop his forces from advancing on Benghazi; pull them back from Ajdabiya, Misrata, and Zawiya; and establish water, electricity, and gas supplies to all areas. Finally, humanitarian assistance had to be allowed to reach the people of Libya.

Although Qadhafi’s Foreign Minister announced an immediate cease-fire, Qadhafi and his forces made no attempt to implement such a cease-fire, and instead continued attacks on Misrata and advanced on Benghazi. Qadhafi’s continued attacks and threats against civilians and civilian populated areas are of grave concern to neighboring Arab nations and, as expressly stated in U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973, constitute a threat to the region and to international peace and security. His illegitimate use of force not only is causing the deaths of substantial numbers of civilians among his own people, but also is forcing many others to flee to neighboring countries, thereby destabilizing the peace and security of the region. Left unaddressed, the growing instability in Libya could ignite wider instability in the Middle East, with dangerous consequences to the national security interests of the United States. Qadhafi’s defiance of the Arab League, as well as the broader international community moreover, represents a lawless challenge to the authority of the Security Council and its efforts to preserve stability in the region. Qadhafi has forfeited his responsibility to protect his own citizens and created a serious need for immediate humanitarian assistance and protection, with any delay only putting more civilians at risk.
The United States has not deployed ground forces into Libya. United States forces are conducting a limited and well-defined mission in support of international efforts to protect civilians and prevent a humanitarian disaster. Accordingly, U.S. forces have targeted the Qadhafi regime’s air defense systems, command and control structures, and other capabilities of Qadhafi’s armed forces used to attack civilians and civilian populated areas. We will seek a rapid, but responsible, transition of operations to coalition, regional, or international organizations that are postured to continue activities as may be necessary to realize the objectives of U.N. Security Council Resolutions 1970 and 1973.
For these purposes, I have directed these actions, which are in the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States, pursuant to my constitutional authority to conduct U.S. foreign relations and as Commander in Chief and Chief Executive.

I am providing this report as part of my efforts to keep the Congress fully informed, consistent with the War Powers Resolution. I appreciate the support of the Congress in this action.

BARACK OBAMA





Holy Shit This Best Be Fake Or The Crazies On Here Are About To Get Even More Laughed At.